about
Unsupervised Data Augmentation (arxiv.org)
1 point by pplonski86 on Apr 30, 2019 | hide | past | pdf | 2 comments on HN

In plain words: Instead of adding random noise to unlabeled examples, this approach makes a model give the same answer on realistically altered versions, like edited images or reworded text. On IMDb, it hit a 4.20% error rate with 20 labeled examples, beating one trained on 25,000.

Abstract · Unsupervised Data Augmentation for Consistency Training

Semi-supervised learning lately has shown much promise in improving deep learning models when labeled data is scarce. Common among recent approaches is the use of consistency training on a large amount of unlabeled data to constrain model predictions to be invariant to input noise. In this work, we present a new perspective on how to effectively noise unlabeled examples and argue that the quality of noising, specifically those produced by advanced data augmentation methods, plays a crucial role in semi-supervised learning. By substituting simple noising operations with advanced data augmentation methods such as RandAugment and back-translation, our method brings substantial improvements across six language and three vision tasks under the same consistency training framework. On the IMDb text classification dataset, with only 20 labeled examples, our method achieves an error rate of 4.20, outperforming the state-of-the-art model trained on 25,000 labeled examples. On a standard semi-supervised learning benchmark, CIFAR-10, our method outperforms all previous approaches and achieves an error rate of 5.43 with only 250 examples. Our method also combines well with transfer learning, e.g., when finetuning from BERT, and yields improvements in high-data regime, such as ImageNet, whether when there is only 10% labeled data or when a full labeled set with 1.3M extra unlabeled examples is used. Code is available at https://github.com/google-research/uda.

Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard Hovy, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le
arXiv:1904.12848 · cs.LG, cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.CV, stat.ML · submitted Apr 29, 2019 · updated Nov 5, 2020
abstract · pdf · html · NeurIPS 2020

add comment on HN
Also discussed: Jul 2019 (1 point, 0 comments)

The authors make bold claims to outperform recent SOTA methods on CIFAR10 and SVHN but they are using the much bigger architecture: WRN28_10 instead of standard WRN28_2.
Hi, I am one of the co-authors. Thanks for reading our paper! We are actually using the small architecture WRN28_2.

In the experiment settings, we wrote: \citet{oliver2018realistic} provided evaluation results of prior works with the same architecture and evaluation scheme, hence we follow their settings and employ Wide Residual Networks~\citep{zagoruyko2016wide} with depth 28 and width 2 as our baseline model.

In the caption of table 2, we also wrote "Comparison with existing methods on CIFAR-10 and SVHN with $4,000$ and $1,000$ examples respectively. All compared methods use a common architecture WRN-28-2 with 1.4M parameters except AutoAugment$^*$ which uses a larger architecture WRN-28-10.".