Classification in the Presence of Label Noise: A Survey
Abstract
Label noise is an important issue in classification, with many potential negative consequences. For example, the accuracy of predictions may decrease, whereas the complexity of inferred models and the number of necessary training samples may increase. Many works in the literature have been devoted to the study of label noise and the development of techniques to deal with label noise. However, the field lacks a comprehensive survey on the different types of label noise, their consequences and the algorithms that consider label noise. This paper proposes to fill this gap. First, the definitions and sources of label noise are considered and a taxonomy of the types of label noise is proposed. Second, the potential consequences of label noise are discussed. Third, label noise-robust, label noise cleansing, and label noise-tolerant algorithms are reviewed. For each category of approaches, a short discussion is proposed to help the practitioner to choose the most suitable technique in its own particular field of application. Eventually, the design of experiments is also discussed, what may interest the researchers who would like to test their own algorithms. In this paper, label noise consists of mislabeled instances: no additional information is assumed to be available like e.g., confidences on labels.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Among expert annotators there is often considerable variability.
“Among expert annotators there is often considerable variability206,207.”
From The METRIC-framework for assessing data quality for trustworthy AI in medicine: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [206]
Human decision making can be highly irrational and subjective, especially in the medical context, representing a source of labelling noise.
“However, human decision making can be highly irrational and subjective, especially in the medical context203–205, representing one of various sources of labelling noise206.”
From The METRIC-framework for assessing data quality for trustworthy AI in medicine: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [206]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 332 · Cited by 1,777
- Authors
- Frenay, B., & Verleysen, M.
- Affiliations
- UCLouvain (BE)
- ORCID
- Verleysen, Michel
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems
- Published
- 2014-05
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 845-869
- ISSN
- 2162-237X (ISSN-L)
- 2162-2388
- OpenAlex
- W2167460663
- Cited by
- 1,777
- References
- 332
- Citations by year
- 2026: 159 · 2025: 153 · 2024: 154 · 2023: 169 · 2022: 201 · 2021: 248 · 2020: 198 · 2019: 160 · 2018: 117 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 71.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- label noise, robust classification, classification accuracy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review