Room Scene Discovery and Grouping in Unstructured Vacation Rental Image Collections

Shayan Hassantabar; Vignesh Ram Nithin Kappagantula

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 25 references

Room Scene Discovery and Grouping in Unstructured Vacation Rental Image Collections

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 A four-stage pipeline groups unstructured vacation rental photos into individual rooms and maps each bedroom to a bed type, with reported end-to-end accuracy of 81.6%.

desk verdict A sensible applied pipeline whose reporting undermines its central numbers; the before-noise ARI is actually consistent, but the after-noise ARI and both V-measures are not. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00263 v3 pith:23WU74RY submitted 2025-06-30 cs.CV cs.LGcs.NE

Vignesh Ram Nithin Kappagantula , Shayan Hassantabar This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.LGcs.NE

keywords roomscenediscoveryimagegroupingspectralclusteringSiamesenetworkoverlapdetectionmultimodalLLMbedtypeidentificationvacationrentalimages

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

The paper tries to establish that organizing unstructured vacation rental photo collections into individual rooms, and then identifying each bedroom's bed type, can be solved reliably without large labeled datasets. It proposes a four-stage pipeline: room-type classification, pairwise overlap scoring between images, spectral clustering on those scores, and a multimodal language model that maps each bedroom cluster to a bed type drawn from the listing's metadata. On a sample of 375 properties, the grouping step reaches an average normalized Adjusted Rand Index of 0.8065 and a V-Measure score of 0.8284; the full grouping-plus-bed-mapping pipeline reaches 81.6% accuracy on 308 properties. The paper also claims the overlap-scoring approach beats clustering directly on pretrained image embeddings by 36%.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pairwise overlap score matrix. A Siamese network with an EfficientNetV2-S backbone is trained in two stages — first on roughly 100,000 self-supervised augmented positive pairs and random negative pairs, then fine-tuned on about 3,500 manually annotated hard positive pairs — to output the probability that two images share a view. Spectral clustering then consumes this matrix, using the property metadata's room count as the number of clusters, and a post-processing step removes images whose mean overlap with their cluster is low. A LoRA-finetuned Phi-3.5 multimodal model performs the final step, reading all images in a bedroom cluster and selecting a bed type from the metadata's option list.

What would settle it

A concrete test: take 100 properties, delete one bedroom from the metadata while keeping it in the photos, and measure whether the Adjusted Rand Index of the bedroom grouping collapses; if the pipeline still groups correctly under a wrong cluster count, then the metadata-count assumption is not load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the same-room relationship between images is better captured by a learned pairwise overlap signal than by off-the-shelf image embeddings, and that this signal can be produced sample-efficiently. The paper argues that two photos of the same room typically share a partial view, so a Siamese network trained to output an overlap probability gives a similarity matrix that spectral clustering can use to separate multiple rooms of the same type. It further claims that a small fine-tuned multimodal model, constrained by the bed-type list in the property metadata and a one-to-one assignment rule, can annotate each bedroom cluster with the correct bed configuration. The reported end-to-end accuracy is 81.6%, with bed-type identification alone reaching 89% on the validation set and 78% on the test set.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes the listing metadata supplies both the number of rooms of each type (used as the cluster count) and the list of bed types (used as the answer set); if the metadata count is wrong, clustering is forced into the wrong number of groups, and if the bed-type list is wrong, the model can only choose from incorrect options.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Noise removal after spectral clustering consistently improves grouping quality in the reported results, so a similar post-processing step should transfer to other clustering-with-similarity tasks.
Splitting the Siamese model into a feature encoder and a classification head cuts the overlap-detection inference time by 65.4%, making the grouping step practical for large property catalogs.
Because bed-type mapping is constrained by the property metadata's bed-type list, listings with incomplete metadata will produce incomplete or incorrect bed annotations.
The reported 36% gain over clustering on pretrained image embeddings implies that pairwise overlap is a materially stronger grouping signal than global feature similarity for room scenes.

Reading between the lines

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

The same overlap-matrix-plus-spectral-clustering recipe could generalize to other domains where objects are photographed in overlapping views, such as indoor navigation or retail shelf scenes, provided a count prior is available.
A testable extension is to estimate the number of rooms directly from the overlap matrix instead of taking it from metadata; success there would remove the pipeline's strongest external dependency.
The sample-efficient training recipe suggests the Siamese model could be adapted to new room categories or property types with only a few hundred manually annotated pairs.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick read: this is an applied pipeline from Expedia for organizing vacation-rental photos — classify room type with DINOv2, detect pairwise overlap with a Siamese net, spectral clustering using metadata for cluster counts, then map bedroom clusters to bed types with a LoRA-tuned Phi-3.5. The one genuinely neat idea is the self-supervised pretraining of the overlap detector: generate positive pairs via data augmentation, then add a few thousand manual pairs for finetuning. That is a sensible, sample-efficient recipe. Splitting the Siamese net into encoder plus head to cut inference time is also a sound engineering trick.

The problem is the evidence. The stress-test is right that Table 2 does not support the headline after-noise-removal ARI of 0.8065 — the weighted average of the after rows is about 0.86. But it overstates the case: the before-noise ARI rows actually average to about 0.80, matching the claimed 0.8014. Both V-measure averages in the text (0.8150/0.8284) are far off the table's weighted averages (about 0.87/0.88). So it is not a uniform arithmetic failure, but it is a real one on the after-noise ARI and both V-measures.

Other soft spots: the noise-removal threshold is never specified, the same 907 groups appear to be called validation in Section 3.5.1 and test in Section 4.1.4, the 36% improvement over a pretrained-embedding baseline is not attached to a named encoder or clustering method, and the end-to-end 81.6% rests on undocumented manual evaluation with no rubric or inter-rater measure. No code or data are released.

These are fixable reporting gaps, not evidence of a broken method. The pipeline is plausible and clearly written. But as it stands, the central quantitative claims are not verifiable from the paper itself. This is exactly the kind of paper a referee can improve: correct the aggregations, specify the threshold, clarify the splits, and name the baseline. I would not cite it in its current form, but I would send it to review rather than desk-reject.

Best, [You]

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a four-stage pipeline for organizing unstructured vacation-rental photo collections: a DINOv2-based room-type classifier, a Siamese overlap detector trained with self-supervised positive pairs and a small set of manual annotations, spectral clustering over the resulting overlap matrix using property-metadata-specified cluster counts, and a fine-tuned Phi-3.5 MLLM that maps each bedroom cluster to a bed type selected from the property's metadata. The authors report component-level metrics, an end-to-end accuracy of 81.6% on 308 properties, a 36% improvement over a pretrained-embedding baseline, and a 65.4% inference-time reduction. The paper's central quantitative claims, however, are not reproducible from the tables as written: the headline ARI and V-measure averages do not match Table 2, the end-to-end protocol is under-specified, and the same 907 groups are described as both validation and test.

Significance. If the reported performance were verified, the system would be practically useful for vacation-rental platforms: it combines off-the-shelf components with a modest annotation budget, exploits weak supervision for the overlap model, and includes a concrete latency optimization. The contribution is primarily an engineering integration rather than a new learning principle, and its novelty lies in the combination and the self-supervised training recipe. The results are not currently verifiable because of the inconsistencies and missing evaluation details described below, so the significance is conditional on a corrected and complete evaluation.

major comments (5)

[Table 2, §4.1.3, Abstract] The abstract's average values cannot be derived from Table 2. Weighting the four rows by the reported property counts (99, 101, 94, 81) gives a before-noise ARI of 0.855 and an after-noise ARI of 0.860, with V-measures of 0.869 and 0.884, yet §4.1.3 reports 0.8014/0.8065 and 0.8150/0.8284. Since these averages are the headline evidence for the clustering claim, please correct the values or provide the exact aggregation formula, and define what 'normalized ARI' and 'normalized V-measure' mean in this context.
[§4.2] The end-to-end accuracy of 81.6% is reported from 'manual evaluation' of 308 properties, but the manuscript gives no evaluation rubric, no per-property or per-room-type breakdown, no confidence interval, and no definition of what counts as a correct grouping. The 36% improvement over a baseline is not checkable because the baseline is only described as 'clustering images based on features extracted by an image encoder'; the specific encoder, clustering algorithm, metric, and whether the improvement is relative or absolute must be specified.
[§3.5.1, §4.1.4, Abstract] The same 907 bedroom groups (3,543 images) are labeled the validation dataset in §3.5.1 and the test dataset in §4.1.4, and the abstract reports 89% on validation and 78% on test using these numbers. Please clarify whether a separate held-out test set exists; otherwise the 78% figure should be described as a noisy-cluster evaluation of the validation set rather than a test-set result.
[§3.4.2] The noise-removal threshold is never given: images are removed when their mean similarity is below 'a percentage of the maximum mean similarity,' but the percentage is not stated, and no procedure describes how it was chosen. If this threshold was tuned to improve the reported ARI/V-measure on the evaluation sample, the reported gains are optimistic; please state the threshold and show that it was selected on training or validation data.
[§3.4.2, §3.5] The pipeline assumes that property metadata correctly specifies the number of room spaces of each type (used as the cluster count for spectral clustering) and the set of available bed types (used as the MLLM answer vocabulary). The paper does not evaluate robustness to incorrect or incomplete metadata, even though the introduction frames the system as deployment-ready; please report metadata accuracy on the evaluation sample or provide a sensitivity analysis for these two inputs.

minor comments (6)

[Table 5, §4.1.2] Table 5 reports only multiplicative improvements over the pretrained model (0.94×, 1.446×, 1.185×) rather than absolute precision, recall, and F1; please include the absolute numbers and, ideally, confidence intervals.
[§4.1.3, Table 2] Please clarify the unit of averaging: are the reported ARI and V-measure values averaged per property, per image group, or per image? The current wording is ambiguous.
[§4.1.4] Please define the exact-string-match accuracy used for bed-type evaluation, including how canonical bed-type strings such as '1 King Bed' are normalized before comparison.
[§4.2] The statement that accuracy 'improved by 36%' should state whether the improvement is relative or absolute and give the baseline's absolute accuracy; the current wording is ambiguous.
[§3.6] The 65.4% inference-time reduction is reported on 200 properties; please include absolute inference times and the hardware or software configuration so the result is reproducible.
[General] Several figures (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4) are referenced in the text but are not included in the submitted manuscript text; please ensure all figures are present in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pipeline is an empirical ML system with external ground-truth evaluations, despite internal reporting inconsistencies.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical machine-learning systems paper rather than a formal derivation, and I find no step in which a claimed prediction reduces by construction to its own input. The clustering module takes the number of room spaces from property metadata as the cluster count; this is a task-formulation choice and a stated limitation, not circularity, because the assignment of individual images to clusters is not determined by that count and is scored against external ground-truth room labels. The bed-type mapping module receives the property's bed-type list as answer options and is fine-tuned on externally labeled (image-group, bed-type) tuples; this is a constrained multiple-choice task, and the evaluation labels come from property metadata rather than from the model's own outputs. The overlap scores are produced by a Siamese network trained on self-supervised and manually annotated pairs and are then used for spectral clustering; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. There are no load-bearing self-citations; the cited components (DINOv2, EfficientNet, Phi-3.5, spectral clustering) are standard external tools. The paper does contain internal reporting inconsistencies, such as the headline normalized ARI/V-measure values not matching the weighted averages of Table 2, and the 907 image groups being called both validation and test in different sections, but these are correctness and reproducibility concerns, not circular reasoning. The noise-removal threshold is unspecified and may have been chosen after seeing results, which is parameter fitting rather than circularity. Overall, the central claims are empirical and can in principle be checked against external data, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on several domain assumptions: transferability of pretrained features, validity of augmentation-based overlap pairs, accuracy of the spectral clustering step, and correctness of owner-provided metadata. The latter is especially load-bearing, because both the number of clusters and the bed-type choices come directly from that metadata. The paper also has at least three unspecified free parameters (noise-removal threshold, focal loss parameters, LoRA rank) that are not documented but affect the reported numbers.

free parameters (3)

noise removal threshold (percentage of maximum mean similarity) = not reported
Images whose mean overlap with other images in the cluster is below a percentage of the maximum mean are removed; the percentage is not stated and Table 2 shows it improves metrics, so it appears tuned on the evaluation set.
focal loss hyperparameters (gamma, alpha) = not reported
Sigmoid focal loss is used for binary overlap classification; the focal loss parameters are not given, affecting the overlap score distribution and thereby clustering behavior.
LoRA rank and target linear layers = not reported
LoRA fine-tuning of Phi-3.5 is described qualitatively; the rank and layer selection are not specified, yet they determine bed-type mapping quality.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Pretrained DINOv2 features transfer to vacation rental room categories
The room-type classifier uses a pretrained DINOv2 backbone and is trained on internal travel data; the paper assumes these features and the training data generalize to the test properties.
domain assumption Data augmentation views simulate overlapping camera views of the same room
Self-supervised positive pairs are created by augmenting a single image; this assumes augmentation approximates real multi-angle overlap well enough to pretrain the Siamese network (Section 3.3.2, Fig. 2).
standard math Spectral clustering on an overlap similarity matrix yields room groupings
Spectral clustering is a standard algorithm; the paper assumes the overlap matrix roughly satisfies the conditions needed for meaningful eigenvectors (Section 3.4.2).
domain assumption Owner-provided property metadata (room counts and bed types) is accurate
The cluster count and the bed-type answer set both come from the listing metadata (Sections 3.4 and 3.5); no validation of metadata is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Room Scene Discovery and Grouping in Unstructured Vacation Rental Image Collections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/23WU74RY

@misc{pith2026250700263,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Room Scene Discovery and Grouping in Unstructured Vacation Rental Image Collections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/23WU74RY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00263}
}

read the original abstract

The rapid growth of vacation rental (VR) platforms has led to an increasing volume of property images, often uploaded without structured categorization. This lack of organization poses significant challenges for travelers attempting to understand the spatial layout of a property, particularly when multiple rooms of the same type are present. To address this issue, we introduce an effective approach for solving the room scene discovery and grouping problem, as well as identifying bed types within each bedroom group. This grouping is valuable for travelers to comprehend the spatial organization, layout, and the sleeping configuration of the property. We propose a computationally efficient machine learning pipeline characterized by low latency and the ability to perform effectively with sample-efficient learning, making it well-suited for real-time and data-scarce environments. The pipeline integrates a supervised room-type detection model, a supervised overlap detection model to identify the overlap similarity between two images, and a clustering algorithm to group the images of the same space together using the similarity scores. Additionally, the pipeline maps each bedroom group to the corresponding bed types specified in the property's metadata, based on the visual content present in the group's images using a Multi-modal Large Language Model (MLLM) model. We evaluate the aforementioned models individually and also assess the pipeline in its entirety, observing strong performance that significantly outperforms established approaches such as contrastive learning and clustering with pretrained embeddings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00263 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Positive pairs obtained through data augmentation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Manually annotated challenging positive pairs. Ev [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Negative pairs. dataset, the training is done in two steps as shown in Alg. 1 • Pre-training : Data augmentation and random selection of two images from different rooms of the same property easily produce positive and negative pairs respectively. We generate approxima…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Overlap score matrix of bedroom images in a prop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

Marah Abdin, Jyoti Aneja, Hany Awadalla, Ahmed Awadallah, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Nguyen Bach, Amit Bahree, Arash Bakhtiari, Jianmin Bao, Harkirat Behl, Alon Benhaim, Misha Bilenko, Johan Bjorck, Sébastien Bubeck, Martin Cai, Qin Cai, Vishrav Chaudhary, Dong Chen, Dongdong Chen, Weizhu Chen, Yen-Chun Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Hao Cheng, Parul Chopra, Xiyang Dai, Matt...

arXiv 2024
[2]

Jane Bromley, Isabelle Guyon, Yann LeCun, Eduard Säckinger, and Roopak Shah
[3]

Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 119) , Hal Daumé III and Aarti Singh (Eds.). PMLR, 1597–1607. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v...

work page 2020
[4]

Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xi- aohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2020. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. ArXiv abs/2010.11929 (2020). https://api.semanticscholar.org/Cor...

arXiv 2020
[5]

Jean-Bastien Grill, Florian Strub, Florent Altché, Corentin Tallec, Pierre Richemond, Elena Buchatskaya, Carl Doersch, Bernardo Avila Pires, Zhaohan Guo, Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Bilal Piot, koray kavukcuoglu, Remi Munos, and Michal Valko. 2020. Bootstrap Your Own Latent - A New Approach to Self-Supervised Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Proc...

work page 2020
[6]

Kaiming He, Haoqi Fan, Yuxin Wu, Saining Xie, and Ross Girshick. 2020. Mo- mentum Contrast for Unsupervised Visual Representation Learning. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 9726–

work page 2020
[7]

Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. arXiv:2106.09685

arXiv 2021
[8]

Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. 2020. Supervised Contrastive Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin (Eds.), Vol. 33. Curran Associates, Inc., 18661–18673. https://procee...

work page 2020

Show all 25 references

[9]

Gregory R. Koch. 2015. Siamese Neural Networks for One-Shot Image Recogni- tion. Available at Semantic Scholar CorpusID:13874643

2015
[10]

Yann Lecun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. 1998. Gradient- based learning applied to document recognition. Proc. IEEE 86, 11 (1998), 2278–

1998
[11]

Feng Li, Renrui Zhang, Hao Zhang, Yuanhan Zhang, Bo Li, Wei Li, Zejun Ma, and Chunyuan Li. 2024. LLaVA-NeXT-Interleave: Tackling Multi-image, Video, and 3D in Large Multimodal Models. arXiv:2407.07895

2024 arXiv
[12]

Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollár. 2020. Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 42, 2 (2020), 318–327. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2858826

2020
[13]

Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, and Yong Jae Lee. 2024. Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 26296–26306. doi:10.1109/CVPR52733. 2024.02484

2024
[14]

Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual In- struction Tuning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine (Eds.), Vol. 36. Curran Associates, Inc., 34892–34916. https:/...

2023
[15]

Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. 2021. Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windows. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). 9992–10002. doi:10.1109/ICCV48922.2021.00986

2021
[16]

Ulrike Luxburg. 2004. A Tutorial on Spectral Clustering.Statistics and Computing 17 (01 2004), 395–416. doi:10.1007/s11222-007-9033-z

2004 doi
[17]

Maxime Oquab, Timothée Darcet, Théo Moutakanni, Huy Vo, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Mahmoud Assran, Nicolas Ballas, Wojciech Galuba, Russell Howes, Po-Yao Huang, Shang-Wen Li, Ishan Misra, Michael Rabba...

2024 arXiv
[18]

Florian Schroff, Dmitry Kalenichenko, and James Philbin. 2015. Facenet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 815–823

2015
[19]

Kihyuk Sohn. 2016. Improved deep metric learning with multi-class n-pair loss objective. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (2016)

2016
[20]

Mingxing Tan and Quoc V. Le. 2020. EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks. arXiv:1905.11946

2020 arXiv
[21]

Bin Xiao, Haiping Wu, Weijian Xu, Xiyang Dai, Houdong Hu, Yumao Lu, Michael Zeng, Ce Liu, and Lu Yuan. 2024. Florence-2: Advancing a Unified Representation for a Variety of Vision Tasks. 4818–4829. doi:10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.00461

2024
[22]

Qinghao Ye, Haiyang Xu, Guohai Xu, Jiabo Ye, Ming Yan, Yiyang Zhou, Junyang Wang, Anwen Hu, Pengcheng Shi, Yaya Shi, et al. 2023. mplug-owl: Modular- ization empowers large language models with multimodality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14178 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[1993]

Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 6 (1993)

Signature verification using a "siamese" time delay neural network. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 6 (1993)

1993
[2324]

doi:10.1109/5.726791

doi
[9735]

doi:10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.00975

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Marah Abdin, Jyoti Aneja, Hany Awadalla, Ahmed Awadallah, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Nguyen Bach, Amit Bahree, Arash Bakhtiari, Jianmin Bao, Harkirat Behl, Alon Benhaim, Misha Bilenko, Johan Bjorck, Sébastien Bubeck, Martin Cai, Qin Cai, Vishrav Chaudhary, Dong Chen, Dongdong Chen, Weizhu Chen, Yen-Chun Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Hao Cheng, Parul Chopra, Xiyang Dai, Matt...

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

Jane Bromley, Isabelle Guyon, Yann LeCun, Eduard Säckinger, and Roopak Shah

[3] [3]

Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 119) , Hal Daumé III and Aarti Singh (Eds.). PMLR, 1597–1607. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v...

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xi- aohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2020. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. ArXiv abs/2010.11929 (2020). https://api.semanticscholar.org/Cor...

arXiv 2020

[5] [5]

Jean-Bastien Grill, Florian Strub, Florent Altché, Corentin Tallec, Pierre Richemond, Elena Buchatskaya, Carl Doersch, Bernardo Avila Pires, Zhaohan Guo, Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Bilal Piot, koray kavukcuoglu, Remi Munos, and Michal Valko. 2020. Bootstrap Your Own Latent - A New Approach to Self-Supervised Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Proc...

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Kaiming He, Haoqi Fan, Yuxin Wu, Saining Xie, and Ross Girshick. 2020. Mo- mentum Contrast for Unsupervised Visual Representation Learning. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 9726–

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. arXiv:2106.09685

arXiv 2021

[8] [8]

Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. 2020. Supervised Contrastive Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin (Eds.), Vol. 33. Curran Associates, Inc., 18661–18673. https://procee...

work page 2020