Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Advancing Food Nutrition Estimation via Visual-Ingredient Feature Fusion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Integrating ingredient names with visual features halves calorie-estimation error on a new 84,446-image fast-food dataset.

desk verdict The FastFood dataset is a genuinely useful new resource, but the headline 48% error reduction is not yet trustworthy because the train/test split is by image rather than category, and Nutrition5k's best numbers use an oracle frame selection. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08747 v1 pith:RROOVISJ submitted 2025-05-13 cs.CV cs.AI

Huiyan Qi , Bin Zhu , Chong-Wah Ngo , Jingjing Chen , Ee-Peng Lim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords nutritionestimationvisual-ingredientfeaturefusionfastfooddatasetingredientrecognitionmulti-taskregressionlargemultimodalmodelscomputingmeanabsoluteerror
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 argues that nutrition values can be predicted much more accurately from a food image when the model is also told what ingredients the food contains. To support this, it introduces FastFood, a dataset of 84,446 images across 908 fast-food categories with standardized nutrition labels and semi-automatically curated ingredient lists. It then proposes a model-agnostic Visual-Ingredient Feature Fusion (VIF2) method that encodes ingredient names with a text encoder, projects them into visual feature space, and fuses them into the image representation used for regression. The headline result is that adding ingredient features to a ResNet101 baseline cuts caloric mean absolute error on FastFood from 118.04 to 61.26 kcal, a 48.1 percent reduction, with similar gains on fat, carbohydrate, and protein. If correct, this means ingredient information provides a compact prior that visual appearance alone lacks, offering a practical route to nutrition estimation from ordinary RGB images rather than depth sensors or precise portion estimation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Visual-Ingredient Feature Fusion (VIF2) module. For each image, the ingredient list is converted to a single vector by averaging CLIP text-encoder embeddings of the ingredient names, then mapped with a linear layer and ReLU into the visual feature space. In convolutional backbones, this vector is broadcast and added channel-wise to an intermediate feature map — block2 for ResNet and the second pooling layer for InceptionV3; in ViT, it is inserted as an extra input token alongside the class and patch tokens. The fused representation feeds separate two-layer heads that regress calories, fat, carbohydrates, and protein under a summed MAE loss. At test time, an off-the-shelf large multimodal model generates ingredient lists from augmented views of each image, and majority voting above a threshold filters out hallucinated ingredients before the fusion step.

What would settle it

Measure calorie MAE on a held-out test set of visually identical menu items photographed at visibly different portion sizes than the official label, or swap in randomly sampled ingredient lists while keeping the image fixed; if the model's predictions barely respond to the ingredient changes or collapse toward category mean calories, the reported benefit of ingredient fusion is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ingredient-aware feature fusion substantially improves food nutrition prediction across different visual backbones. The paper builds VIF2, which embeds each ingredient name with a pre-trained CLIP text encoder, averages the embeddings, passes them through a linear ReLU projector, and fuses the resulting vector into the image features — channel-wise addition for convolutional networks and an extra token in the input sequence for ViT. Four task-specific heads then regress calories, fat, carbohydrates, and protein under a summed mean-absolute-error loss. On FastFood, ResNet101 + VIF2 reduces caloric MAE from 118.04 to 61.26 kcal (relative error from 29.84 percent to 15.49 percent), and on Nutrition5k it reduces caloric MAE from 103.03 to 83.75. When ground-truth ingredient lists are supplied at test time instead of LMM predictions, FastFood caloric MAE falls further to 44.71 kcal. The paper concludes that ingredient information is a decisive signal for nutrition estimation and that VIF2 works with ResNet, InceptionV3, and ViT backbones alike.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that every image in a given FastFood category shows the same portion size as the official brand nutrition label, so any real-world variation in portion size or product recipe enters the training and test data as label noise that manual filtering cannot fully remove.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding ingredient names to a single RGB image substantially lowers error on all four nutrition targets; on FastFood, caloric MAE falls by 48.1 percent from 118.04 to 61.26 kcal.
  • The gain transfers to a different food domain: on Nutrition5k, ResNet101 + VIF2 reduces caloric MAE by 18.7 percent and carbohydrate MAE from 12.91 to 5.64.
  • VIF2 is model-agnostic: ResNet50, ResNet101, InceptionV3, and ViT all improve with ingredient fusion, so the module can be added to existing image encoders without redesigning them.
  • Better test-time ingredient predictions translate directly into better nutrition estimates, since ground-truth ingredients lower FastFood caloric MAE to 44.71 kcal; progress in ingredient recognition should therefore keep improving nutrition estimation.
  • FastFood provides a new training and evaluation resource with 84,446 images, 908 categories, standardized nutrition labels, and ingredient annotations, enabling future work on nutrition estimation without relying on depth data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test would hold out entire food categories during training: if the large FastFood gain persists only for categories whose ingredients were seen before, the fusion may be learning category-level nutrition priors rather than a general ingredient-to-nutrition mapping.
  • The ingredient embedding is a length-normalized average that treats every ingredient equally, so weighting ingredients by predicted amount or portion size is a testable extension that could further reduce error and would use the weight column already present in FastFood.
  • The same fusion recipe could be carried to cafeteria, restaurant, or home-cooked dishes wherever an LMM can supply ingredient lists, but the paper's experiments do not yet demonstrate that transfer beyond fast food and cafeteria data.
  • The reported failure on visually mixed foods such as a mac-and-cheese tray suggests that injecting ingredient features at only one intermediate layer may be insufficient for well-blended dishes; a multi-scale fusion variant is a concrete next experiment.
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 presents FastFood, a dataset of 84,446 images across 908 fast-food categories with per-category ingredient and nutrition annotations, and proposes VIF2, a model-agnostic method that fuses visual features with ingredient features for nutrition regression. Ingredients are embedded with the CLIP text encoder and projected into the visual feature space; during training the ingredient lists are perturbed by synonym replacement and sampling, and during testing ingredients are predicted by LMMs with augmentation and majority voting. Experiments compare ResNet, InceptionV3, and ViT backbones with and without VIF2 on FastFood and Nutrition5k, and include ablations on fusion layer, threshold, LMM choice, and ground-truth ingredients.

Significance. The dataset is a potentially useful resource, and the method is cleanly described and model-agnostic. The paper does several things right: it ships an internal control experiment with ground-truth ingredients (Table 3) to bound the effect of ingredient prediction, it evaluates across four backbones and two datasets, and the fusion mechanism is simple enough to reproduce. If the FastFood comparison were run under a category-disjoint split and the Nutrition5k oracle frame selection were removed or relabeled, the evidence would be substantially strengthened. As it stands, the central quantitative claim is plausible but not yet demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Table 1] The FastFood 70/20/10 split is performed over images rather than over the 908 food categories, and each category carries a single nutrition label. Under this split, essentially every category appears in both training and test, so a model can memorize one label per dish and recognize the dish at test time; ingredient features, especially the LMM-predicted ingredients used at inference, are a very strong cue for exactly this category identity. The 48.1% caloric-MAE reduction therefore does not yet establish that VIF2 improves nutrition estimation rather than category lookup. Please re-run the FastFood experiments with a category-disjoint split, and additionally verify that near-duplicate crawled images do not cross the train/test boundary.
  2. [Section 5.1, Testing Protocol 2] Selecting the 'optimal frame per video' after observing the test video is an oracle procedure that uses test-set information; the 23.32 kcal caloric MAE and any state-of-the-art comparisons built on it are not a deployable result. Please either replace Protocol 2 with a fixed frame-selection rule, such as a sharpness heuristic chosen on validation data, or report it explicitly as an oracle upper bound, and remove claims of state-of-the-art performance that depend on it.
  3. [Tables 1-3] All results are single runs without error bars or significance tests, so the word 'significantly' in the conclusion is not supported statistically. Please report means and standard deviations over at least three seeds, or equivalent paired tests, for the main comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.4, Figure 9] The y-axis of Figure 9 shows an average MAE of about 19.37 at threshold 4, while the text says the lowest value is 61.26; 61.26 is the caloric MAE from Table 1, not the plotted average. Please correct the statement or the figure caption.
  2. [Section 5.1, Implementation details] The sentence 'For the other five models' should read 'the other three models', since only ResNet50, ResNet101, InceptionV3, and ViT are evaluated.
  3. [Table 2] The label 'Testing Protocol 1' is repeated for the VIF2 block; merge the headings or relabel the second block to avoid confusion.
  4. [Section 5.2] The sentence 'Since the evaluation protocol for these methods is unclear, we do not include them in the comparison tables. Under a fair comparison...' is self-contradictory; specify exactly which prior methods are compared and under which protocol.
  5. [Figure 7 caption] The caption says 'large language model (LMM)', but the method uses a large multimodal model; please correct the terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the nutrition targets are externally sourced official labels, ingredient features are model inputs, and the VIF2 prediction is not defined in terms of its targets.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Nutrition labels are collected directly from official fast-food brand websites (Section 3), ingredient annotations are produced by GPT-4o with manual correction, and the VIF2 method (Eqs. 1–6) treats these ingredient annotations as input features for regressing the externally fixed nutrition targets. No equation constructs a nutrition value from the ingredient embedding by definition; the MAE loss in Eq. 5 compares the model output against the official per-item label. At inference, the LMM predicts ingredients from images and majority voting (Eqs. 7–9) is a standard weak-supervision pipeline, with threshold τ tuned as a hyperparameter rather than encoding the target. The reported evaluation limitations—an image-level rather than category-disjoint split on FastFood and the 'optimal frame per video' Protocol 2 oracle selection on Nutrition5k—are validity and generalization concerns, not circular reasoning. Self-citations appear only in related work and do not carry the paper's central claim. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited with a quote and a specific reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on dataset quality assumptions (per-category nutrition labels, GPT-4o ingredient annotation accuracy) and on modeling premises about CLIP embeddings and LMM output reliability. Three hyperparameters are set by hand or by validation performance: synonym replacement probability 0.5, ingredient sampling probability 0.5, and majority voting threshold 4. No theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • voting threshold tau = 4
    Selected based on Figure 9 as the value minimizing average MAE on (presumably) the validation set. The final reported results use this value.
  • synonym replacement probability = 0.5
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.1; not tuned or justified beyond robustness motivation.
  • ingredient sampling probability = 0.5
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.1 to simulate incomplete ingredient lists.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Nutrition values are constant across all images of a given FastFood category and match the official website label.
    Used throughout the dataset construction (Section 3); all images of a category are trained against the same calorie/fat/carb/protein target. If false, targets are noisy.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o ingredient lists, after manual refinement, are accurate enough to serve as ground-truth ingredient annotations.
    Section 3: semi-automatic ingredient annotation. The method's training relies on these labels.
  • domain assumption Averaged CLIP text embeddings of ingredient names, after a linear projection, can be aligned with visual feature space for fusion.
    Section 4.1, Eq. (1)-(2). The projection is learned, but the premise that ingredient text encodes nutrition-relevant information is assumed.
  • domain assumption LMM ingredient predictions, after augmentation and majority voting, are accurate enough to replace ground-truth ingredients at test time.
    Section 4.4. The final results depend on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Advancing Food Nutrition Estimation via Visual-Ingredient Feature Fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RROOVISJ

@misc{pith2026250508747,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Advancing Food Nutrition Estimation via Visual-Ingredient Feature Fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RROOVISJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08747}
}
abstract

Nutrition estimation is an important component of promoting healthy eating and mitigating diet-related health risks. Despite advances in tasks such as food classification and ingredient recognition, progress in nutrition estimation is limited due to the lack of datasets with nutritional annotations. To address this issue, we introduce FastFood, a dataset with 84,446 images across 908 fast food categories, featuring ingredient and nutritional annotations. In addition, we propose a new model-agnostic Visual-Ingredient Feature Fusion (VIF$^2$) method to enhance nutrition estimation by integrating visual and ingredient features. Ingredient robustness is improved through synonym replacement and resampling strategies during training. The ingredient-aware visual feature fusion module combines ingredient features and visual representation to achieve accurate nutritional prediction. During testing, ingredient predictions are refined using large multimodal models by data augmentation and majority voting. Our experiments on both FastFood and Nutrition5k datasets validate the effectiveness of our proposed method built in different backbones (e.g., Resnet, InceptionV3 and ViT), which demonstrates the importance of ingredient information in nutrition estimation. https://huiyanqi.github.io/fastfood-nutrition-estimation/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08747 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our FastFood dataset, highlighting brands, sample images, and annotated ingredients and nutrition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Data Expansion for Food Items Using Different Retrieval Methods. The first row shows official food item images, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Distribution of calorie in FastFood dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of samples in the dataset across different ranges of fat, carbohydrates, and protein content. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Prompt template for generating dietary planning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overview of the proposed method for nutrition prediction. During training, the ingredient projector aligns robust [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of typical samples with low and high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative examples showcasing zero-shot diet analysis of multimodal large language models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lukas Bossard, Matthieu Guillaumin, and Luc Van Gool. 2014. Food-101–mining discriminative components with random forests. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part VI 13. Springer

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Rebecca G Boswell, Wendy Sun, Shosuke Suzuki, and Hedy Kober. 2018. Training in cognitive strategies reduces eating and improves food choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Chi-Sheng Chen, Guan-Ying Chen, Dong Zhou, Di Jiang, and Dai-Shi Chen. 2024. Res-vmamba: Fine-grained food category visual classification using selective state space models with deep residual learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15761 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Jingjing Chen and Chong-Wah Ngo. 2016. Deep-based ingredient recognition for cooking recipe retrieval. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on Multimedia

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Jingjing Chen, Liangming Pan, Zhipeng Wei, Xiang Wang, Chong-Wah Ngo, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2020. Zero-shot ingredient recognition by multi-relational graph convolutional network. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Jingjing Chen, Bin Zhu, Chong-Wah Ngo, Tat-Seng Chua, and Yu-Gang Jiang

  7. [7]

    Prateek Chhikara, Dhiraj Chaurasia, and Yifan Jiang. 2024. Fire: Food image to recipe generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applica- tions of Computer Vision

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Alexey Dosovitskiy. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Takumi Ege and Keiji Yanai. [n. d.]. Image-based food calorie estimation using knowledge on food categories, ingredients and cooking directions. In Proceedings of the on Thematic Workshops of ACM Multimedia 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Takumi Ege and Keiji Yanai. 2019. Simultaneous estimation of dish locations and calories with multi-task learning. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Xinle Gao, Zhiyong Xiao, and Zhaohong Deng. 2024. High accuracy food im- age classification via vision transformer with data augmentation and feature augmentation. Journal of Food Engineering (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Yinxuan Gui, Bin Zhu, Jingjing Chen, and Chong-Wah Ngo. 2025. Efficient Prompt Tuning for Hierarchical Ingredient Recognition. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) . IEEE

    2025

  5. [13]

    Yinxuan Gui, Bin Zhu, Jingjing Chen, Chong Wah Ngo, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2024. Navigating weight prediction with diet diary. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 127–136

    2024

  6. [14]

    Yuzhe Han, Qimin Cheng, Wenjin Wu, and Ziyang Huang. 2023. Dpf-nutrition: Food nutrition estimation via depth prediction and fusion. Foods (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    2016

  8. [16]

    Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2023. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. Comput. Surveys (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Shuqiang Jiang. 2024. Food Computing for Nutrition and Health. In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW) . IEEE

    2024

  10. [18]

    Pengkun Jiao, Xinlan Wu, Bin Zhu, Jingjing Chen, Chong-Wah Ngo, and Yugang Jiang. 2024. Rode: Linear rectified mixture of diverse experts for food large multi-modal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12730 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Yoshiyuki Kawano and Keiji Yanai. 2015. Automatic expansion of a food image dataset leveraging existing categories with domain adaptation. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2014 Workshops: Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-7 and 12, 2014, Proceedings, Part III 13 . Springer

    2015

  12. [20]

    Chunyuan Li, Cliff Wong, Sheng Zhang, Naoto Usuyama, Haotian Liu, Jianwei Yang, Tristan Naumann, Hoifung Poon, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00890 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chang Liu, Yu Cao, Yan Luo, Guanling Chen, Vinod Vokkarane, and Yunsheng Ma

  14. [22]

    Guoshan Liu, Hailong Yin, Bin Zhu, Jingjing Chen, Chong-Wah Ngo, and Yu- Gang Jiang. 2025. Retrieval augmented recipe generation. In 2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV). IEEE, 2453–2463

    2025

  15. [23]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, and Yong Jae Lee. [n. d.]. Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

  16. [24]

    Hanchao Liu, Wenyuan Xue, Yifei Chen, Dapeng Chen, Xiutian Zhao, Ke Wang, Liping Hou, Rongjun Li, and Wei Peng. 2024. A survey on hallucination in large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00253 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Yuxin Liu, Weiqing Min, Shuqiang Jiang, and Yong Rui. 2024. Convolution- Enhanced Bi-Branch Adaptive Transformer with Cross-Task Interaction for Food Category and Ingredient Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Frank Po Wen Lo, Yao Guo, Yingnan Sun, Jianing Qiu, and Benny Lo. 2022. An intelligent vision-based nutritional assessment method for handheld food items. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Ya Lu, Thomai Stathopoulou, Maria F Vasiloglou, Stergios Christodoulidis, Zeno Stanga, and Stavroula Mougiakakou. 2020. An artificial intelligence-based system to assess nutrient intake for hospitalised patients.IEEE transactions on multimedia (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Austin Meyers, Nick Johnston, Vivek Rathod, Anoop Korattikara, Alex Gorban, Nathan Silberman, Sergio Guadarrama, George Papandreou, Jonathan Huang, and Kevin P Murphy. 2015. Im2Calories: towards an automated mobile vision food diary. In Proceedings of the IEEE international co...

    2015

  21. [29]

    Simon Mezgec and Barbara Koroušić Seljak. 2017. NutriNet: a deep learning food and drink image recognition system for dietary assessment. Nutrients (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Weiqing Min, Shuqiang Jiang, Linhu Liu, Yong Rui, and Ramesh Jain. 2019. A survey on food computing. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Weiqing Min, Linhu Liu, Zhiling Wang, Zhengdong Luo, Xiaoming Wei, Xiaolin Wei, and Shuqiang Jiang. [n. d.]. Isia food-500: A dataset for large-scale food recognition via stacked global-local attention network. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

  24. [32]

    Weiqing Min, Zhiling Wang, Yuxin Liu, Mengjiang Luo, Liping Kang, Xiaoming Wei, Xiaolin Wei, and Shuqiang Jiang. 2023. Large scale visual food recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Amaia Salvador, Nicholas Hynes, Yusuf Aytar, Javier Marin, Ferda Ofli, Ingmar Weber, and Antonio Torralba. 2017. Learning cross-modal embeddings for cook- ing recipes and food images. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    2017

  26. [34]

    Wenjing Shao, Sujuan Hou, Weikuan Jia, and Yuanjie Zheng. 2022. Rapid non- destructive analysis of food nutrient content using swin-nutrition. Foods 11, 21 (2022), 3429

    2022

  27. [35]

    Wenjing Shao, Weiqing Min, Sujuan Hou, Mengjiang Luo, Tianhao Li, Yuanjie Zheng, and Shuqiang Jiang. 2023. Vision-based food nutrition estimation via RGB-D fusion network. Food Chemistry 424 (2023), 136309

    2023

  28. [36]

    Fangzhou Song, Bin Zhu, Yanbin Hao, and Shuo Wang. 2024. Enhancing recipe retrieval with foundation models: A data augmentation perspective. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 111–127

    2024

  29. [37]

    Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. 2016. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    2016

  30. [38]

    Karan Taneja, Richard Segal, and Richard Goodwin. 2024. Monte Carlo tree search for recipe generation using GPT-2. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05199 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Quin Thames, Arjun Karpur, Wade Norris, Fangting Xia, Liviu Panait, Tobias Weyand, and Jack Sim. 2021. Nutrition5k: Towards automatic nutritional under- standing of generic food. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    2021

  32. [40]

    David Tilman and Michael Clark. 2014. Global diets link environmental sustain- ability and human health. Nature (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    SM Tonmoy, SM Zaman, Vinija Jain, Anku Rani, Vipula Rawte, Aman Chadha, and Amitava Das. 2024. A comprehensive survey of hallucination mitigation techniques in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01313 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Gautham Vinod, Zeman Shao, and Fengqing Zhu. 2022. Image based food en- ergy estimation with depth domain adaptation. In 2022 IEEE 5th International Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval (MIPR) . IEEE

    2022

  35. [43]

    Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, et al. 2024. Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Xiongwei Wu, Xin Fu, Ying Liu, Ee-Peng Lim, Steven CH Hoi, and Qianru Sun. [n. d.]. A large-scale benchmark for food image segmentation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

  37. [45]

    Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2024. Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11817 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Yuehao Yin, Huiyan Qi, Bin Zhu, Jingjing Chen, Yu-Gang Jiang, and Chong-Wah Ngo. 2023. Foodlmm: A versatile food assistant using large multi-modal model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14991 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Yuanhan Zhang, Jinming Wu, Wei Li, Bo Li, Zejun Ma, Ziwei Liu, and Chun- yuan Li. 2024. Video instruction tuning with synthetic data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02713 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bin Zhu, Chong-Wah Ngo, and Wing-Kwong Chan. 2021. Learning from web recipe-image pairs for food recognition: Problem, baselines and performance. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Bin Zhu, Chong-Wah Ngo, Jingjing Chen, and Wing-Kwong Chan. 2022. Cross- lingual adaptation for recipe retrieval with mixup. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval . 258–267

    2022

  42. [2016]

    In Inclusive Smart Cities and Digital Health: 14th International Conference on Smart Homes and Health Telematics, ICOST 2016, Wuhan, China, May 25-27, 2016

    Deepfood: Deep learning-based food image recognition for computer-aided dietary assessment. In Inclusive Smart Cities and Digital Health: 14th International Conference on Smart Homes and Health Telematics, ICOST 2016, Wuhan, China, May 25-27, 2016. Proceedings 14 . Springer

    2016

  43. [2020]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2020)

    A study of multi-task and region-wise deep learning for food ingredient recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.