Feature-Label Modal Alignment for Robust Partial Multi-Label Learning
Authors: Yu Chen, Weijun Lv, Yue Huang, Xiaozhao Fang, Jie Wen, Yong Xu, Guanbin Li
Organizations: School of Automation, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China · Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Visual Object Detection and Recognition, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
In partial multi-label learning (PML), each instance is associated with a set of candidate labels containing both ground-truth and noisy labels. The presence of noisy labels disrupts the correspondence between features and labels, degrading classification performance. To address this challenge, we propose a novel PML method based on feature-label modal alignment (PML-MA), which treats features and labels as two complementary modalities and restores their consistency through systematic alignment. Specifically, PML-MA first employs low-rank orthogonal decomposition to generate pseudo-labels that approximate the true label distribution by filtering noisy labels. It then aligns features and pseudo-labels through both global projection into a common subspace and local preservation of neighborhood structures. Finally, a multi-peak class prototype learning mechanism leverages the multi-label nature where instances simultaneously belong to multiple categories, using pseudo-labels as soft membership weights to enhance discriminability. By integrating modal alignment with prototype-guided refinement, PML-MA ensures pseudo-labels better reflect the true distribution while maintaining robustness against label noise. Extensive experiments on both real-world and synthetic datasets demonstrate that PML-MA significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving superior classification accuracy and noise robustness.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: An example of partial multi-label learning. The candidate label set contains both ground-truth labels (in black: ”lake,” ”cloud,” ”sun,” and ”tree”) and noisy labels (in red: ”mountain,” ”sea,” ”grass,” and ”bird”).
Symbol
Description
X∈Rn×d
Feature matrix of n instances with d dimensions
Y∈{0,1}n×c
Candidate label matrix with c label classes
R∈Rn×c
Pseudo-label matrix ( 0≤rij≤yij )
Q∈Rc×c
Orthogonal basis matrix ( Q⊤Q=Ic )
P1∈Rd×m
Feature projection matrix
P2∈Rc×m
Pseudo-label projection matrix ( P2⊤P2=Im )
TABLE I: Summary of key notations.
Fig. 2: Overview of the proposed PML-MA framework. The method comprises: (1) Label Low-Rank Orthogonal decomposition ( LLRO ) decomposes candidate labels Y into orthogonal basis Q and pseudo-labels R ; (2) Global Modal Alignment ( LGMA ) projects features X and pseudo-labels R into a common subspace via P1 and P2 ; (3) Local Modal Alignment ( LLMA ) preserves neighborhood structures using similarity relationships; (4) Multi-peak Class Prototype learning ( LMCP ) models the multi-peak distribution where instance xi with pseudo-labels ri=[0.7,0.8,0.4,0] (yielding dii=1.9 ) is guided by multiple class prototypes. The final classifier P2P1⊤ is derived from the aligned projection matrices.
Data Set
avg.#CLs
PML-MA
PML-PLR
FBD-PML
PML-ND
P-LENFN
PAMB
PML-NI
PARTICLE
PML-fp
Mirflickr
3.35
.169±.004
.171±.003
.170±.003
.185±.004
.173±.004
.171±.032
.224±.006
.174±.037
.216±.002
Music-emotion
5.29
.208±.004
.210±.001
.212±.004
.211±.005
.213±.004
.210±.003
.254±.009
.221±.004
.238±.017
Music-style
6.04
.114±.006
.115±.003
.117±.006
.116±.005
.116±.005
.115±.004
.159±.012
.125±.004
.166±.023
YeastBP
18.84
.033±.002
.034±.002
.035±.002
.076±.003
.041±.002
.034±.007
.037±.002
.026±.012
.040±.002
emotions
3
.202±.021
.204±.019
.218±.022
.210±.020
.226±.023
.205±.020
.312±.056
.235±.022
.377±.004
4
.209±.015
.215±.018
.235±.019
.228±.020
.247±.022
.221±.022
.500±.047
.253±.022
.705±.013
TABLE II: Comparison of PML-MA with other state-of-the-art PML algorithms on HAMMING LOSS (mean ± std), where the best experimental performance (the smaller the better) is shown in boldface and the suboptimal is shown with an underscore.
Data Set
avg.#CLs
PML-MA
PML-PLR
FBD-PML
PML-ND
P-LENFN
PAMB
PML-NI
PARTICLE
PML-fp
Mirflickr
3.35
.108±.008
.109±.006
.116±.007
.113±.005
.118±.005
.112±.038
.126±.007
.127±.103
.124±.003
Music-emotion
5.29
.235±.007
.236±.008
.238±.008
.242±.006
.246±.009
.234±.007
.246±.008
.362±.014
.458±.114
Music-style
6.04
.137±.012
.136±.009
.138±.010
.137±.008
.138±.010
.135±.005
.137±.010
.221±.010
.445±.231
YeastBP
18.84
.195±.011
.208±.010
.225±.011
.215±.009
.256±.011
.230±.011
.220±.011
.404±.033
.269±.012
emotions
3
.156±.038
.158±.030
.172±.032
.165±.028
.180±.031
.160±.021
.188±.029
.250±.035
.293±.015
4
.165±.029
.172±.025
.185±.026
.178±.027
.192±.027
.177±.032
.211±.027
.263±.029
.407±.014
TABLE III: Comparison of PML-MA with other state-of-the-art PML algorithms on RANKING LOSS (mean ± std), where the best experimental performance (the smaller the better) is shown in boldface and the suboptimal is shown with an underscore.
Data Set
avg.#CLs
PML-MA
PML-PLR
FBD-PML
PML-ND
P-LENFN
PAMB
PML-NI
PARTICLE
PML-fp
Mirflickr
3.35
.176±.018
.183±.014
.196±.016
.189±.015
.282±.011
.275±.093
.296±.024
.198±.012
.292±.011
Music-emotion
5.29
.420±.012
.424±.013
.444±.017
.432±.015
.476±.019
.428±.032
.478±.019
.585±.036
.690±.140
Music-style
6.04
.331±.022
.338±.018
.349±.019
.342±.016
.356±.019
.343±.011
.345±.018
.405±.017
.620±.254
YeastBP
18.84
.544±.033
.548±.028
.560±.032
.552±.030
.597±.015
.564±.023
.553±.029
.999±.000
.685±.018
emotions
3
.235±.070
.241±.028
.255±.030
.246±.027
.298±.059
.244±.026
.299±.050
.307±.069
.458±.000
4
.283±.050
.297±.032
.318±.033
.309±.034
.329±.035
.333±.060
.355±.064
.324±.050
.542±.000
TABLE IV: Comparison of PML-MA with other state-of-the-art PML algorithms on ONE-ERROR (mean ± std), where the best experimental performance (the smaller the better) is shown in boldface and the suboptimal is shown with an underscore.
Data Set
avg.#CLs
PML-MA
PML-PLR
FBD-PML
PML-ND
P-LENFN
PAMB
PML-NI
PARTICLE
PML-fp
Mirflickr
3.35
.225±.004
.225±.005
.229±.078
.231±.004
.226±.006
.228±.007
.227±.005
.239±.054
.226±.012
Music-emotion
5.29
.402±.007
.404±.008
.408±.011
.406±.009
.407±.010
.410±.010
.409±.009
.510±.012
.589±.097
Music-style
6.04
.204±.014
.198±.010
.201±.012
.200±.011
.196±.009
.195±.008
.196±.013
.284±.013
.491±.206
YeastBP
18.84
.263±.009
.270±.010
.285±.012
.280±.011
.357±.016
.299±.049
.289±.009
.423±.162
.368±.015
emotions
3
.297±.030
.298±.028
.301±.032
.299±.030
.316±.029
.300±.036
.325±.026
.357±.045
.371±.029
4
.297±.035
.305±.030
.310±.031
.308±.029
.324±.032
.312±.028
.339±.031
.356±.031
.469±.009
TABLE V: Comparison of PML-MA with other state-of-the-art PML algorithms on COVERAGE (mean ± std), where the best experimental performance (the smaller the better) is shown in boldface and the suboptimal is shown with an underscore.
Data Set
avg.#CLs
PML-MA
PML-PLR
FBD-PML
PML-ND
P-LENFN
PAMB
PML-NI
PARTICLE
PML-fp
Mirflickr
3.35
.833±.011
.825±.010
.815±.015
.820±.012
.798±.007
.791±.019
.786±.009
.813±.136
.792±.005
Music-emotion
5.29
.633±.010
.630±.010
.615±.013
.628±.011
.610±.012
.626±.011
.608±.012
.506±.016
.435±.093
Music-style
6.04
.743±.017
.742±.010
.735±.014
.740±.012
.731±.016
.741±.007
.739±.015
.657±.012
.472±.200
YeastBP
5.93
.418±.020
.410±.020
.380±.023
.406±.021
.339±.015
.356±.022
.404±.022
.108±.016
.286±.009
emotions
3
.814±.043
.812±.020
.800±.030
.808±.025
.781±.033
.810±.017
.777±.028
.747±.035
.675±.005
4
.800±.026
.790±.030
.775±.035
.785±.032
.768±.028
.783±.036
.749±.034
.739±.033
.581±.003
TABLE VI: Comparison of PML-MA with other state-of-the-art PML and MLL algorithms on AVERAGE PRECISION , where the best experimental performance (the larger the better) is shown in boldface and the suboptimal is shown with an underscore.
Fig. 3: Results of PML-MA against other approaches with the Nemenyi test(CD = 2.1934 at 0.05 significance level).
Evaluation metric
FF
Critical value
Hamming Loss
23.1348
Ranking Loss
71.4812
One Error
54.1232
1.9785
Coverage
51.7904
Average precision
128.4977
TABLE VII: Summary of FRIEDMAN STATISTICS FF FOR EACH EVALUATION METRIC AT 0.05 SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL (# APPROACHES k = 9, DATA SETS N = 30).
Fig. 4: Results of PML-MA with varying values of trade-off parameters on birds dataset.
Fig. 5: The convergence curves of PML-MA on the synthetic datasets.
Component
Configuration and accordingly performance
LLRO
✓
✗
✓
✓
LGLMA
✓
✓
✗
✓
LMCP
✓
✓
✓
✗
emotions (avg.#CLs=4)
.800 ± .026
.793 ± .020
.785 ± .013
.796 ± .023
birds (avg.#CLs=4)
.597 ± .060
.590 ± .040
.584 ± .048
.595 ± .051
scene (avg.#CLs=5)
.813 ± .024
.811 ± .020
.807 ± .012
.810 ± .028
TABLE VIII: Ablation study results. Comparison of performance with and without each module, in metric Average precision . The best experimental performance is shown in boldface.
Fig. 6: Comparative experiment of low rank orthogonal decomposition and low rank sparse decomposition on yeast and reference datasets.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Datasets
#Instance
#Dim
#Class
avg.#CLs
avg.#GLs
Mirflickr
10433
100
7
3.35
1.77
Music _ emotion
6833
98
11
5.29
2.42
Music _ style
6839
98
10
6.04
1.44
YeastBP
6139
6139
127
5.93
5.54
emotions
593
72
6
3, 4, 5
1.86
birds
645
260
19
3, 4, 5
1.01
Appendix
TABLE IX: General Information of The nine Multi-label datasets and four partial multi-label learning datasets.
Method
Hl
Rl
Oe
Cov
Ap
avg
PML-MA
2.0833
1.2500
1.2500
1.6000
1.1000
1.4567
PML-PLR
2.9167
2.2000
2.3333
2.1833
2.2333
2.3733
FBD-PML
5.2333
4.9167
4.5333
4.5000
4.5333
4.7433
PML-ND
3.4167
3.5333
3.4167
3.4667
2.9333
3.3533
P-LENFN
6.7167
6.2167
6.1500
6.2333
5.7167
6.2067
PAMB
5.8500
4.9333
6.3000
5.6667
5.7167
5.6933
Appendix
TABLE X: The Average Rankings of Each Method Across All Five Metrics (Transposed)
Label noise in multi-label learning (MLL) poses significant challenges for model training, particularly in partial multi-label learning (PML) where candidate labels contain both relevant and irrelevant labels. While clustering offers a natural approach to exploit data structure for noise identification, traditional clustering methods cannot be directly applied to multi-label scenarios due to a fundamental incompatibility: clustering produces membership values that sum to one per instance, whereas multi-label assignments require binary values that can sum to any number. We propose a novel weakly-supervised clustering approach for PML (WSC-PML) that bridges clustering and multi-label learning through membership matrix decomposition. Our key innovation decomposes the clustering membership matrix A into two components: A=Π⊙F, where Π maintains clustering constraints while F preserves multi-label characteristics. This decomposition enables seamless integration of unsupervised clustering with multi-label supervision for effective label noise handling. WSC-PML employs a three-stage process: initial prototype learning from noisy labels, adaptive confidence-based weak supervision construction, and joint optimization via iterative clustering refinement. Extensive experiments on 24 datasets demonstrate that our approach outperforms six state-of-the-art methods across all evaluation metrics.
Yu Chen, Weijun Lv, Yue Huang +2
School of Automation, Guangdong University of Technology
Partial multi-label learning (PML) aims to train a classifier on datasets whose instances are over-annotated with not only relevant labels but also irrelevant labels, which is common when datasets are collected from crowd-sourcing platform. Existing works primarily approach it from a curriculum learning perspective, leveraging the memorization effect to disambiguate noisy labels and produce robust predictions. However, these methods are based on non-adaptive weighting functions and lack theoretical guidance for optimal weighting. To overcome these issues, a calibrated disambiguation model named PML-CD is proposed. We first formulate the optimal weighting function for curriculum-based disambiguation, which is equivalent to the calibration of the model's predicted confidences, thus providing guidance for curriculum designing. To obtain the optimal weighting function from PML dataset during the training, a transferable calibrator is designed, which takes the histogram of positive samples' confidences as input, and outputs the optimal curriculum weighting for training. Prototype alignment regularization is also proposed to promote the model's performance. Experiments conducted on Pascal VOC, MS-COCO, NUS-WIDE and CUB have verified that our method outperforms existing state-of-the-art PML methods.
Zhuoming Li, Yuheng Jia, Mi Yu +1
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Southeast University · China Telecom Cloud Computing Corporation, Beijing 100088, China
Multi-label learning typically pursues model construction through the joint optimization of label fitting, correlation modeling, and structural regularization. While empirically effective, such a coupled paradigm imposes multiple learning objectives on a single predictive parameter matrix, forcing it to simultaneously fit observed labels and encode structural priors. This coupling may induce ill-conditioned optimization geometry, increase hyper-parameter sensitivity, and complicate capacity control. To address the these issues, this paper proposes a Progressive Multi-Label Learning (ProML) framework, which decouples direct label fitting from predictor learning via the introduction of an auxiliary predictive variable. This auxiliary variable admits a closed-form solution, yielding an equivalent profiled objective in which the supervised fitting term is scaled by a trade-off parameter. This result provides a unified view of ProML and conventional coupled learning, with the latter recovered as a limiting case. We theoretically analyze the optimization geometry of ProML and show that, under quadratic positive semidefinite structural regularization, ProML attenuates the dominant curvature of the fitting term, enlarges the stable learning rate range, and provides a controllable fidelity-regularization trade-off. Further, we instantiate the ProML for multi-label feature selection task by integrating global-local label priors and row-sparse regularization. Extensive experiments and controlled optimization analyses on 12 benchmark datasets empirically corroborate the theoretical analysis and demonstrate the robust and competitive performance of the proposed method.
Yi Kou, Jieting Wang, Yuhua Qian
Institute of Big Data Science and Industry, the School of Artificial Intelligence, and the Key Laboratory of Evolutionary Science Intelligence of Shanxi Province, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006, Shanxi, China