Papers › CoDiM: Learning with Noisy Labels via Contrastive Semi-Supervised Learning
CoDiM: Learning with Noisy Labels via Contrastive Semi-Supervised Learning
Xin Zhang, Zixuan Liu, Kaiwen Xiao, Tian Shen, Junzhou Huang, Wei Yang, Dimitris Samaras, Xiao Han
Labels are costly and sometimes unreliable. Noisy label learning, semi-supervised learning, and contrastive learning are three different strategies for designing learning processes requiring less annotation cost. Semi-supervised learning and contrastive learning have been recently demonstrated to improve learning strategies that address datasets with noisy labels. Still, the inner connections between these fields as well as the potential to combine their strengths together have only started to emerge. In this paper, we explore further ways and advantages to fuse them. Specifically, we propose CSSL, a unified Contrastive Semi-Supervised Learning algorithm, and CoDiM (Contrastive DivideMix), a novel algorithm for learning with noisy labels. CSSL leverages the power of classical semi-supervised learning and contrastive learning technologies and is further adapted to CoDiM, which learns robustly from multiple types and levels of label noise. We show that CoDiM brings consistent improvements and achieves state-of-the-art results on multiple benchmarks.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
No code repository is listed for this paper in the archive or in Syntology's graph.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image Classification | mini WebVision 1.0 | CoDiM-Sup (Inception-ResNet-v2) | ImageNet Top-1 Accuracy | 76.52 | #6 of 47 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | mini WebVision 1.0 | CoDiM-Sup (Inception-ResNet-v2) | ImageNet Top-5 Accuracy | 91.96 | #6 of 47 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | mini WebVision 1.0 | CoDiM-Sup (Inception-ResNet-v2) | Top-1 Accuracy | 80.88 | #6 of 47 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | mini WebVision 1.0 | CoDiM-Sup (Inception-ResNet-v2) | Top-5 Accuracy | 92.48 | #6 of 47 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | mini WebVision 1.0 | CoDiM-Self (Inception-ResNet-v2) | ImageNet Top-1 Accuracy | 77.24 | #10 of 47 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | mini WebVision 1.0 | CoDiM-Self (Inception-ResNet-v2) | ImageNet Top-5 Accuracy | 92.48 | #10 of 47 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | mini WebVision 1.0 | CoDiM-Self (Inception-ResNet-v2) | Top-1 Accuracy | 80.12 | #10 of 47 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | mini WebVision 1.0 | CoDiM-Self (Inception-ResNet-v2) | Top-5 Accuracy | 93.52 | #10 of 47 | Archive leaderboard | report |
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections