CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 293Machine Learning and Data ClassificationAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

The DOI matches its DataCite record; its reference list is not available.

Pervasive Label Errors in Test Sets Destabilize Machine Learning Benchmarks

Open access
Northcutt, Curtis G., Athalye, Anish, Mueller, Jonas·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2103.14749arXiv 2103.14749
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We identify label errors in the test sets of 10 of the most commonly-used computer vision, natural language, and audio datasets, and subsequently study the potential for these label errors to affect benchmark results. Errors in test sets are numerous and widespread: we estimate an average of at least 3.3% errors across the 10 datasets, where for example label errors comprise at least 6% of the ImageNet validation set. Putative label errors are identified using confident learning algorithms and then human-validated via crowdsourcing (51% of the algorithmically-flagged candidates are indeed erroneously labeled, on average across the datasets). Traditionally, machine learning practitioners choose which model to deploy based on test accuracy - our findings advise caution here, proposing that judging models over correctly labeled test sets may be more useful, especially for noisy real-world datasets. Surprisingly, we find that lower capacity models may be practically more useful than higher capacity models in real-world datasets with high proportions of erroneously labeled data. For example, on ImageNet with corrected labels: ResNet-18 outperforms ResNet-50 if the prevalence of originally mislabeled test examples increases by just 6%. On CIFAR-10 with corrected labels: VGG-11 outperforms VGG-19 if the prevalence of originally mislabeled test examples increases by just 5%. Test set errors across the 10 datasets can be viewed at https://labelerrors.com and all label errors can be reproduced by https://github.com/cleanlab/label-errors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2103.14749

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Even anonymized telemetry can remain linkable through rare-event patterns.

    “Even anonymized telemetry can remain linkable through rare-event patterns [157].”

    From Large language models for agentic NetOps and AIOps: Architectures, evaluation, and safety (2027) · cites this paper as [157]

    The Discussion (p. 10) concerns systematic label errors in machine-learning benchmarks, not whether anonymized telemetry remains linkable. Searches for anonymized telemetry, rare-event patterns, privacy, and re-identification found no passage in our copy addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 49 · Cited by 293

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. [1][1] D. Angluin and P. Laird. Learning from noisy examples. Machine Learning , 2(4):343-370, 1988. -
  2. [2][2] D. Arpit, S. Jastrz˛ ebski, N. Ballas, D. Krueger, E. Bengio, M. S. Kanwal, T. Maharaj, A. Fischer, A. Courville, Y. Bengio, et al. A closer look at memorization in deep networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 233-242. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR), 2017. -
  3. [3][3] P. Chen, B. B. Liao, G. Chen, and S. Zhang. Understanding and utilizing deep neural networks trained with noisy labels. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2019. -
  4. [4][4] F. R. Cordeiro and G. Carneiro. A survey on deep learning with noisy labels: How to train your model when you cannot trust on the annotations? In Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images (SIBGRAPI) , pages 9-16, 2020. -
  5. [5][5] A. P. Dawid and A. M. Skene. Maximum likelihood estimation of observer error-rates using the em algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) , 28(1): 20-28, 1979. -
  6. [7][7] B. Frénay and M. Verleysen. Classification in the presence of label noise: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 25(5):845-869, 2014. ISSN 21622388. doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2013.2292894. - · DOI · Paper page
  7. [8][8] J. F. Gemmeke, D. P. W. Ellis, D. Freedman, A. Jansen, W. Lawrence, R. C. Moore, M. Plakal, and M. Ritter. Audio set: An ontology and human-labeled dataset for audio events. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , New Orleans, LA, 2017. -
  8. [9][9] J. Goldberger and E. Ben-Reuven. Training deep neural-networks using a noise adaptation layer. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2017. -
  9. [12][12] D. Ha and D. Eck. A neural representation of sketch drawings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03477 , 2017. - · arXiv
  10. [13][13] H. Harutyunyan, K. Reing, G. Ver Steeg, and A. Galstyan. Improving generalization by controlling label-noise information in neural network weights. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , pages 4071-4081. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR), 2020. -
  11. [15][15] D. Hendrycks, M. Mazeika, D. Wilson, and K. Gimpel. Using trusted data to train deep networks on labels corrupted by severe noise. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 2018. -
  12. [16][16] S. Hooker, A. Courville, Y. Dauphin, and A. Frome. Selective brain damage: Measuring the disparate impact of model pruning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.05248 , 2019. - · arXiv
  13. [17][17] W. R. Huang, Z. Emam, M. Goldblum, L. Fowl, J. K. Terry, F. Huang, and T. Goldstein. Understanding generalization through visualizations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.03291 , 2019. - · arXiv
  14. [18][18] L. Jiang, D. Huang, M. Liu, and W. Yang. Beyond synthetic noise: Deep learning on controlled noisy labels. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR) , pages 4804-4815. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR), 13-18 Jul 2020. URL http://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/ jiang20c.html . -
  15. [19][19] I. Jindal, M. Nokleby, and X. Chen. Learning deep networks from noisy labels with dropout regularization. In International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) , pages 967-972, Dec. 2016. doi: 10.1109/ICDM.2016.0121. - · DOI
  16. [20][20] J. Kremer, F. Sha, and C. Igel. Robust active label correction. In Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR) , volume 84 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 308-316, Playa Blanca, Lanzarote, Canary Islands, 09-11 Apr 2018. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR). URL http://proceedings.mlr.press/v84/kremer18a.html . -
  17. [21][21] A. Krizhevsky and G. Hinton. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Master's thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto , 2009. URL http://www.cs. toronto.edu/~kriz/cifar.html . -
  18. [23][23] P. Li, X. Rao, J. Blase, Y . Zhang, X. Chu, and C. Zhang. CleanML: a study for evaluating the impact of data cleaning on ml classification tasks. In IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering , 2021. -
  19. [24][24] W. Li, L. Wang, W. Li, E. Agustsson, and L. Van Gool. Webvision database: Visual learning and understanding from web data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.02862 , 2017. - · arXiv
  20. [25][25] Z. Lipton, Y.-X. Wang, and A. Smola. Detecting and correcting for label shift with black box predictors. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2018. -
  21. [27][27] A. L. Maas, R. E. Daly, P. T. Pham, D. Huang, A. Y. Ng, and C. Potts. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) , pages 142-150, Portland, Oregon, USA, June 2011. Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). URL http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/ P11-1015 . -
  22. [28][28] D. Mahajan, R. Girshick, V. Ramanathan, K. He, M. Paluri, Y. Li, A. Bharambe, and L. Van Der Maaten. Exploring the limits of weakly supervised pretraining. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 181-196, 2018. -
  23. [29][29] J. McAuley, C. Targett, Q. Shi, and A. van den Hengel. Image-based recommendations on styles and substitutes. In Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval (SIGIR) , pages 43-52. ACM, 2015. ISBN 978-1-4503-3621-5. doi: 10.1145/2766462.2767755. URL http: //doi.acm.org/10.1145/2766462.2767755 . - · DOI
  24. [31][31] N. Natarajan, I. S. Dhillon, P. K. Ravikumar, and A. Tewari. Learning with noisy labels. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , pages 1196-1204, 2013. URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper/5073-learning-with-noisy-labels.pdf . -
  25. [32][32] C. G. Northcutt, T. Wu, and I. L. Chuang. Learning with confident examples: Rank pruning for robust classification with noisy labels. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI) , 2017. -
  26. [33][33] C. G. Northcutt, L. Jiang, and I. Chuang. Confident learning: Estimating uncertainty in dataset labels. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 70:1373-1411, 2021. -
  27. [34][34] G. Patrini, F. Nielsen, R. Nock, and M. Carioni. Loss factorization, weakly supervised learning and label noise robustness. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , pages 708-717, 2016. -
  28. [35][35] G. Patrini, A. Rozza, A. Krishna Menon, R. Nock, and L. Qu. Making deep neural networks robust to label noise: A loss correction approach. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2017. -
  29. [36][36] A. J. Ratner, C. M. De Sa, S. Wu, D. Selsam, and C. Ré. Data programming: Creating large training sets, quickly. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , pages 3567-3575, 2016. URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper/ 6523-data-programming-creating-large-training-sets-quickly.pdf . -
  30. [37][37] B. Recht, R. Roelofs, L. Schmidt, and V. Shankar. Do imagenet classifiers generalize to imagenet? In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , pages 5389-5400, 2019. -
  31. [38][38] D. Rolnick, A. Veit, S. Belongie, and N. Shavit. Deep learning is robust to massive label noise. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.10694 , 2017. - · arXiv
  32. [40][40] V. Shankar, R. Roelofs, H. Mania, A. Fang, B. Recht, and L. Schmidt. Evaluating machine accuracy on ImageNet. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 8634-8644. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR), 13-18 Jul 2020. -
  33. [41][41] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 , 2014. - · arXiv
  34. [42][42] S. Sukhbaatar, J. Bruna, M. Paluri, L. Bourdev, and R. Fergus. Training convolutional networks with noisy labels. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , pages 1-11, 2015. ISBN 9781611970685. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527329. URL http://arxiv. org/abs/1406.2080 . - · DOI
  35. [43][43] C. Sun, A. Shrivastava, S. Singh, and A. Gupta. Revisiting unreasonable effectiveness of data in deep learning era. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , Oct 2017. -
  36. [44][44] D. Tsipras, S. Santurkar, L. Engstrom, A. Ilyas, and A. Madry. From imagenet to image classification: Contextualizing progress on benchmarks. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 9625-9635. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR), 2020. -
  37. [45][45] B. Van Rooyen, A. Menon, and R. C. Williamson. Learning with symmetric label noise: The importance of being unhinged. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , pages 10-18, 2015. URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper/ 5941-learning-with-symmetric-label-noise-the-importance-of-being-unhinged . -
  38. [46][46] J. Wang, Y. Liu, and C. Levy. Fair classification with group-dependent label noise. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , 2021. -
  39. [47][47] C. Wei, J. D. Lee, Q. Liu, and T. Ma. On the margin theory of feedforward neural networks. Computing Research Repository (CoRR) , 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05369 . - · arXiv
  40. [48][48] Y. Xu, P. Cao, Y. Kong, and Y. Wang. L\_dmi: A novel information-theoretic loss function for training deep nets robust to label noise. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , pages 6225-6236, 2019. -
  41. [49][49] J. Zhang, V. S. Sheng, T. Li, and X. Wu. Improving crowdsourced label quality using noise correction. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 29(5):1675-1688, 2017. -
  42. [50][50] B. Zoph, V. Vasudevan, J. Shlens, and Q. V. Le. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 8697-8710, 2018.

Metadata

Authors
Northcutt, C. G., Athalye, A., & Mueller, J.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Amazon (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2103.14749
arXiv
2103.14749
OpenAlex
W3146670357
Cited by
293
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 41
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • neural information processing systems
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
label errors, benchmark reliability, label noise, CIFAR-10, model capacity, model selection, computer vision datasets

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