Noisy-Label Learning

We study the algorithmic task of testably learning general Massart halfspaces under the Gaussian distribution. In the testable learning setting, the aim is the design of a tester-learner pair satisfying the following properties: (1) if the tester accepts, the learner outputs a hypothesis and a certificate that it achieves near-optimal error, and (2) it is highly unlikely that the tester rejects if the data satisfies the underlying assumptions. Our main result is the first testable learning algorithm for general halfspaces with Massart noise and Gaussian marginals. The complexity of our algorithm is $d^{\mathrm{polylog}(\min\{1/γ, 1/ε\})}$, where $ε$ is the excess error and $γ$ is the bias of the target halfspace, which qualitatively matches the known quasi-polynomial Statistical Query lower bound for the non-testable setting. The analysis of our algorithm hinges on a novel sandwiching polynomial approximation to the sign function with multiplicative error that may be of broader interest.

Semi-supervised learning in automatic speech recognition (ASR) typically relies on pseudo-labeling, which often suffers from confirmation bias and error accumulation due to noisy supervision. To address this limitation, we propose ReHear, a framework for iterative pseudo-label refinement that integrates an instruction-tuned, audio-aware large language model (LLM) into the self-training loop. Unlike conventional text-based correctors, our approach conditions the LLM on both the ASR hypothesis and the source audio, allowing it to recover phonetically accurate transcripts even from severe recognition errors. These refined pseudo-labels serve as high-fidelity targets for fine-tuning the ASR model in an iterative cycle. Experimental results across diverse benchmarks demonstrate that ReHear effectively mitigates error propagation, consistently outperforming both supervised and pseudo-labeling baselines.

The construction of most supervised learning datasets revolves around collecting multiple labels for each instance, then aggregating the labels to form a type of "true" label. We question the wisdom of this pipeline by developing a (stylized) theoretical model of this process and analyzing its statistical consequences, showing how access to non-aggregated label information can make training well-calibrated models more feasible than it is with cleaned labels. The entire story, however, is subtle, and the contrasts between aggregated and fuller label information depend on the particulars of the problem, where estimators that use aggregated information exhibit robust but slower rates of convergence, while estimators that can effectively leverage all labels converge more quickly if they have fidelity to (or can learn) the true labeling process. The theory makes several predictions for real-world datasets, including when non-aggregate labels should improve learning performance, which we test to corroborate the validity of our predictions.