Interactive Label Cleaning with Example-based Explanations
Stefano Teso, Andrea Bontempelli, Fausto Giunchiglia, Andrea Passerini
Abstract
We tackle sequential learning under label noise in applications where a human supervisor can be queried to relabel suspicious examples. Existing approaches are flawed, in that they only relabel incoming examples that look "suspicious" to the model. As a consequence, those mislabeled examples that elude (or don't undergo) this cleaning step end up tainting the training data and the model with no further chance of being cleaned. We propose CINCER, a novel approach that cleans both new and past data by identifying pairs of mutually incompatible examples. Whenever it detects a suspicious example, CINCER identifies a counter-example in the training set that-according to the model-is maximally incompatible with the suspicious example, and asks the annotator to relabel either or both examples, resolving this possible inconsistency. The counter-examples are chosen to be maximally incompatible, so to serve as explanations of the model's suspicion, and highly influential, so to convey as much information as possible if relabeled. CINCER achieves this by leveraging an efficient and robust approximation of influence functions based on the Fisher information matrix (FIM). Our extensive empirical evaluation shows that clarifying the reasons behind the model's suspicions by cleaning the counter-examples helps in acquiring substantially better data and models, especially when paired with our FIM approximation. Preprint. Under review.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 05abceb5-fa2d-40e9-8045-fcd881977c5eCited by top-tier papers16
- TRAK: Attributing Model Behavior at ScaleSung Min Park, Kristian Georgiev, Andrew Ilyas, Guillaume Leclerc et al.ICML 2023 · 260 citations
- If Influence Functions are the Answer, Then What is the Question?Juhan Bae, Nathan Ng, Alston Lo, Marzyeh Ghassemi et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 185 citations
- A Rationale-Centric Framework for Human-in-the-loop Machine LearningJinghui Lu, Linyi Yang, Brian MacNamee, Yue ZhangACL 2022 · 46 citations
- Intriguing Properties of Data Attribution on Diffusion ModelsXiaosen Zheng, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Jing Jiang et al.ICLR 2024 · 41 citations
- Most Influential Subset Selection: Challenges, Promises, and BeyondYuzheng Hu, Pingbang Hu, Han Zhao, Jiaqi W. MaNeurIPS 2024 · 39 citations
Builds on4
- Taking a HINT: Leveraging Explanations to Make Vision and Language Models More GroundedRamprasaath Ramasamy Selvaraju, Stefan Lee, Yilin Shen, Hongxia Jin et al.ICCV 2019 · 288 citations
- How Can I Explain This to You? An Empirical Study of Deep Neural Network Explanation MethodsJeya Vikranth Jeyakumar, Joseph Noor, Yu-Hsi Cheng, Luis Garcia et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 173 citations
- FastIF: Scalable Influence Functions for Efficient Model Interpretation and DebuggingHan Guo, Nazneen Rajani, Peter Hase, Mohit Bansal et al.EMNLP 2021 · 51 citations
- Influence Functions in Deep Learning Are FragileSamyadeep Basu, Phillip Pope, Soheil FeiziICLR 2021 · 15 citations
Related papers
- Resolving Training Biases via Influence-based Data RelabelingShuming Kong, Yanyan Shen, Linpeng HuangICLR 2022 · 71 citations
- DeMix: Debugging Training Data with Mixed Data Error Types by Investigating Influence VectorsJiale Deng, Yanyan Shen, Xiaogang Shi, Junjun ChaiKDD 2026
- Data Glitches Discovery using Influence-based Model ExplanationsNikolaos Myrtakis, Ioannis Tsamardinos, Vassilis ChristophidesKDD 2025
- Noisy Label Learning with Instance-Dependent Outliers: Identifiability via Crowd WisdomTri Nguyen, Shahana Ibrahim, Xiao FuNeurIPS 2024 · 14 citations
- Confidence-based Reliable Learning under Dual NoisesPeng Cui, Yang Yue, Zhijie Deng, Jun ZhuNeurIPS 2022 · 13 citations
