Benchmarking noisy label detection methods

arXiv:2510.16211v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Label noise is a common problem in real-world datasets, affecting both model training and validation. Clean data are essential for achieving strong performance and ensuring reliable evaluation. While various techniques have been proposed to detect noisy labels (or label errors), there is no clear consensus on optimal approaches. We perform a comprehensive benchmark of detection methods by decomposing them into three fundamental components: gathering strategy (in-sample vs out-of-sample), label disagreement measure, and aggregation method. This decomposition can be applied to many existing detection methods, and enables systematic comparison across diverse approaches. To fairly compare methods, we propose a unified benchmark task: detecting a fraction of training samples equal to the dataset's noise rate. We also introduce a novel metric: the false negative rate at this fixed operating point. Our evaluation spans vision and tabular datasets under both synthetic and real-world noise conditions. We identify that in-sample gathering using average probability aggregation combined with the logit margin as the label disagreement measure achieves the best results across most scenarios. Our findings provide practical guidance for designing new detection methods and selecting techniques for specific applications.

Abstract:Label noise is a common problem in real-world datasets, affecting both model training and validation. Clean data are essential for achieving strong performance and ensuring reliable evaluation. While various techniques have been proposed to detect noisy labels (or label errors), there is no clear consensus on optimal approaches. We perform a comprehensive benchmark of detection methods by decomposing them into three fundamental components: gathering strategy (in-sample vs out-of-sample), label disagreement measure, and aggregation method. This decomposition can be applied to many existing detection methods, and enables systematic comparison across diverse approaches. To fairly compare methods, we propose a unified benchmark task: detecting a fraction of training samples equal to the dataset's noise rate. We also introduce a novel metric: the false negative rate at this fixed operating point. Our evaluation spans vision and tabular datasets under both synthetic and real-world noise conditions. We identify that in-sample gathering using average probability aggregation combined with the logit margin as the label disagreement measure achieves the best results across most scenarios. Our findings provide practical guidance for designing new detection methods and selecting techniques for specific applications.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Machine Learning (stat.ML)

arXiv:2510.16211 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2510.16211v2 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.16211 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Benchmarking noisy label detection methods

Related coverage