Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Solving the long-tailed distribution problem by exploiting the synergies and balance of different techniques

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a weighted sum of SCL, RSG, and LDAM losses yields balanced gains across all classes in long-tailed image classification, improving tail accuracy without sacrificing head accuracy.

desk verdict A credible but modest engineering paper: the SCL+RSG+LDAM combination is new and the ablations are honest, but the synergy claim is post hoc and the RSG ablation needs a clarified mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13756 v1 pith:TIDDTIAO submitted 2025-01-23 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Ziheng Wang , Toni Lassila , Sharib Ali This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords long-tailedrecognitionsupervisedcontrastivelearningrare-classsamplegeneratorlabel-distribution-awaremarginlosscombinationfeaturespaceclassimbalancedecisionboundary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that three established remedies for long-tailed image classification—supervised contrastive learning, a rare-class sample generator, and a label-distribution-aware margin loss—work better together than any of them alone. The claimed reason is a mutually compensatory geometry: SCL pulls each class into a tight cluster, RSG manufactures new tail features to refill the tail region that SCL compresses, and LDAM then tilts the decision boundary toward tail classes without misclassifying head samples because the clusters are already well separated. On CIFAR-10-LT, CIFAR-100-LT, mini-ImageNet-LT, and ImageNet-LT, the combined loss raises few-shot accuracy while keeping many-shot accuracy roughly flat, which the paper presents as a balanced improvement across all classes. The practical stake is that a simple weighted sum of existing losses could replace more complex two-stage or ensemble long-tail pipelines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the four-term loss in Eq. 6, where the SCL loss (supervised contrastive loss, which clusters same-class features and separates different classes) is combined with the LDAM loss (a label-distribution-aware margin loss that gives classes with fewer samples a larger decision margin) and the two RSG losses: CESC (center estimation with sample contrastive, pulling features toward class centers) and MV (maximized vector loss, generating new tail samples from head-class feature displacements). The geometric picture that carries the argument is that RSG expands the tail feature space, SCL keeps clusters tight and separated, and LDAM tilts the boundary; each component is meant to fix the distortion the others introduce.

What would settle it

Measure the gradient norm contributed by the two RSG losses at the chosen weights at several training checkpoints on mini-ImageNet-LT; if it is orders of magnitude below the SCL and LDAM gradient norms, the ablation gains attributed to RSG cannot be explained by RSG's loss signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that minimizing the weighted linear combination $\mathcal{L}_{\text{total}} = \alpha \mathcal{L}_{\text{SCL}} + \lambda \mathcal{L}_{\text{LDAM}} + \eta \mathcal{L}_{\text{CESC}} + \mu \mathcal{L}_{\text{MV}}$ produces a synergistic and compensatory relationship among the three techniques. SCL encourages intra-class clustering and inter-class separation but favors head classes; RSG generates new tail features and pulls features toward class centers, expanding the tail feature space that SCL squeezes; LDAM assigns larger margins to classes with fewer samples, and those margins become effective precisely because the SCL/RSG clusters leave clear voids between classes. The paper argues that SCL compensates for the head-class accuracy that RSG and LDAM would otherwise sacrifice, and ablation results on mini-ImageNet-LT show that removing any component lowers accuracy, with the full model reaching 95.61 overall and 95.42 on few-shot classes. The paper also introduces intra-class distance as a diagnostic, reporting that RSG tightens the clustering of tail classes without appreciably loosening head classes.

Load-bearing premise

The whole synergy account depends on the RSG losses actually exerting a meaningful influence at their tiny weights ($\eta=10^{-5}$, $\mu=10^{-6}$); the paper reports the model is insensitive to those weights, so the ablation gains credited to RSG are not demonstrably caused by the RSG mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the synergy claim holds, long-tail recognition can be improved by a simple weighted sum of off-the-shelf losses, without two-stage decoupled training or ensembles.
  • Tail-class accuracy can rise without a Many-shot penalty: on ImageNet-LT the combined model improves Few-shot accuracy to 23.2 percent while Many-shot accuracy stays at 66.6 percent, near the Softmax baseline.
  • The intra-class distance result suggests that feature-space tightness is a usable diagnostic: models that cluster tail classes well are candidates for adding margin-based losses.
  • The comparison with BCL indicates that similar balanced accuracy can be approached with roughly one-third the FLOPs, since BCL's data-augmentation strategy triples its computational cost.
  • The paper's observation that excessive data augmentation hurts accuracy identifies a practical constraint for SCL-based long-tail models: augmentation that disperses within-class features is counterproductive.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable consequence the paper leaves implicit: if the synergy is geometric, the gain from adding RSG should scale with how well SCL already separates classes; measuring per-class intra-class distance and correlating it with RSG's per-class accuracy change would check this.
  • The reported insensitivity to the RSG weights suggests the RSG module's main contribution may come from its center-clustering term rather than from generating new samples; an ablation that removes only the vector-transformation module would separate the two mechanisms.
  • The 'balanced improvement' claim could be formalized as a Pareto criterion (no tail gain without head loss), and future weighting schemes could optimize that objective directly instead of relying on genetic-algorithm searches.
  • Because the paper used a fixed set of datasets, an extension to more extreme imbalance factors or to class-imbalanced non-image data would test whether the compensation story holds outside the current regime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an end-to-end long-tailed recognition model that minimizes a weighted linear combination of four losses, L_total = αL_SCL + λL_LDAM + ηL_CESC + μL_MV (Eq. 6), where L_SCL is supervised contrastive loss, L_LDAM is label-distribution-aware margin loss, and the latter two terms come from the Rare-Class Sample Generator (RSG). The authors report class-grouped accuracy on CIFAR-10-LT, CIFAR-100-LT, mini-ImageNet-LT, and ImageNet-LT, and claim that the three techniques act synergistically and compensatorily: RSG expands the tail-class feature space, SCL clusters same-class features and separates classes, and LDAM shifts the decision boundary toward tail classes, thereby improving tail accuracy without sacrificing head accuracy. The evidence consists mainly of ablation tables, an intra-class distance (ICD) measurement, and qualitative reasoning in Section 3.2.

Significance. If the claimed synergy is real, the paper offers a simple, compute-efficient recipe (Table 4) for improving tail-class accuracy while preserving head-class accuracy, which would be practically useful. The paper is commendably transparent about the loss formulas, training configurations, and hyperparameter-search procedure, and it reports class-grouped results that go beyond single-number accuracy. However, the current empirical support is not yet convincing: the RSG loss weights are reported to be insensitive and set to extremely small values while the ablation attributes measurable gains to RSG; the mini-ImageNet experiments use a model pretrained on a superset that likely contains the mini-ImageNet classes; and the per-dataset tuning of α and λ without error bars leaves the main comparisons vulnerable to selection effects. The paper's contribution is better described as an empirical study of a loss combination than as a new method with a demonstrated mechanism.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, first paragraph; Tables 2 and 6] The statement that "the model exhibits insensitivity to the weights η for LCESC and μ for LMV" and the decision to set η=1e-5 and μ=1e-6 (Section 4, first paragraph) are in tension with the ablation in Table 6, where removing RSG changes the overall accuracy from 95.61 to 95.22 and the Few-shot accuracy from 95.42 to 93.17, and with Table 2, where RSG is credited with reducing the average ICD from 1.55 to 1.39. If the two RSG losses are truly negligible at these weights, the observed effect must come from the RSG module's forward path (e.g., generated tail samples entering the training batch or feature-space changes), but the paper does not describe or measure such a pathway. Please run the control η=μ=0 with the RSG module still active, and separately ablate the module's sample generation while keeping the losses, so that the observed gains can be assigned to a specific mechanism. Without this, the claimed synergistic role of RSG is not supported by the reported experiments.
  2. [Section 4.2, mini-ImageNet-LT] For mini-ImageNet-LT, the authors use a ResNeXt-50-32x4d backbone pretrained on ImageNet-1K. Mini-ImageNet is commonly constructed as a subset of ImageNet-1K, and the paper does not state whether the 100 mini-ImageNet classes are contained in the pretraining class set. If they are, the reported Few-shot accuracy of 95.42% in Table 6 and the RSG ablation results are not a valid test of generalization to unseen classes and are likely inflated by test-class leakage. Please disclose the exact mini-ImageNet class split and its overlap with the pretraining classes; if overlap exists, rerun the mini-ImageNet experiments with a pretraining set that excludes those classes or with a backbone not pretrained on the same classes. This point is load-bearing because Table 6 is the primary ablation supporting the synergy claim.
  3. [Section 4.2, Table 3, and Supplementary Material] The weights α and λ for L_SCL and L_LDAM are optimized separately for each dataset and each imbalance factor β using a genetic algorithm, with candidate combinations evaluated on validation accuracy for only five epochs before the final runs. The reported test numbers therefore reflect post-hoc selection, as the Limitation in Section 5 acknowledges. In addition, the tables contain no error bars or multiple-seed results, and some differences are very small (e.g., Table 7: Many-shot 66.8 vs. 66.6, Few-shot 21.9 vs. 23.2). Please report the variance across at least three runs for the main configurations, and either fix the weighting rule a priori or treat the genetic-algorithm search as part of the method with nested validation. Without this, the claimed "balanced improvement across all classes" is not robustly established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equations (2) and (3)] Equation (2) uses the spelling "LCECS" while the text uses "LCESC", and the angle-bracket notation for averaging in Equations (2) and (3) is not formally defined; please clarify these notations for reproducibility.
  2. [Table 2] The column header "A VG." should read "Avg.", and the class labels 0-9 should be explicitly stated to be ordered from the most frequent to the least frequent class, since this ordering is necessary to interpret the ICD pattern.
  3. [Section 4.1] The text says CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 contain 10,000 images for validation, but these datasets are normally partitioned into training and test sets; please clarify whether the reported "validation" numbers actually refer to the standard test split or to an internal validation split.
  4. [References] References [15] and [16] appear to be the same work (Kang et al., "Decoupling representation and classifier for long-tailed recognition") listed twice with different reference numbers; please merge them or clarify why they are distinct.
  5. [Section 5, Limitation] The Limitation paragraph should be integrated into the main experimental section as well, since the substantial cost of hyperparameter search directly conditions the interpretability of the reported results and should be disclosed wherever the tuned weights are presented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports an empirical weighted combination of existing losses, and its synergy claim is an interpretation of ablations rather than a prediction forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper contains no self-citations: none of the listed references is authored by Wang, Lassila, or Ali, and no load-bearing claim is justified by a citation from the present authors. The central construction is Eq. 6, a weighted sum of four published loss functions (SCL, LDAM, CESC, MV). The weights alpha and lambda are selected per dataset by a genetic algorithm on a validation split, which is ordinary hyperparameter tuning; the paper does not relabel these fitted values as predictions. The 'synergy' claim is presented as an observation from ablation experiments (Tables 1, 5, and 6) and an ICD measurement (Table 2), not as a quantity derived by construction from Eq. 6. The ICD evidence is observational: it compares a model with and without RSG and reports smaller intra-class distances, which supports the narrative but is not equivalent to its conclusion by definition. The reported insensitivity of eta and mu at 1e-5 and 1e-6, alongside a Table 6 ablation that attributes gains to RSG, is an internal attribution tension because the RSG forward path is not isolated, but this is a mechanistic or causal concern rather than a circular derivation. Because the paper's claims are empirical and benchmarked against external baselines, no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on free hyperparameters (alpha, lambda, eta, mu) that are fitted or hand-chosen per dataset, and on domain assumptions about the transferability of RSG and the sufficiency of a weighted loss sum. No new entities are postulated. The fitted alpha and lambda are the most consequential free parameters because the balanced-improvement result is demonstrated under those specific values.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (SCL weight) = Per dataset and imbalance factor (Table 3: e.g., 1.969, 9.764, 6.299 for CIFAR-10-LT beta 10/50/100)
    Weight of the SCL loss in Eq. 6, selected by genetic algorithm on the validation set.
  • lambda (LDAM weight) = Per dataset and imbalance factor (Table 3)
    Weight of the LDAM loss in Eq. 6, selected by genetic algorithm on validation.
  • alpha, lambda for mini-ImageNet and ImageNet-LT = alpha=0.9, lambda=0.1 (mini-ImageNet); alpha=0.35, lambda=1 (ImageNet-LT)
    Chosen by simple validation accuracy tests (ImageNet-LT) or adopted analogously; see Section 4.2.
  • eta (CESC weight) = 1e-5
    Weight of the CESC loss; the paper states the model is insensitive to this weight and sets it to keep losses in the same order of magnitude.
  • mu (MV weight) = 1e-6
    Weight of the MV loss; same rationale as eta.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The RSG module's behavior transfers from its original two-stage setting to this end-to-end architecture, including center estimation, vector transformation, and sample generation as in [34].
    Invoked in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 without re-derivation; the generated features' effects on SCL are not specified.
  • domain assumption Weighted linear combination of losses (Eq. 6) is sufficient to produce the claimed synergy without interfering optimization dynamics.
    Assumed in Section 3.2; no analysis of gradient conflicts or loss scale balance is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The validation set used in the genetic algorithm search is representative enough that the selected weights transfer to the test set.
    Section 4.2 and Supplementary material; the search uses a pre-trained model and only 5 training epochs per weight combination.
  • standard math Standard deep learning training assumptions (SGD, data augmentation choices, ResNet backbones) are appropriate and error-free.
    Throughout the experiments; no formal verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solving the long-tailed distribution problem by exploiting the synergies and balance of different techniques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TIDDTIAO

@misc{pith2026250113756,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solving the long-tailed distribution problem by exploiting the synergies and balance of different techniques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TIDDTIAO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13756}
}
read the original abstract

In real-world data, long-tailed data distribution is common, making it challenging for models trained on empirical risk minimisation to learn and classify tail classes effectively. While many studies have sought to improve long tail recognition by altering the data distribution in the feature space and adjusting model decision boundaries, research on the synergy and corrective approach among various methods is limited. Our study delves into three long-tail recognition techniques: Supervised Contrastive Learning (SCL), Rare-Class Sample Generator (RSG), and Label-Distribution-Aware Margin Loss (LDAM). SCL enhances intra-class clusters based on feature similarity and promotes clear inter-class separability but tends to favour dominant classes only. When RSG is integrated into the model, we observed that the intra-class features further cluster towards the class centre, which demonstrates a synergistic effect together with SCL's principle of enhancing intra-class clustering. RSG generates new tail features and compensates for the tail feature space squeezed by SCL. Similarly, LDAM is known to introduce a larger margin specifically for tail classes; we demonstrate that LDAM further bolsters the model's performance on tail classes when combined with the more explicit decision boundaries achieved by SCL and RSG. Furthermore, SCL can compensate for the dominant class accuracy sacrificed by RSG and LDAM. Our research emphasises the synergy and balance among the three techniques, with each amplifying the strengths of the others and mitigating their shortcomings. Our experiment on long-tailed distribution datasets, using an end-to-end architecture, yields competitive results by enhancing tail class accuracy without compromising dominant class performance, achieving a balanced improvement across all classes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13756 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) shows the feature distribution for long-tail recognition based on Cross-Entropy (CE), where purple triangles represent head [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our model overview diagram. RSG is the abbreviation of the Rare-Class Sample Generator. Based on the experimental results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The Top-10 Weight Combinations for Highest Validation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Top-10 Weight Combinations for Highest Validation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Top-10 Weight Combinations for Highest Validation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Validation accuracy on the CIFAR10-LT and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparing Different Learning Rate Decay Strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Performance Comparison of Three Learning Rate De [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Validation accuracy of SCL-LDAM on the ImageNet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Accuracy for training and validation sets with three, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Balanced product of calibrated ex- perts for long-tailed recognition

    Emanuel Sanchez Aimar, Arvi Jonnarth, Michael Felsberg, and Marco Kuhlmann. Balanced product of calibrated ex- perts for long-tailed recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19967–19977, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Long-tailed recognition via weight balancing

    Shaden Alshammari, Yu-Xiong Wang, Deva Ramanan, and Shu Kong. Long-tailed recognition via weight balancing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6897–6907, 2022. 1, 3

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Learning imbalanced datasets with label- distribution-aware margin loss

    Kaidi Cao, Colin Wei, Adrien Gaidon, Nikos Arechiga, and Tengyu Ma. Learning imbalanced datasets with label- distribution-aware margin loss. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 32, 2019. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Parametric contrastive learning

    Jiequan Cui, Zhisheng Zhong, Shu Liu, Bei Yu, and Ji- aya Jia. Parametric contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 715–724, 2021. 1, 2, 3

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Reslt: Residual learning for long-tailed recogni- tion

    Jiequan Cui, Shu Liu, Zhuotao Tian, Zhisheng Zhong, and Jiaya Jia. Reslt: Residual learning for long-tailed recogni- tion. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 45(3):3695–3706, 2022. 3

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Class-balanced loss based on effective number of samples

    Yin Cui, Menglin Jia, Tsung-Yi Lin, Yang Song, and Serge Belongie. Class-balanced loss based on effective number of samples. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9268–9277,

  7. [7]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 248–255, 2009. 5

    2009

  8. [8]

    No one left behind: Improving the worst categories in long-tailed learning

    Yingxiao Du and Jianxin Wu. No one left behind: Improving the worst categories in long-tailed learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 15804–15813, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Genetic algorithm-based hyperparameter optimiza- tion of deep learning models for pm2

    C Erden. Genetic algorithm-based hyperparameter optimiza- tion of deep learning models for pm2. 5 time-series predic- tion. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 20(3):2959–2982, 2023. 6, 1

    2023

  2. [10]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 4, 5, 6

    2016

  3. [11]

    Disentangling label dis- tribution for long-tailed visual recognition

    Youngkyu Hong, Seungju Han, Kwanghee Choi, Seokjun Seo, Beomsu Kim, and Buru Chang. Disentangling label dis- tribution for long-tailed visual recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6626–6636, 2021. 8

    2021

  4. [12]

    Learning deep representation for imbalanced classifi- cation

    Chen Huang, Yining Li, Chen Change Loy, and Xiaoou Tang. Learning deep representation for imbalanced classifi- cation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5375–5384, 2016. 3

    2016

  5. [13]

    Deep imbalanced learning for face recognition and attribute prediction

    Chen Huang, Yining Li, Chen Change Loy, and Xiaoou Tang. Deep imbalanced learning for face recognition and attribute prediction. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 42(11):2781–2794, 2019. 3

    2019

  6. [14]

    Long-tailed visual recognition via self-heterogeneous integration with knowledge excavation

    Yan Jin, Mengke Li, Yang Lu, Yiu-ming Cheung, and Hanzi Wang. Long-tailed visual recognition via self-heterogeneous integration with knowledge excavation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 23695–23704, 2023. 1

    2023

  7. [16]

    Decou- pling representation and classifier for long-tailed recogni- tion

    Bingyi Kang, Saining Xie, Marcus Rohrbach, Zhicheng Yan, Albert Gordo, Jiashi Feng, and Yannis Kalantidis. Decou- pling representation and classifier for long-tailed recogni- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09217, 2019. 7, 8

    1910 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Supervised contrastive learning

    Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. Supervised contrastive learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:18661–18673,

  9. [18]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

    Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. 2009. 5

    2009

  10. [19]

    Adaptive hierarchical representation learn- ing for long-tailed object detection

    Banghuai Li. Adaptive hierarchical representation learn- ing for long-tailed object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2313–2322, 2022. 3

    2022

  11. [20]

    Trustworthy long-tailed classification

    Bolian Li, Zongbo Han, Haining Li, Huazhu Fu, and Changqing Zhang. Trustworthy long-tailed classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 6970–6979, 2022. 3

    2022

  12. [21]

    Nested collaborative learning for long-tailed visual recognition

    Jun Li, Zichang Tan, Jun Wan, Zhen Lei, and Guodong Guo. Nested collaborative learning for long-tailed visual recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6949– 6958, 2022. 3

    2022

  13. [22]

    Long-tailed visual recognition via gaussian clouded logit adjustment

    Mengke Li, Yiu-ming Cheung, and Yang Lu. Long-tailed visual recognition via gaussian clouded logit adjustment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 6929–6938, 2022. 3

    2022

  14. [23]

    Metasaug: Meta semantic augmentation for long-tailed visual recognition

    Shuang Li, Kaixiong Gong, Chi Harold Liu, Yulin Wang, Feng Qiao, and Xinjing Cheng. Metasaug: Meta semantic augmentation for long-tailed visual recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5212–5221, 2021. 6, 7

    2021

  15. [24]

    Targeted su- pervised contrastive learning for long-tailed recognition

    Tianhong Li, Peng Cao, Yuan Yuan, Lijie Fan, Yuzhe Yang, Rogerio S Feris, Piotr Indyk, and Dina Katabi. Targeted su- pervised contrastive learning for long-tailed recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition , pages 6918–6...

    2022

  16. [25]

    Focal loss for dense object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Doll´ar. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2980–2988, 2017. 3, 6, 8

    2017

  17. [26]

    Large-scale long-tailed recognition in an open world

    Ziwei Liu, Zhongqi Miao, Xiaohang Zhan, Jiayun Wang, Boqing Gong, and Stella X Yu. Large-scale long-tailed recognition in an open world. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2537–2546, 2019. 5

    2019

  18. [27]

    Open long-tailed recognition in a dynamic world

    Ziwei Liu, Zhongqi Miao, Xiaohang Zhan, Jiayun Wang, Boqing Gong, and X Yu Stella. Open long-tailed recognition in a dynamic world. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  19. [28]

    Long-tail learning via logit adjustment

    Aditya Krishna Menon, Sadeep Jayasumana, Ankit Singh Rawat, Himanshu Jain, Andreas Veit, and Sanjiv Kumar. Long-tail learning via logit adjustment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.07314, 2020. 1, 3

    2007 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Hyperparameter optimization for convolutional neural networks with genetic algorithms and bayesian optimization

    Philippe OA Navaux et al. Hyperparameter optimization for convolutional neural networks with genetic algorithms and bayesian optimization. In 2022 IEEE Latin American Con- ference on Computational Intelligence (LA-CCI), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2022. 6, 1

    2022

  21. [30]

    Distributional robustness loss for long-tail learning

    Dvir Samuel and Gal Chechik. Distributional robustness loss for long-tail learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9495–9504,

  22. [31]

    Multi-task learning as multi-objective optimization

    Ozan Sener and Vladlen Koltun. Multi-task learning as multi-objective optimization. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 31, 2018. 2

    2018

  23. [32]

    Long- tailed classification by keeping the good and removing the bad momentum causal effect

    Kaihua Tang, Jianqiang Huang, and Hanwang Zhang. Long- tailed classification by keeping the good and removing the bad momentum causal effect. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 33:1513–1524, 2020. 1, 5, 6, 8

    2020

  24. [33]

    Matching networks for one shot learning.Ad- vances in neural information processing systems , 29, 2016

    Oriol Vinyals, Charles Blundell, Timothy Lillicrap, Daan Wierstra, et al. Matching networks for one shot learning.Ad- vances in neural information processing systems , 29, 2016. 5

    2016

  25. [34]

    Rsg: A simple but effective mod- ule for learning imbalanced datasets

    Jianfeng Wang, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Xiaolin Hu, Jianfei Cai, and Zhenghua Xu. Rsg: A simple but effective mod- ule for learning imbalanced datasets. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3784–3793, 2021. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8

    2021

  26. [35]

    Contrastive learning based hybrid networks for long- tailed image classification

    Peng Wang, Kai Han, Xiu-Shen Wei, Lei Zhang, and Lei Wang. Contrastive learning based hybrid networks for long- tailed image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 943–952, 2021. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7

    2021

  27. [36]

    C2am loss: Chas- ing a better decision boundary for long-tail object detection

    Tong Wang, Yousong Zhu, Yingying Chen, Chaoyang Zhao, Bin Yu, Jinqiao Wang, and Ming Tang. C2am loss: Chas- ing a better decision boundary for long-tail object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6980–6989, 2022

    2022

  28. [37]

    Long-tailed recognition by rout- ing diverse distribution-aware experts

    Xudong Wang, Long Lian, Zhongqi Miao, Ziwei Liu, and Stella X Yu. Long-tailed recognition by rout- ing diverse distribution-aware experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01809, 2020. 1, 7, 8

    2010 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Balancing logit variation for long-tailed semantic segmentation

    Yuchao Wang, Jingjing Fei, Haochen Wang, Wei Li, Tian- peng Bao, Liwei Wu, Rui Zhao, and Yujun Shen. Balancing logit variation for long-tailed semantic segmentation. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19561–19573, 2023. 3

    2023

  30. [39]

    Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks

    Saining Xie, Ross Girshick, Piotr Doll ´ar, Zhuowen Tu, and Kaiming He. Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1492–1500,

  31. [40]

    Decoupled con- trastive learning

    Chun-Hsiao Yeh, Cheng-Yao Hong, Yen-Chi Hsu, Tyng- Luh Liu, Yubei Chen, and Yann LeCun. Decoupled con- trastive learning. In European Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 668–684. Springer, 2022. 3

    2022

  32. [41]

    Distribution alignment: A unified frame- work for long-tail visual recognition

    Songyang Zhang, Zeming Li, Shipeng Yan, Xuming He, and Jian Sun. Distribution alignment: A unified frame- work for long-tail visual recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2361–2370, 2021. 8

    2021

  33. [42]

    Test-agnostic long-tailed recognition by test-time aggregat- ing diverse experts with self-supervision

    Yifan Zhang, Bryan Hooi, Lanqing Hong, and Jiashi Feng. Test-agnostic long-tailed recognition by test-time aggregat- ing diverse experts with self-supervision. arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv–2107, 2021. 1, 3

    2021

  34. [43]

    Deep long-tailed learning: A survey

    Yifan Zhang, Bingyi Kang, Bryan Hooi, Shuicheng Yan, and Jiashi Feng. Deep long-tailed learning: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,

  35. [44]

    Bbn: Bilateral-branch network with cumulative learn- ing for long-tailed visual recognition

    Boyan Zhou, Quan Cui, Xiu-Shen Wei, and Zhao-Min Chen. Bbn: Bilateral-branch network with cumulative learn- ing for long-tailed visual recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9719–9728, 2020. 1, 3, 5, 6

    2020

  36. [45]

    Balanced contrastive learn- ing for long-tailed visual recognition

    Jianggang Zhu, Zheng Wang, Jingjing Chen, Yi-Ping Phoebe Chen, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Balanced contrastive learn- ing for long-tailed visual recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6908–6917, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.