Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Domain Adaptation for Image Classification of Defects in Semiconductor Manufacturing

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper claims that in unsupervised domain adaptation for semiconductor defect classification on real SEM images, adapting a classifier from one product technology to another beats the no-adaptation baseline on most source–target pairs…

desk verdict Useful first benchmark of DA on real SEM defect images, but the headline claim rests on single-run numbers and the novel DBACS contribution is unablated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15260 v1 pith:N54DMGZC submitted 2025-06-18 cs.CV cs.AI

Adrian Poniatowski , Natalie Gentner , Manuel Barusco , Davide Dalle Pezze , Samuele Salti , Gian Antonio Susto This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords domainadaptationdefectclassificationsemiconductormanufacturingscanningelectronmicroscopeimagespseudo-labelingAdaMatchCycleGANunsupervised
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 is trying to establish that domain adaptation (DA) can save labeling effort in semiconductor manufacturing: a classifier trained on scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of defects from one product technology can be adapted to classify defects on a different technology's images without new labels. In the unsupervised setting, the authors report that DA methods beat the lower bound of simply using the source-trained model, with Offline Pseudo-Labeling and AdaMatch the strongest across most source-target pairs, while the CycleGAN-inspired DBACS helps in several but not all cases. They also introduce DBACS to computer vision by adding cyclic adaptation, unpaired mapping, identity loss, feature matching, and multi-scale structural similarity losses, claiming these additions improve performance. Practically, the result matters because fab-wide defect classifiers could be reused across process steps and technologies instead of being relabeled and retrained for each new background. The paper also finds that when 5% of target labels are available, DA adds little over just using those labels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is cyclic image-to-image alignment with adversarial supervision, instantiated in DBACS (DANN-based Alignment with Cyclic Supervision). Two aligners, F mapping target to source and G mapping source to target, are trained with two discriminators, cycle-consistency ($L_1$ and MS-SSIM), identity loss, and feature-matching loss, so that target SEM images are translated into the source domain's background structure while preserving the defect. This lets a frozen source-trained classifier label translated target images; AdaMatch, by contrast, aligns pseudo-label distributions without generating images. The machinery carries the argument by converting a domain-shift problem into a translation problem, and the paper's claim that the added losses improved performance rests on this compound loss.

What would settle it

Rerun at least the 0→2 and 1→0 UDA experiments with each DA method and each backbone over five or more seeds; if any method's average minus one standard deviation dips below the corresponding lower limit (e.g., 66.9% for 0→2 ResNet101) or the seed spread exceeds the reported gap, the claim that DA beats the baseline in that setting fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in Section 7.1, is that in the unsupervised setting, DA techniques prove their usefulness in the semiconductor sector with SEM images by obtaining better performance than the lower limit, i.e., the source-only baseline. Put positively: on real wafer-defect images spanning three background structures—plain, horizontal lines, and square-like patterns—adapting a frozen source classifier to an unlabeled target domain lifts accuracy over the source-only baseline by a wide margin in the strongest cases, e.g., 1→0 with ResNet101 at 88.79% for Offline PL versus 69.9% baseline, and 0→2 with ResNet101 at 84.32% for AdaMatch versus 66.9%. No single DA method wins everywhere; the winner depends on the source-target pair, and DBACS does not consistently beat the baseline. In the SSDA setting with 5% target labels, DA methods rarely improve on the lower limit, so the claimed benefit is specific to the unsupervised regime.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracies are single runs with no standard deviation, no multiple seeds, and no significance tests, so the paper assumes these numbers are stable enough that the observed gaps reflect real differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the unsupervised setting, a factory can deploy a defect classifier trained on one product technology to another technology by adapting on unlabeled images, avoiding expensive relabeling campaigns.
  • Offline Pseudo-Labeling and AdaMatch are the most dependable choices across source-target pairs, but any deployment should test several DA methods because the best one depends on the source and target.
  • DBACS is usable on image data for the first time, but its gains are inconsistent across pairs and it is more computationally demanding than AdaMatch.
  • With even 5% labeled target data, domain adaptation contributes little; the practical bottleneck is label availability, not adaptation.
  • The improvements are demonstrated for a two-class problem (particle vs point defects) on 128x128 grayscale SEM images, so claims should be read for that scope.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: Because the reported accuracies come from single runs with no standard deviation, the cross-method rankings could be fragile; reseeding the same experiments would show whether the largest reported gaps exceed run-to-run variability.
  • Editorial inference: The paper credits the added DBACS loss terms for the improvement but shows no ablation; the observed gains could also come from the cyclic translation architecture alone.
  • Editorial inference: The dependence of the best method on the source-target pair suggests a practical selection protocol—hold out a small labeled target subset and pick the DA method by validation accuracy—rather than committing to one method.
  • Editorial inference: Because the classifiers start from ImageNet features and only the head is adapted, part of the benefit may reflect generic visual features; a random-initialization control would isolate the adaptation mechanism.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies unsupervised and semi-supervised domain adaptation for SEM defect image classification in semiconductor manufacturing. It compares pseudo-labeling baselines (offline and online), AdaMatch, and a CycleGAN-style generative method called DBACS, which the authors extend from time series to images by adding cycle consistency, identity, MS-SSIM, and feature-matching losses. Experiments use a real Infineon dataset with three domains (background styles) and three backbone architectures (MobileNet, ResNet50, ResNet101), reporting accuracy against a lower bound (no adaptation) and an oracle (target-trained). The central claim, stated in Section 7.1, is that DA techniques prove beneficial in the UDA setting; a secondary claim is that the proposed loss modifications improve DBACS performance.

Significance. If the empirical claims held, the paper would provide useful evidence that standard DA methods transfer to industrial SEM defect classification, a setting with practical value and little prior DA evaluation. The main strengths are the use of real-world manufacturing data, the breadth of compared methods including a strong recent baseline (AdaMatch), the public release of the implementation, and the explicit inclusion of lower-bound and oracle comparisons. However, the evidentiary basis for the central claim is weak: all accuracy numbers are single runs with no variance or significance testing, the claimed advantage of the novel DBACS losses is not supported by any ablation, and the text in Section 7.1 is internally inconsistent with Tables 3 and 4. These issues are fixable but currently undermine the paper's main conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Tables 3-5 and Section 7.1] All reported accuracies are single point estimates with no standard deviations, no number of seeds, and no statistical significance tests. The UDA claim that DA techniques 'prove their usefulness' relies on deltas that are often small (e.g., Table 3: ResNet50 0→1 lower limit 68.0 vs DBACS 72.4; Table 4: MobileNet 1→0 lower limit 67.2 vs DBACS 67.84) and occasionally negative (Table 3: Offline PL 0→2 MobileNet 55.32 vs lower limit 66.2; Online PL 0→1 MobileNet 67.8 vs lower limit 70.7). Without run-to-run variability, the reader cannot determine whether these differences are meaningful. At minimum, the authors should provide multiple seeds with mean and standard deviation, and ideally a paired significance test across methods.
  2. [Section 7.1, paragraph on DBACS, and Tables 3-4] The text states that 'DBACS demonstrates superior performance compared to the lower limit (baseline)', but Table 3 shows DBACS below the lower limit in four of its six UDA cells (all three models for 0→2: 64.53 vs 66.2, 61 vs 65.7, 65.64 vs 66.9). The claim is therefore contradicted by the paper's own data. The authors must either correct the claim to reflect the actual pattern (e.g., DBACS helps for 0→1 but not 0→2) or provide additional evidence that the cited entries are not representative.
  3. [Section 4.3 and Tables 3-5] The paper asserts that the added loss terms (cyclic adaptation, identity loss, feature matching, MS-SSIM) 'improved the final performance', but no ablation study is presented. Since DBACS underperforms the lower limit in several UDA cells and underperforms the lower limit in all six SSDA cells in Table 5, the contribution of these loss terms is not established. The authors should include an ablation that removes or varies the added losses, at least for one source-target pair per setting.
  4. [Section 6.4.2 and Tables 3-4] AdaMatch's hyperparameters and augmentations are tuned specifically for the task (reduced training steps, adapted unsupervised loss weight, restricted rotations, smaller cutouts), while the paper does not report comparable tuning for DBACS or the pseudo-labeling baselines beyond the stated default settings. This asymmetry makes the comparison between methods potentially unfair. The authors should either tune all methods with similar effort or state that AdaMatch receives favorable customizations and discuss how this affects the conclusion that 'the best DA approach depends on the chosen source domain'.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.3.4, Eq. (8)] The text defines the identity loss as comparing x_T with G(x_T) and x_S with F(x_S) but then writes 'when fed with x_T∈X_S and x_S∈X_T', which swaps the domain memberships. The set memberships should read x_T∈X_T and x_S∈X_S.
  2. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract and introduction claim that DA 'minimizes the need for extensive manual re-labeling or re-training of models' and 'improving robustness and scalability', but the experiments only measure accuracy; no cost, training time, or scalability metrics are reported. Consider softening these claims or adding supporting measurements.
  3. [Footnote 1 and Section 1] The repository URL footnote contains a typo: 'DBCAS' should be 'DBACS'. Also, the footnote appears before the URL is referenced in the text; consider placing it at first mention of the code.
  4. [Section 5.2.1] The notation for the AdaMatch augmentation is inconsistent: Z'_SL and Z_TU are defined together, then Z''_SL is defined separately, but the relationship between the weakly and strongly augmented batches is not fully explained. A short table or explicit definitions of X_aug_SL and X_aug_TU would improve readability.
  5. [Section 6.1, Table 2 caption] The caption says 'The first column denotes the domain of the train data', but the table also includes rows '0 + 5% 1' and '0 + 5% 2' whose meaning is not defined in the caption or text. Clarify what these rows represent.
  6. [Section 7.2] The SSDA discussion states that label availability 'hardly improves the performance concerning the lower limit baseline', but Table 5 shows DBACS below the lower limit in every cell and Offline PL below the lower limit in several cells (e.g., 0→2 MobileNet 87.68 vs 87.96). The paragraph should be rewritten to explicitly list which methods beat the baseline and which do not.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical benchmark comparison against external baselines; self-citations are descriptive prior-art references, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical evaluation, not a derivation. The central claim—that DA techniques beat the lower-limit baseline in UDA for SEM defect classification—is established by direct comparison of measured accuracies in Tables 3 and 4 against independently defined baselines (Table 2) and an external method (AdaMatch). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the DBACS loss weights and training routine are fixed before evaluation and are not solved from the target accuracy numbers. The self-citations to [4] and [30] describe the origin of the DBACS/DBAM architecture and training routine; they are used as prior-art context, not as evidence that the reported improvements occur. The statement that added loss terms 'improved the final performance' is asserted without an ablation, but that is a supportability/experimental-design issue, not a circular reduction. Likewise, lack of repeated seeds and significance tests affects confidence in the empirical claims but does not make any reported number equivalent to an input by construction. No equation is identical to its input, no prediction is forced by a fitted parameter, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

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

The central empirical comparison rests on hand-selected hyperparameters, on the assumption that the three domains share a consistent two-class defect label space, and on the assumption that ImageNet-pretrained features transfer to grayscale SEM images. No new physical entities or theoretical constructs are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • DBACS loss weights = λcc=1.0, λadv=0.5, λcyc=0.3, λid=0.2, λfm=0.0
    Selected following recommendations from [35]; not fitted to the target data, but they determine the balance of the DBACS objective and are not justified by any sensitivity analysis.
  • AdaMatch augmentation modifications = only 180-degree rotations; smaller cutout size
    Section 6.4.2 states that default hyperparameters gave suboptimal results and that augmentations were tuned based on observed performance, making the method competitive for some source-target distributions.
  • AdaMatch training steps and unsupervised loss weight = steps reduced by factor 8; adjusted warm-up
    Hand-tuned to compensate for the limited data, differing from the original AdaMatch recipe and affecting the reported results.
  • Confidence threshold tau = 0.9
    Used for offline PL, online PL, and AdaMatch; chosen without a data-specific justification.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The three product-technology domains share a common two-class label space (point vs. particle) after merging defect classes.
    Section 6.1 states that only defects occurring on multiple technologies are selected and merged into two final classes. If the label semantics shift across technologies, the adaptation objective is ill-posed.
  • domain assumption Accuracy is a valid metric despite class imbalance in domain 2.
    Section 6.1 notes domain 2 is imbalanced (577 vs 1196 in the two classes); the paper reports raw accuracy without balanced accuracy or per-class metrics, so improvements may reflect majority-class bias.
  • domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained features provide a useful starting representation for grayscale SEM images.
    Section 6.3 uses pretrained ImageNet models with a grayscale adaptation layer; no comparison against training from scratch is provided, so the entire evaluation assumes this inductive bias helps rather than hurts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Domain Adaptation for Image Classification of Defects in Semiconductor Manufacturing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N54DMGZC

@misc{pith2026250615260,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Domain Adaptation for Image Classification of Defects in Semiconductor Manufacturing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N54DMGZC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15260}
}
read the original abstract

In the semiconductor sector, due to high demand but also strong and increasing competition, time to market and quality are key factors in securing significant market share in various application areas. Thanks to the success of deep learning methods in recent years in the computer vision domain, Industry 4.0 and 5.0 applications, such as defect classification, have achieved remarkable success. In particular, Domain Adaptation (DA) has proven highly effective since it focuses on using the knowledge learned on a (source) domain to adapt and perform effectively on a different but related (target) domain. By improving robustness and scalability, DA minimizes the need for extensive manual re-labeling or re-training of models. This not only reduces computational and resource costs but also allows human experts to focus on high-value tasks. Therefore, we tested the efficacy of DA techniques in semi-supervised and unsupervised settings within the context of the semiconductor field. Moreover, we propose the DBACS approach, a CycleGAN-inspired model enhanced with additional loss terms to improve performance. All the approaches are studied and validated on real-world Electron Microscope images considering the unsupervised and semi-supervised settings, proving the usefulness of our method in advancing DA techniques for the semiconductor field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15260 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Defect classification procedure for the semiconductor manufacturing process at hand: (i) an optical inspection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scheme of our approach based on DBACS and enhanced with the following modifications: cyclic adaptation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In this study, we address the image classification problem in the context of the semiconductor sector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of defect images aligned to Domain 0 with DBACS in the UDA setting. The left column shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A deep convolutional autoencoder-based approach for anomaly detection with industrial, non-images, 2-dimensional data: A semiconductor manufacturing case study

    Marco Maggipinto, Alessandro Beghi, and Gian Antonio Susto. A deep convolutional autoencoder-based approach for anomaly detection with industrial, non-images, 2-dimensional data: A semiconductor manufacturing case study. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Formula: A deep learning approach for rare alarms predictions in industrial equipment

    Davide Dalle Pezze, Chiara Masiero, Diego Tosato, Alessandro Beghi, and Gian Antonio Susto. Formula: A deep learning approach for rare alarms predictions in industrial equipment. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Adamatch: a unified approach to semi-supervised learning and domain adaptation

    Becca Roelofs, David Berthelot, Kihyuk Sohn, Nicholas Carlini, and Alex Kurakin. Adamatch: a unified approach to semi-supervised learning and domain adaptation. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Heterogeneous domain adaptation and equipment matching: Dann-based alignment with cyclic supervision (dbacs)

    Natalie Gentner and Gian Antonio Susto. Heterogeneous domain adaptation and equipment matching: Dann-based alignment with cyclic supervision (dbacs). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 187:109821, 2024. 14 Domain Adaptation for Image Classification of Defects in Semiconductor Manufacturing

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Domain-adversarial training of neural networks

    Yaroslav Ganin, Evgeniya Ustinova, Hana Ajakan, Pascal Germain, Hugo Larochelle, François Laviolette, Mario Marchand, and Victor Lempitsky. Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. The journal of machine learning research, 17(1):2096–2030, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Wafer map failure pattern recognition and similarity ranking for large-scale data sets

    Ming-Ju Wu, Jyh-Shing R Jang, and Jui-Long Chen. Wafer map failure pattern recognition and similarity ranking for large-scale data sets. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, 28(1):1–12, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Predictive maintenance in the industry: A comparative study on deep learning-based remaining useful life estimation

    Luciano Lorenti, Davide Dalle Pezze, Jacopo Andreoli, Chiara Masiero, Natalie Gentner, Yao Yang, and Gian An- tonio Susto. Predictive maintenance in the industry: A comparative study on deep learning-based remaining useful life estimation. In 2023 ieee 21st international conference on industrial informatics (indin), pages 1–9. IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    A cnn-based transfer learning method for defect classification in semiconductor manufacturing

    Kazunori Imoto, Tomohiro Nakai, Tsukasa Ike, Kosuke Haruki, and Yoshiyuki Sato. A cnn-based transfer learning method for defect classification in semiconductor manufacturing. In 2018 international symposium on semiconductor manufacturing (ISSM), pages 1–3. IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    A novel visual fault detection and classification system for semiconductor manufacturing using stacked hybrid convolutional neural networks

    Tobias Schlosser, Frederik Beuth, Michael Friedrich, and Danny Kowerko. A novel visual fault detection and classification system for semiconductor manufacturing using stacked hybrid convolutional neural networks. In 2019 24th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technolog...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Convolutional neural network for wafer surface defect classification and the detection of unknown defect class

    Sejune Cheon, Hankang Lee, Chang Ouk Kim, and Seok Hyung Lee. Convolutional neural network for wafer surface defect classification and the detection of unknown defect class. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, 32(2):163–170, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Deep learning for classification of the chemical composition of particle defects on semiconductor wafers

    Jared O’Leary, Kapil Sawlani, and Ali Mesbah. Deep learning for classification of the chemical composition of particle defects on semiconductor wafers. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, 33(1):72–85, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Defect classification on limited labeled samples with multiscale feature fusion and semi-supervised learning

    Jiahuan Liu, Fei Guo, Yun Zhang, Binkui Hou, and Huamin Zhou. Defect classification on limited labeled samples with multiscale feature fusion and semi-supervised learning. Applied Intelligence, 52:8243–8258, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Chen, Hsing-Chung Liang, and Chun-Lung Hsu

    Katherine Shu-Min Li, Xu-Hao Jiang, Leon Li-Yang Chen, Sying-Jyan Wang, Andrew Yi-Ann Huang, Jwu E. Chen, Hsing-Chung Liang, and Chun-Lung Hsu. Wafer defect pattern labeling and recognition using semi- supervised learning. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, 35(2...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural networks

    Dong-Hyun Lee et al. Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural networks. In Workshop on challenges in representation learning, ICML, volume 3, page 896, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence

    Kihyuk Sohn, David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Zizhao Zhang, Han Zhang, Colin A Raffel, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Alexey Kurakin, and Chun-Liang Li. Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:5...

    2020

  8. [16]

    Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results

    Antti Tarvainen and Harri Valpola. Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Augmix: A simple data processing method to improve robustness and uncertainty

    Dan Hendrycks, Norman Mu, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Justin Gilmer, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. Augmix: A simple data processing method to improve robustness and uncertainty. ArXiv, abs/1912.02781, 2020

    1912 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Remixmatch: Semi-supervised learning with distribution alignment and augmentation anchoring

    David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Ekin D Cubuk, Alex Kurakin, Kihyuk Sohn, Han Zhang, and Colin Raffel. Remixmatch: Semi-supervised learning with distribution alignment and augmentation anchoring. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.09785, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Improved regularization of convolutional neural networks with cutout

    Terrance DeVries and Graham W Taylor. Improved regularization of convolutional neural networks with cutout. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.04552, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Adaembed: Semi-supervised domain adaptation in the embedding space, 2024

    Ali Mottaghi, Mohammad Abdullah Jamal, Serena Yeung, and Omid Mohareri. Adaembed: Semi-supervised domain adaptation in the embedding space, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12421

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks

    Phillip Isola, Jun-Yan Zhu, Tinghui Zhou, and Alexei A Efros. Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1125–1134, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Conditional generative adversarial nets

    Mehdi Mirza and Simon Osindero. Conditional generative adversarial nets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014. 15 Domain Adaptation for Image Classification of Defects i...

    2014

  16. [24]

    Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks

    Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2223–2232, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Simultaneous deep transfer across domains and tasks

    Eric Tzeng, Judy Hoffman, Trevor Darrell, and Kate Saenko. Simultaneous deep transfer across domains and tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 4068–4076, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation

    Baochen Sun and Kate Saenko. Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation. In European conference on computer vision, pages 443–450. Springer, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Maximum classifier discrepancy for unsupervised domain adaptation

    Kuniaki Saito, Kohei Watanabe, Yoshitaka Ushiku, and Tatsuya Harada. Maximum classifier discrepancy for unsupervised domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3723–3732, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Ad-aligning: Emulating human-like generalization for cognitive domain adaptation in deep learning

    Zhuoying Li, Bohua Wan, Cong Mu, Ruzhang Zhao, Shushan Qiu, and Chao Yan. Ad-aligning: Emulating human-like generalization for cognitive domain adaptation in deep learning. In 2024 5th International Conference on Electronic Communication and Artificial Intelligence (ICECAI) , ...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Avatar: Adversarial self-supervised domain adaptation network for target domain, 2023

    Jun Kataoka and Hyunsoo Yoon. Avatar: Adversarial self-supervised domain adaptation network for target domain, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.00082

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dbam: Making virtual metrology/soft sensing with time series data scalable through deep learning

    Natalie Gentner, Mattia Carletti, Andreas Kyek, Gian Antonio Susto, and Yao Yang. Dbam: Making virtual metrology/soft sensing with time series data scalable through deep learning. Control Engineering Practice, 116: 104914, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Proxymix: Proxy-based mixup training with label refinery for source-free domain adaptation

    Yuhe Ding, Lijun Sheng, Jian Liang, Aihua Zheng, and Ran He. Proxymix: Proxy-based mixup training with label refinery for source-free domain adaptation. Neural Networks, 167:92–103, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Li and H

    J. Li and H. Sun. Nacl: noise-robust cross-domain contrastive learning for unsupervised domain adaptation. Machine Learning, 112(10):3473–3496, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s10994-023-06343-8. URL https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10994-023-06343-8

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Inter-domain mixup for semi-supervised domain adaptation

    Jichang Li, Guanbin Li, and Yizhou Yu. Inter-domain mixup for semi-supervised domain adaptation. Pattern Recognition, 146:110023, February 2024. ISSN 0031-3203. doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2023.110023. URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2023.110023

    2024

  26. [34]

    Semi-supervised generalized source-free domain adaptation (ssg-sfda)

    Jiayu An, Changming Zhao, and Dongrui Wu. Semi-supervised generalized source-free domain adaptation (ssg-sfda). In 2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1–8, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ IJCNN54540.2023.10191761

    2023

  27. [35]

    Improving shape deformation in unsupervised image-to-image translation

    Aaron Gokaslan, Vivek Ramanujan, Daniel Ritchie, Kwang In Kim, and James Tompkin. Improving shape deformation in unsupervised image-to-image translation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 649–665, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention , pages 234–241. Springer, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Autoaugment: Learning augmentation policies from data

    Ekin D Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Dandelion Mane, Vijay Vasudevan, and Quoc V Le. Autoaugment: Learning augmentation policies from data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09501, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A comprehensive review of deep learning architectures for computer vision applications

    Arman Sarraf, Mohammad Azhdari, Saman Sarraf, et al. A comprehensive review of deep learning architectures for computer vision applications. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS), 77(1):1–29, 2021. 16

    2021

Pith tools

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