Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

FixCLR: Negative-Class Contrastive Learning for Semi-Supervised Domain Generalization

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FixCLR adds a repulsion-only contrastive loss to FixMatch to train domain-invariant representations for semi-supervised domain generalization.

desk verdict A clean regularizer idea for SSDG whose empirical case is real but narrower than the paper claims; the advantage over FBC-SA mostly lives on Terra Incognita and, without error bars, the consistency claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20841 v1 pith:4QT3GLV3 submitted 2025-06-25 cs.CV cs.AI

Ha Min Son , Shahbaz Rezaei , Xin Liu This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords semi-superviseddomaingeneralizationnegative-classcontrastivelearningdomain-invariantrepresentationspseudo-labelingFixMatchregularizationout-of-distributionrepresentation
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

Semi-supervised domain generalization (SSDG) trains on a few labeled and many unlabeled examples from known domains so the model can handle an unseen domain. The paper claims that existing SSDG methods, which build on FixMatch, only implicitly encourage domain invariance, leaving domain-specific clusters in the representation space. FixCLR adds a loss term that groups samples by their predicted class across all domains and repels every other predicted class regardless of domain, with no positive attraction between same-class samples. The paper argues this explicit repulsion removes domain clusters and improves accuracy, and that FixCLR can be stacked on top of most SSDG or semi-supervised methods for complementary gains.

What carries the argument

The central object is the FixCLR repulsion loss in Eq. (1): $\mathcal{L}_C = \sum_i -\log\left( \exp(1/\tau) \; / \; \sum_j \exp(\operatorname{sim}(\operatorname{DOM}^i_{-j}, \operatorname{CLS}_j)/\tau) \right)$, with temperature $\tau = 0.5$. Here $\operatorname{CLS}_j$ is the set of latent representations of samples predicted to belong to class $j$ in any domain, and $\operatorname{DOM}^i_{-j}$ is a sample from domain $i$ predicted not to belong to class $j$. Because the numerator is a fixed constant, the loss only repels: the model is trained to make every class group dissimilar to all samples of other predicted classes across all domains. This term is added on top of FixMatch's labeled and unlabeled cross-entropy losses and requires no extra forward pass.

What would settle it

Train FixCLR and FixMatch on the same SSDG datasets while injecting increasing noise into the pseudo-labels used only by $\mathcal{L}_C$; if target-domain accuracy and domain-cluster removal do not degrade faster with noise than they do for FixMatch, then pseudo-label accuracy is not the mechanism driving the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding the FixCLR loss $\mathcal{L}_C$ to the FixMatch objective, $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_S + \mathcal{L}_U + \mathcal{L}_C$, explicitly regularizes the model to learn domain-invariant representations given limited labels. The loss minimizes the cosine similarity between each pseudo-label class group and all samples predicted to belong to other classes in every domain. Unlike SimCLR, same-class attraction is deliberately omitted because the cross-entropy losses already pull classes together and because attracting positive pairs from vastly different domains is reported to hurt generalization. The paper presents t-SNE evidence that domain clusters disappear when FixCLR is used, and reports consistent accuracy improvements when FixCLR is combined with other semi-supervised methods, particularly on datasets where domain invariance matters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the model's own machine-generated labels are accurate enough that repelling every other predicted class across domains will push representations toward class structure rather than amplify early labeling mistakes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FixCLR can be added to most existing SSDG and semi-supervised methods, with the largest gains appearing on datasets such as Terra Incognita where domain invariance is most needed.
  • When combined with SoftMatch or StyleMatch, FixCLR achieves the highest accuracy on most datasets in both the 10-label and 5-label settings.
  • FixCLR improves pseudo-label quality while reducing pseudo-label quantity, because the repulsion regularizer lowers overconfidence and keeps only the more confidently classified samples.
  • Because FixCLR does not require extra forward passes, it trains faster per epoch than StyleMatch and FBC-SA.
  • Using positive same-class attraction in the contrastive loss consistently reduces performance, supporting the paper's repulsion-only design.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would weight the repulsion by pseudo-label confidence, so low-confidence samples contribute less to $\mathcal{L}_C$; the paper's own quality-quantity curves suggest this could stabilize early training.
  • The same repulsion-only principle could transfer to label-scarce domain adaptation and to fully supervised domain generalization, where attracting positive pairs across far-apart domains is known to be risky.
  • The paper's caution about pretrained models implies that comparisons on ImageNet-similar datasets may overstate methods that rely on pretrained features; a domain-leakage-controlled benchmark would make SSDG comparisons fairer.
  • The observed pseudo-label quality gain suggests pairing FixCLR with debiasing methods beyond the ones tested, which could matter for class-imbalanced datasets such as FMOW-Wilds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes FixCLR, a contrastive regularization term for semi-supervised domain generalization (SSDG). FixCLR is added to a FixMatch-style base objective (L = LS + LU + LC) and is designed to explicitly encourage domain-invariant representations by repelling samples that have different pseudo-labeled classes, regardless of domain, while deliberately omitting positive attraction. The paper claims that FixCLR is a plug-and-play regularizer that, when combined with various semi-supervised and SSDG methods, consistently improves accuracy over both the base methods and the FBC-SA baseline, especially on datasets with many domains. The authors also present efficiency measurements, pseudo-label quality/quantity analyses, an ablation removing positive attraction, and comparisons of pretrained versus non-pretrained backbones across six datasets.

Significance. If the empirical claims were supported, FixCLR would be a useful, simple, and efficient plug-and-play regularizer for SSDG, and the paper's broad benchmarking—including many-domain datasets, multiple pseudo-label improvement methods, and both pretrained and non-pretrained settings—would be a valuable contribution to the community. The idea of using negative-class repelling based on pseudo-labels is coherent and mechanistically plausible, and the efficiency advantage over FBC-SA and StyleMatch is clearly demonstrated in Table 6. However, the central empirical claims of consistency and superiority over FBC-SA are not supported by the paper's own tables, and the absence of variance estimates or significance tests makes the reported differences unreliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Tables 2 and 4] The claim that 'FixCLR consistently leads to larger improvements compared to FBC-SA' is contradicted by the paper's own results. In the pretrained Table 2, FBC-SA gives larger positive deltas than FixCLR for DebiasPL on Digits (+7.5 vs +7.2), PACS (+2.0 vs +0.7), and Office-Home (+3.0 vs +1.2); SoftMatch on PACS (+1.5 vs +1.3); and StyleMatch on Digits (+6.3 vs +5.8). In the non-pretrained Table 4, the pattern is even weaker: DebiasPL on Digits (+5.0 vs +1.0) and PACS (+3.7 vs +1.5), SoftMatch on Digits (+3.5 vs +1.6), and StyleMatch on Digits (+5.0 vs +1.5) all favor FBC-SA, and several FixCLR deltas are negative (e.g., DeFixMatch on Digits -3.5, FreeMatch on PACS -2.8). Excluding Terra Incognita, where FixCLR does show large gains, the claimed consistent advantage largely disappears. The 'consistently' wording should be removed or the statement needs to be restricted to specific datasets with statistical support.
  2. [Tables 3 and 5] The statement that FixCLR 'consistently achieves the best results' is an artifact of per-dataset selection: Table 3 chooses a different combination for each dataset (FixCLR+SoftMatch for Digits, Terra, IMG-R; FixCLR+StyleMatch for PACS, Office-Home, FMOW), and Table 5 does the same. Since the 'best' base method differs by dataset and by pretraining condition, the tables do not demonstrate that any one combination is consistently best; at most they show that some FixCLR-augmented method can be selected to top each column. A proper test would either fix a single combination across all datasets or report a pairwise ranking (e.g., average rank of FixCLR vs FBC-SA across all base methods and datasets).
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 4] The paper reports only 'average accuracy across four runs' with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Many of the claimed improvements are small (e.g., 0.3–2 percentage points), and paired differences of this size across four leave-one-domain-out runs are within normal run-to-run noise. For example, Table 2 shows FixMatch at 60.3% on Digits and DebiasPL at 60.3%, while Table 4 shows SoftMatch +1.6 vs FBC-SA +3.5 on Digits; without error bars or a paired test, these numbers cannot support the conclusion that FixCLR is consistently better. The authors should report per-run or per-target-domain results, standard deviations, and ideally a paired significance test (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank) comparing FixCLR and FBC-SA over the same base methods and datasets.
  4. [Section 4, 'Effects of FixCLR' and Figure 2] The pseudo-label quality improvement claim is partly circular. Figure 2 measures the accuracy of pseudo-labels produced by the very same model that is being trained with LC (Eq. 1), and those pseudo-labels are used to compute LC itself. The observed 'improvement in quality' could simply reflect the model becoming more confident on samples it already labels correctly, rather than an independent benefit of domain-invariant representations. To validate the mechanism, the authors should either compute pseudo-label accuracy using a fixed pseudo-label set generated by a reference model, or evaluate on a held-out labeled subset that is not used for pseudo-label generation or training. Without such a check, the claim that FixCLR 'improves pseudo-label quality' is not independently established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (1)] The numerator 'exp(1/tau)' in Eq. (1) is unexplained; it appears to be a constant placeholder replacing the positive-attraction term. Please clarify this notation, since a reader might otherwise think there is a fixed positive similarity of 1, and state whether exp(1/tau) was chosen as a constant that does not affect the gradient direction.
  2. [Section 3.1] There is a typo in 'Terra Incongnita'; it should be 'Terra Incognita'. Also, 'signficiant' appears in Section 4.
  3. [Section 4, paragraph after Table 2] The text states 'We did not include StyleMatch in these combinations because its use of a pretrained network for style-augmentation may provide an unfair advantage,' but Table 2 and Table 4 both list rows for 'StyleMatch +FBC-SA' and 'StyleMatch +FixCLR'. This is an internal contradiction that needs correction or clarification.
  4. [References] Reference [32] is cited as the source of the ResNet-18 architecture, but the listed paper ('Resnet in resnet: Generalizing residual architectures') is not the standard ResNet-18 reference; the correct citation is He et al., 'Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition' (CVPR 2016).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FixCLR is a directly defined regularizer, evaluated against external benchmarks, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The FixCLR loss LC in Eq. (1) is defined directly from pseudo-labels, cosine similarities, and a fixed temperature (tau=0.5, taken from SimCLR); no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction. The central claim that FixCLR improves domain invariance and accuracy is supported by comparisons to external baselines (Tables 2 and 4), ablations (Table 7), and t-SNE visualizations, not by an equation that reduces to its own inputs. The dependence of LC on the model's own pseudo-labels is a standard self-training feedback loop, and the paper evaluates pseudo-label quality against ground-truth labels (Figure 2), so the quality improvement claim is an empirical observation rather than a definitional tautology. Prior-work citations ([11], [45], [39]) are used for base frameworks and related findings, not as load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems. No circular step, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-referential renaming was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no fitted constants beyond a temperature fixed to 0.5 following SimCLR, and no new entities. The load-bearing assumptions are the reliability of pseudo-labels and the sufficiency of repelling-only regularization to induce domain invariance.

free parameters (1)
  • Temperature tau = 0.5
    Fixed to 0.5 following SimCLR, not fitted to data; used in Eq. 1 to scale cosine similarities.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Pseudo-labels from the FixMatch model are accurate enough to define meaningful class groups for repelling.
    Eq. 1 defines CLS_j from predicted pseudo-labels; if labels are noisy, the repelling term pushes wrong groups apart.
  • domain assumption Repelling all other pseudo-classes across domains, without positive attraction, is sufficient to induce domain-invariant representations.
    Section 3; the paper argues positive attraction harms generalization but does not prove repelling alone suffices.
  • standard math Cosine similarity in a normalized embedding space is a valid measure of domain invariance.
    Eq. 1 uses cosine similarity; standard in contrastive learning.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FixCLR: Negative-Class Contrastive Learning for Semi-Supervised Domain Generalization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4QT3GLV3

@misc{pith2026250620841,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FixCLR: Negative-Class Contrastive Learning for Semi-Supervised Domain Generalization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4QT3GLV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20841}
}
read the original abstract

Semi-supervised domain generalization (SSDG) aims to solve the problem of generalizing to out-of-distribution data when only a few labels are available. Due to label scarcity, applying domain generalization methods often underperform. Consequently, existing SSDG methods combine semi-supervised learning methods with various regularization terms. However, these methods do not explicitly regularize to learn domains invariant representations across all domains, which is a key goal for domain generalization. To address this, we introduce FixCLR. Inspired by success in self-supervised learning, we change two crucial components to adapt contrastive learning for explicit domain invariance regularization: utilization of class information from pseudo-labels and using only a repelling term. FixCLR can also be added on top of most existing SSDG and semi-supervised methods for complementary performance improvements. Our research includes extensive experiments that have not been previously explored in SSDG studies. These experiments include benchmarking different improvements to semi-supervised methods, evaluating the performance of pretrained versus non-pretrained models, and testing on datasets with many domains. Overall, FixCLR proves to be an effective SSDG method, especially when combined with other semi-supervised methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20841 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. t-SNE of the data manifold and the learned representation space of the learned encoder on the PACS dataset when trained with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pseudo-labels accuracy (quality) and keep ratio (quan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. t-SNE of the learned representation space of the learned encoder ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: t-SNE of the learned representation space of the learned encoder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Recognition in terra incognita

    Sara Beery, Grant Van Horn, and Pietro Perona. Recognition in terra incognita. In Proceedings of the European confer- ence on computer vision (ECCV), pages 456–473, 2018. 4

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Curriculum learning

    Yoshua Bengio, J ´erˆome Louradour, Ronan Collobert, and Ja- son Weston. Curriculum learning. InProceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning, pages 41–48, 2009. 3

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Detecting racism and xenophobia using deep learning models on twitter data: Cnn, lstm and bert

    Jos ´e Alberto Ben ´ıtez-Andrades, ´Alvaro Gonz ´alez-Jim´enez, ´Alvaro L´opez-Brea, Jose Aveleira-Mata, Jos´e-Manuel Alija- P´erez, and Mar´ıa Teresa Garc´ıa-Ord´as. Detecting racism and xenophobia using deep learning models on twitter data: Cnn, lstm and bert. PeerJ Computer Science, 8:e906, 2022. 1

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    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. 3

    arXiv 1911

  5. [5]

    Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning

    David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Ian Goodfellow, Nicolas Papernot, Avital Oliver, and Colin A Raffel. Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019. 3

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Softmatch: Addressing the quantity-quality trade-off in semi-supervised learning

    Hao Chen, Ran Tao, Yue Fan, Yidong Wang, Jindong Wang, Bernt Schiele, Xing Xie, Bhiksha Raj, and Marios Savvides. Softmatch: Addressing the quantity-quality trade-off in semi-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10921,

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Ge- offrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on ma- chine learning, pages 1597–1607. PMLR, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Big self-supervised models are strong semi-supervised learners

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Kevin Swersky, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. Big self-supervised models are strong semi-supervised learners. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, Red Hook, NY , USA, 2020. Curran Asso- ciates Inc. 2, 3, 4

    work page 2020

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Can ai be racist? color-evasiveness in the appli- cation of machine learning to science assessments

    Tina Cheuk. Can ai be racist? color-evasiveness in the appli- cation of machine learning to science assessments. Science Education, 105(5):825–836, 2021. 1

    2021

  2. [10]

    A brief review of domain adaptation

    Abolfazl Farahani, Sahar V oghoei, Khaled Rasheed, and Hamid R Arabnia. A brief review of domain adaptation. Advances in data science and information engineering: pro- ceedings from ICDATA 2020 and IKE 2020, pages 877–894,

    2020

  3. [11]

    To- wards generalizing to unseen domains with few labels.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11674, 2024

    Chamuditha Jayanga Galappaththige, Sanoojan Baliah, Malitha Gunawardhana, and Muhammad Haris Khan. To- wards generalizing to unseen domains with few labels.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11674, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Semi-supervised learning by entropy minimization

    Yves Grandvalet and Yoshua Bengio. Semi-supervised learning by entropy minimization. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 17, 2004. 3

    2004

  5. [13]

    Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning

    Jean-Bastien Grill, Florian Strub, Florent Altch ´e, Corentin Tallec, Pierre Richemond, Elena Buchatskaya, Carl Doersch, Bernardo Avila Pires, Zhaohan Guo, Mohammad Ghesh- laghi Azar, et al. Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning. Advances in neur...

    2020

  6. [14]

    The many faces of robust- ness: A critical analysis of out-of-distribution generalization

    Dan Hendrycks, Steven Basart, Norman Mu, Saurav Kada- vath, Frank Wang, Evan Dorundo, Rahul Desai, Tyler Zhu, Samyak Parajuli, Mike Guo, et al. The many faces of robust- ness: A critical analysis of out-of-distribution generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF internation...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Category contrast for unsupervised domain adap- tation in visual tasks

    Jiaxing Huang, Dayan Guan, Aoran Xiao, Shijian Lu, and Ling Shao. Category contrast for unsupervised domain adap- tation in visual tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1203–1214, 2022. 2

    2022

  8. [16]

    Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization

    Xun Huang and Serge Belongie. Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE international conference on computer vi- sion, pages 1501–1510, 2017. 3

    2017

  9. [17]

    Selfreg: Self-supervised contrastive regu- larization for domain generalization

    Daehee Kim, Youngjun Yoo, Seunghyun Park, Jinkyu Kim, and Jaekoo Lee. Selfreg: Self-supervised contrastive regu- larization for domain generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 9619–9628, 2021. 2

    2021

  10. [18]

    Nlnl: Negative learning for noisy labels

    Youngdong Kim, Junho Yim, Juseung Yun, and Junmo Kim. Nlnl: Negative learning for noisy labels. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 101–110, 2019. 8

    2019

  11. [19]

    Joint negative and positive learning for noisy labels

    Youngdong Kim, Juseung Yun, Hyounguk Shon, and Junmo Kim. Joint negative and positive learning for noisy labels. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 9442–9451, 2021. 8

    2021

  12. [20]

    Wilds: A benchmark of in-the- wild distribution shifts

    Pang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Henrik Marklund, Sang Michael Xie, Marvin Zhang, Akshay Balsubra- mani, Weihua Hu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Richard Lanas Phillips, Irena Gao, et al. Wilds: A benchmark of in-the- wild distribution shifts. In International conference on machine learning...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Temporal ensembling for semi- supervised learning

    Samuli Laine and Timo Aila. Temporal ensembling for semi- supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02242, 2016. 3

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Deep learning

    Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. Deep learning. nature, 521(7553):436–444, 2015. 1

    2015

  15. [23]

    Pseudo-label: The simple and effi- cient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural net- works

    Dong-Hyun Lee et al. Pseudo-label: The simple and effi- cient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural net- works. In Workshop on challenges in representation learn- ing, ICML, page 896. Atlanta, 2013. 3

    2013

  16. [24]

    Improving domain generalization in contrastive learning using domain-aware temperature control

    Robert A Lewis, Katie Matton, Rosalind Picard, and John Guttag. Improving domain generalization in contrastive learning using domain-aware temperature control. In NeurIPS 2023 Workshop on Distribution Shifts: New Fron- tiers with Foundation Models. 2

    2023

  17. [25]

    Deeper, broader and artier domain generaliza- tion

    Da Li, Yongxin Yang, Yi-Zhe Song, and Timothy M Hospedales. Deeper, broader and artier domain generaliza- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 5542–5550, 2017. 4

    2017

  18. [26]

    Berg, and 9 Li Fei-Fei

    Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, San- jeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, Alexander C. Berg, and 9 Li Fei-Fei. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Chal- lenge. International Journal of Computer Visio...

    2015

  19. [27]

    Regularization with stochastic transformations and perturba- tions for deep semi-supervised learning

    Mehdi Sajjadi, Mehran Javanmardi, and Tolga Tasdizen. Regularization with stochastic transformations and perturba- tions for deep semi-supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016. 3

    2016

  20. [28]

    Don’t fear the unlabelled: safe semi-supervised learning via debiasing

    Hugo Schmutz, Olivier Humbert, and Pierre-Alexandre Mat- tei. Don’t fear the unlabelled: safe semi-supervised learning via debiasing. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. 2, 3, 5

    2022

  21. [29]

    Generalizing across domains via cross-gradient training

    Shiv Shankar, Vihari Piratla, Soumen Chakrabarti, Sid- dhartha Chaudhuri, Preethi Jyothi, and Sunita Sarawagi. Generalizing across domains via cross-gradient training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10745, 2018. 2

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Clda: Contrastive learning for semi-supervised domain adaptation

    Ankit Singh. Clda: Contrastive learning for semi-supervised domain adaptation. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 34:5089–5101, 2021. 2

    2021

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Resnet in resnet: Generalizing residual architectures

    Sasha Targ, Diogo Almeida, and Kevin Lyman. Resnet in resnet: Generalizing residual architectures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08029, 2016. 5

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Deep hashing network for unsupervised domain adaptation

    Hemanth Venkateswara, Jose Eusebio, Shayok Chakraborty, and Sethuraman Panchanathan. Deep hashing network for unsupervised domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 5018–5027, 2017. 4

    2017

  26. [34]

    Learning robust global representations by penalizing local predictive power

    Haohan Wang, Songwei Ge, Zachary Lipton, and Eric P Xing. Learning robust global representations by penalizing local predictive power. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. 1

    2019

  27. [35]

    Generalizing to unseen domains: A survey on do- main generalization

    Jindong Wang, Cuiling Lan, Chang Liu, Yidong Ouyang, Tao Qin, Wang Lu, Yiqiang Chen, Wenjun Zeng, and S Yu Philip. Generalizing to unseen domains: A survey on do- main generalization. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 35(8):8052–8072, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  28. [36]

    Debiased learning from naturally imbalanced pseudo-labels

    Xudong Wang, Zhirong Wu, Long Lian, and Stella X Yu. Debiased learning from naturally imbalanced pseudo-labels. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022. 2, 3, 5

    2022

  29. [37]

    Freematch: Self-adaptive thresholding for semi-supervised learning

    Yidong Wang, Hao Chen, Qiang Heng, Wenxin Hou, Yue Fan, Zhen Wu, Jindong Wang, Marios Savvides, Takahiro Shinozaki, Bhiksha Raj, et al. Freematch: Self-adaptive thresholding for semi-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.07246, 2022. 3, 5

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Revisiting pretraining for semi- supervised learning in the low-label regime

    Xun Xu, Jingyi Liao, Lile Cai, Manh Cuong Nguyen, Kangkang Lu, Wanyue Zhang, Yasin Yazici, and Chuan Sheng Foo. Revisiting pretraining for semi- supervised learning in the low-label regime. Neurocomput- ing, 565:126971, 2024. 7

    2024

  31. [39]

    Pcl: Proxy-based contrastive learning for domain generalization

    Xufeng Yao, Yang Bai, Xinyun Zhang, Yuechen Zhang, Qi Sun, Ran Chen, Ruiyu Li, and Bei Yu. Pcl: Proxy-based contrastive learning for domain generalization. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7097–7107, 2022. 2, 8

    2022

  32. [40]

    Rethinking the evaluation protocol of domain generalization

    Han Yu, Xingxuan Zhang, Renzhe Xu, Jiashuo Liu, Yue He, and Peng Cui. Rethinking the evaluation protocol of domain generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 21897– 21908, 2024. 7

    2024

  33. [41]

    Flexmatch: Boosting semi-supervised learning with curricu- lum pseudo labeling

    Bowen Zhang, Yidong Wang, Wenxin Hou, Hao Wu, Jin- dong Wang, Manabu Okumura, and Takahiro Shinozaki. Flexmatch: Boosting semi-supervised learning with curricu- lum pseudo labeling. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 34:18408–18419, 2021. 3, 5

    2021

  34. [42]

    Deep domain-adversarial image generation for do- main generalisation

    Kaiyang Zhou, Yongxin Yang, Timothy Hospedales, and Tao Xiang. Deep domain-adversarial image generation for do- main generalisation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 13025–13032, 2020. 2

    2020

  35. [43]

    Deep domain-adversarial image generation for do- main generalisation

    Kaiyang Zhou, Yongxin Yang, Timothy Hospedales, and Tao Xiang. Deep domain-adversarial image generation for do- main generalisation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 13025–13032, 2020. 4

    2020

  36. [44]

    Domain generalization: A survey

    Kaiyang Zhou, Ziwei Liu, Yu Qiao, Tao Xiang, and Chen Change Loy. Domain generalization: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(4):4396–4415, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  37. [45]

    Semi-supervised domain generalization with stochastic stylematch

    Kaiyang Zhou, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. Semi-supervised domain generalization with stochastic stylematch. International Journal of Computer Vision , 131 (9):2377–2387, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 10 FixCLR: Negative-Class Contrastive Learning for Semi-Supervised Domain Gen...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.