Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper benchmarks eight noisy-label learning methods for frozen vision foundation models across five medical datasets, three backbones, and varying noise types/rates, finding no universally superior method. The performance gap between methods widens significantly with increasing noise, highlighting the importance of method selection. Analysis of loss distributions and prediction agreement reveals that the small-loss assumption often fails under frozen DINOv2 features, particularly with asymmetric noise, leading to instability in loss-based sample selection.
Noisy label methods for frozen vision models vary wildly in performance across medical imaging datasets, with method choice becoming critical as noise increases, suggesting a need for regime-aware selection strategies.
Frozen Vision Foundation Models (VFMs) with lightweight classification heads are increasingly used in medical imaging because they offer efficient and reproducible deployment. Yet noisy-label learning methods for this frozen-feature regime remain poorly understood, and most existing methods still rely on a small-loss assumption inherited from end-to-end training. We present a controlled benchmark of eight noisy-label methods across five medical datasets, three backbones, two noise types, and five noise rates (150 conditions, 6,000 training runs), evaluated with balanced accuracy. The benchmark shows that there is no universal winner: Friedman ranking over the 150 conditions yields $蠂^2 = 333.2$ ($p = 4.77 \times 10^{-68}$), ELR wins the most conditions (49/150), while CUFIT attains the best mean rank (2.51). The practical cost of method choice grows sharply with noise severity, from 4.5pp on clean data to 18.8pp at asymmetric 40\% noise. To explain these benchmark-level patterns, we revisit the small-loss assumption in a representative high-risk regime. Under frozen DINOv2 features, clean and noisy loss distributions overlap by 53--61\%, and matched-rate clean-sample detection shows that prediction agreement is markedly more stable than loss ranking under asymmetric noise (3pp vs.\ 13pp precision drop). On ISIC2019 with asymmetric 40\% noise, Co-Teaching reaches 68\% overall accuracy while collapsing to 35.1\% balanced accuracy with zero recall on three minority classes. Together, these results recast noisy-label learning for frozen VFMs as a regime-aware method-selection problem rather than a search for a single dominant algorithm. We conclude with evidence-based guidance and a low-regret feature-space selector for practical recommendation.
