atlas

Research map / Label-efficient and robust learning / Recognition and long-tail

Label Distribution Propagation-based Label Completion for Crowdsourcing

ICML 2025 · Label-efficient and robust learning › Recognition and long-tail · approach: Partial and multi-label learning

Read the paperCheck your idea against 108,967 papers

AI-extracted summary. Written by AI from the paper's full text. Numbers and claims can be wrong or missing context, so check the paper before you cite or build on it.

Proposes LDPLC, a label completion method for sparse crowdsourced label matrices that initializes label distributions via worker-similarity weighted voting and propagates them over instance neighbors using LLE-weighted neighbors.

Problem

Crowdsourced label matrices are very sparse because most workers annotate only a few instances, which degrades label integration algorithms; existing label completion (WSLC) ignores label correlations among similar instances.

Approach

Initialize label distributions for missing labels with worker-similarity weighted majority voting, then propagate them iteratively from neighboring instances (weights from locally linear embedding) so each missing label absorbs information from similar instances annotated by the same worker.

Key results

Measured effects reported in the paper

What was changedWhereMeasuredEffect
Replace WSLC label completion with LDPLCMV · LabelMeaccuracy: 76.40 -> 81.60Helped
Replace WSLC label completion with LDPLCDS · LabelMeaccuracy: 76.70 -> 81.50Helped
Replace WSLC label completion with LDPLCIWMV · LabelMeaccuracy: 76.30 -> 81.70Helped
Replace WSLC label completion with LDPLCGTIC · LabelMeaccuracy: 76.40 -> 81.70Helped
Replace WSLC label completion with LDPLCDEWSMV · LabelMeaccuracy: 76.50 -> 81.60Helped
Replace WSLC label completion with LDPLCMNLDP · LabelMeaccuracy: 80.50 -> 82.50Helped
Replace WSLC label completion with LDPLCSix label integration algorithms · 34 simulated datasets, uniform annotation qualitymean accuracy: 74.56 -> 83.51; 74.08 -> 83.57; 74.57 -> 83.54; 74.43 -> 83.45; 74.55 -> 83.54; 76.80 -> 83.99Helped
Replace WSLC label completion with LDPLCSix label integration algorithms · 34 simulated datasets, Gaussian annotation qualitymean accuracy: 73.61 -> 82.72; 73.04 -> 82.63; 73.81 -> 82.73; 73.68 -> 82.66; 73.59 -> 82.70; 75.66 -> 83.13Helped

Surprising findings

Limitations

Experimental setup

Datasets: LabelMe Ruters Leaves 34 simulated datasets from CEKA

Benchmarks: LabelMe Ruters Leaves 34 simulated CEKA datasets

Metrics: integration accuracy win/tie/lose with corrected paired t-test

Baselines: WSLC PMF PMF-TLC

Builds on: WSLC MNLDP PMF label completion

Closest papers by meaning

Writing a paper in this area? scime draft is a free LaTeX editor with AI included, real-time co-authors and a check of your references and venue rules before you submit. It also imports OpenAI Prism projects.

Open scime draft

Get the next scime Dispatch and a monthly field update

Free. We send a confirmation link first; every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Privacy