Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.23491

A Topological Signature of Learning under Noisy Labels

Zhongtian Sun·Fan Mo·Prayag Tiwari·Kelin Xia
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

How does noisy supervision change the representations learned by a neural network? Training accuracy measures agreement with training labels but provides little information about representation geometry. We use persistent homology to track loop structure across distance thresholds in neural activations. Experiments span image classification, text classification, and modular arithmetic. On a fixed CIFAR-10/ResNet-18 training probe, equally sized clean-label and corrupted-label subsets show no detectable persistence difference at epoch 10, whereas corrupted-label subsets have higher persistence at epoch 50. The contrast survives uniform-scale controls, even though predictions match the assigned noisy labels for only 7-11% of corrupted probe examples at that checkpoint. Normalisation preserves the crossover between clean and noisy training trajectories on CIFAR-10/ResNet-18, whereas CIFAR-100/ResNet-18 shows no crossover under any of the five evaluated constructions. In a separate noise-rate calibration comparison across five pipelines, mean activation norm achieves a higher mean in-sample R2 than raw persistence (0.936 versus 0.908). These findings show that noisy supervision leaves a measurable geometric signature even when agreement with corrupted labels is low. Comparing persistence under scale controls with label-fitting measurements offers a way to study how representations respond to label corruption beyond what training accuracy reveals.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zhongtian Sun, Fan Mo, Prayag Tiwari, Kelin Xia. 2026-10-16. A Topological Signature of Learning under Noisy Labels. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.23491

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is the Policy Gradient a Gradient?

The policy gradient theorem describes the gradient of the expected discounted return with respect to an agent's policy parameters. However, many policy gradient methods omit the outer discount factor, yielding an update that need not equal the gradient of the discounted objective. Is the resulting update the gradient of another objective? This has been an open question for several years, and this lack of theoretical clarity has led to an abundance of misstatements in the literature. We answer this question for the resulting episode-summed, on-policy update by proving that it need not equal the gradient of any function. Further, we construct a counterexample in which exact expected updates drive the policy toward a deterministic limit that is globally pessimal with respect to both the discounted and undiscounted objectives, while the parameter diverges. We motivate this work by surveying the literature and showing that there remains a widespread misunderstanding regarding discounted policy gradient methods, with errors present even in highly-cited papers published at top conferences.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Harnessing Trust in Directed Graphs: Redefining Robustness of Graph Learning

Existing research on robust Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) focuses predominantly on undirected graphs, overlooking the trustworthiness inherent in the link directions of directed graphs. In this work, we analyze the limitations of current approaches from both the attack and defense perspectives and redefine the robustness of GNNs in directed graphs. From the attack side, we introduce a more realistic directed graph attack setting that addresses the shortcomings of existing attacks. From the defense side, we propose a simple yet effective message-passing framework that serves as a plug-in layer to strengthen GNN robustness while avoiding a false sense of robustness. Our findings show that the trust signals encoded in directed graphs can be harnessed to substantially improve the robustness of GNNs. When combined with existing defense strategies, the framework achieves state-of-the-art robust performance alongside strong clean accuracy against both transfer and adaptive attacks. These results point to a novel and promising direction for strengthening the robustness of graph deep learning.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Two Minds Better Than One: Collaborative Reward Modeling for LLM Alignment

Reward models (RMs) are central to aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values, yet noisy preference feedback can induce reward misgeneralization through spurious correlations and overfitting. We characterize the training dynamics of preference pairs and uncover a distinctive optimization signature of noise: persistently high losses, sharp temporal fluctuations, and irregular gradient updates. Our analyses further show that excluding such pairs improves downstream alignment. In practice, however, reliable preferences are not known a priori, and self-filtering based on a model's own training signals can amplify confirmation bias. To address this challenge, we introduce Collaborative Reward Modeling (CRM), an online framework for identifying reliable preferences. CRM couples cross-model peer review with curriculum learning: two RMs evaluate each other's sample selections, while curriculum keeps their learning progress synchronized. Across extensive experiments, CRM improves RM generalization by up to 9.94 points on RewardBench under 40% preference noise. CRM further generalizes to implicit-reward alignment, offering a robust and broadly applicable approach to learning from imperfect feedback.

cs.LG↗