Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 90 references

Curvature Enhanced Data Augmentation for Regression

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that augmenting regression data by sampling from a locally curved manifold—not just its tangent space—keeps synthetic points on the data structure and improves in-distribution and out-of-distribution performance.

desk verdict A coherent second-order extension of FOMA with a real identifiability problem in the Hessian estimate and a performance claim that currently outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06853 v1 pith:64IAAK3J submitted 2025-06-07 cs.LG stat.ML

Ilya Kaufman Sirot , Omri Azencot This is my paper
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords dataaugmentationregressionmanifoldlearningcurvaturesecond-orderapproximationtangentspacesamplingout-of-distributiongeneralizationCEMS
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 argues that data augmentation for regression should be treated as a problem of sampling from a curved, low-dimensional data manifold, and that the first-order tangent-space approximation used by earlier manifold-based augmentation leaves error proportional to the squared sampling radius. CEMS therefore fits a second-order Taylor expansion of the manifold locally, estimates its gradient and Hessian from the neighborhood of each point, and uses that expansion to generate new input-output pairs. The paper claims this yields better in-distribution and out-of-distribution regression performance than mixing-based and first-order augmentation methods across four in-distribution and five out-of-distribution benchmarks, with run time comparable to first-order methods. The practical value would be a domain-independent, differentiable regularizer that follows curved structure instead of cutting across it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the second-order Taylor parameterization $g: T_u\mathcal{M} \to N_u\mathcal{M}$ of the joint input-output manifold. At each point $z$, nearest neighbors provide a local frame through SVD; tangent coordinates $u$ and normal coordinates $g$ are separated, and the normal-coordinate map is expanded as $g(u_j) = u_j^\top \nabla g + \frac{1}{2} u_j^\top H u_j$. The paper forms the linear system $G = \Psi X$ whose unknowns are the gradient and upper-triangular Hessian, solves it by differentiable least squares, and uses the resulting quadratic map to un-project sampled tangent points back to the ambient space. The machinery converts local curvature into a generative map rather than treating curvature only as a descriptive feature.

What would settle it

On a synthetic manifold with analytically known curvature, set the intrinsic dimension $d$ high enough that the fixed batch size satisfies $b < d(d+1)/2$, then compare the Hessian recovered by CEMS with the true Hessian. If the recovered Hessian is far from the true one yet CEMS still improves over first-order sampling, the improvement is not coming from curvature; if the Hessian is wrong and CEMS matches first-order performance, the method's core mechanism is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CEMS is a second-order manifold sampling method. Treating each concatenated input-output pair as a point on a joint manifold, it builds a local orthonormal basis from the nearest neighbors via SVD, projects the neighborhood into tangent and normal coordinates, solves a least-squares system for the gradient and Hessian of the normal-coordinate map, and then draws Gaussian samples in the tangent space and maps them back through the quadratic expansion. The paper's central claim is that this curvature correction keeps synthetic points on or near the true data manifold where first-order sampling drifts, and that this geometric fidelity translates into consistently lower regression error, including under distribution shift. In the paper's own framing, the prior first-order method FOMA is a special case of CEMS obtained by dropping the second-order term and rescaling the normal coordinates. The provided error bounds give the mechanism: first-order approximations err as $O(\|u-u_0\|^2)$, while CEMS's second-order approximation errs as $O(\|u-u_0\|^3)$ under a Lipschitz-Hessian smoothness assumption.

Load-bearing premise

The recovered Hessian is assumed to be a meaningful local curvature estimate even though the number of neighbors is fixed at the batch size, which can be far below the $O(d^2)$ neighbors needed to make the least-squares system overdetermined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CEMS is correct, synthetic regression samples should stay closer to the data manifold than first-order samples in regions of high curvature, so augmentation expands the training distribution without adding off-manifold points.
  • On the in-distribution benchmark, CEMS would be a reliable drop-in augmentation for tabular and time-series regressors, taking best or second-best RMSE and MAPE on all four datasets.
  • On the out-of-distribution benchmark, CEMS would also improve robustness to domain shift, achieving the best result in 6 of 9 average and worst-domain metrics and an 8% relative improvement on the SkillCraft worst-domain error.
  • Because the augmentation pipeline is fully differentiable and domain-independent, the same sampling rule can run in input space or in a learned latent space without changing the algorithm.
  • The cost analysis implies the curvature correction is not a computational barrier: under the manifold hypothesis $d \ll D$, per-batch complexity is $O(b^2 D)$, proportional to ambient dimension.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The underdetermined linear system identified in the conclusion suggests a concrete extension: regularize the Hessian solve with ridge regression and check whether CEMS degrades gracefully as intrinsic dimension grows; the paper names this as future work rather than a tested claim.
  • The error-bound comparison predicts that CEMS's advantage over first-order sampling should grow with local curvature; the appendix's synthetic curvature experiment already shows that trend, which could be used to select between first- and second-order sampling per point.
  • The shared-neighborhood batch approximation makes the method sensitive to how batches are formed, and the appendix shows random, k-nearest-neighbor, and probability-weighted batch selection each win on different datasets, so neighborhood strategy is itself a tuning choice the authors leave open.
  • Nothing in the method limits it to regression; the joint manifold could in principle be built over inputs and discrete labels, though the standard manifold hypothesis is less natural for categorical label spaces.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CEMS, a second-order manifold-based data augmentation method for regression. It extends FOMA by estimating the gradient and Hessian of a local embedding map g in tangent/normal coordinates (Eq. 3 and Eq. 6), sampling a perturbation η in the tangent space, and un-projecting via the second-order Taylor map. The authors provide a theoretical error bound (Theorem A.1), a differentiable PyTorch pipeline, and experiments on nine datasets covering in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings, comparing against ERM, Mixup, manifold Mixup, C-Mixup, ADA, and FOMA. The central claim is that CEMS delivers superior performance while adding minimal computational overhead, because it captures curvature better than first-order methods.

Significance. If the claims hold, CEMS would be a useful, domain-independent regression augmentation tool that improves on first-order manifold sampling with modest extra cost. The paper contributes a clean algorithmic formulation, a public code release, a differentiable implementation, and extensive ablations over intrinsic dimension, noise scale, and batch size. However, the empirical evidence for the central 'superior performance' claim is currently weakened by the use of imported baseline numbers, selection of the best input/manifold configuration, and the lack of significance testing. The largest concern is that the Hessian estimation, which is the defining second-order component, is underdetermined at the reported neighborhood sizes for several datasets; without addressing this, the mechanism behind the observed gains remains unclear.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. 6; Sec. 6; App. D] The load-bearing claim that CEMS samples from a genuine second-order model requires the Hessian in Eq. 6 to be identifiable from the data. The matrix Ψ in Eq. 6 has d(d+3)/2 columns per normal coordinate (d gradient unknowns plus d(d+1)/2 Hessian unknowns), so the system is overdetermined only if the number of neighbors k exceeds d(d+3)/2. Algorithm 2 sets k equal to the batch size B, and from Table 6 and Table 10, Crimes has d=10 with B=16 (65 unknowns > 16) and SkillCraft has d=12 with B=16 (90 unknowns > 16). For these configurations the least-squares solution X = Ψ†G is a minimum-norm or ridge solution, so the recovered Hessian is not determined by the data and may reflect solver regularization rather than true curvature. The paper acknowledges this possibility in Sec. 6 but does not report, per dataset, whether k > d(d+3)/2 holds, nor does it provide an ablation that enforces the condition. This is central to the abstract's claim that CEMS 'leverages a second-order representation of the data manifold.' Please report for every dataset the intrinsic dimension and the number of unknowns, and provide results with an overdetermined system (e.g., k = 2d(d+3)/2) or a stability analysis of the Hessian estimate under the ridge regularization used in App. D.
  2. [Sec. 5.2 and 5.3; App. I] The comparison protocol is not controlled. The paper states in Sec. 5.2 that 'the results of all previous methods are reported as they appear in the corresponding original papers,' while CEMS results are produced by the authors' own runs with their own hyperparameter choices. This mixes implementations, seeds, and tuning protocols. Additionally, App. I says that CEMS is applied in either input space or latent space and 'we report the configuration with the best performance'; if this choice is made using the test set or is not applied equally to baselines, it inflates the apparent advantage. The abstract's claim of 'superior performance' is therefore not supported by a fair comparison. Please rerun all baselines under the same codebase, seeds, and hyperparameter selection procedure, or provide paired significance tests; if the input/manifold choice is made on a validation set, report both configurations.
  3. [Tables 11 and 12; Sec. 5.2-5.3] Many of the headline improvements are within the reported standard deviations, and some comparisons are ties or favor the baseline. For example, Airfoil RMSE is CEMS 1.455±0.119 vs FOMA 1.471±0.047; Exchange-Rate RMSE is CEMS 0.014±0.001 vs FOMA 0.013±0.000; Electricity RMSE is a tie at 0.058 for both; and RCF average RMSE is CEMS 0.146±0.002 vs C-Mixup 0.146±0.005. With only three seeds, these differences are not statistically meaningful. The paper needs significance testing (e.g., paired bootstrap, confidence intervals, or a statement of the number of trials needed to differentiate the methods) before the claim of 'superior performance in both in-distribution and out-of-distribution scenarios' can be accepted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [App. D] The complexity analysis states 'l = d × (d + 1)/2 variables' for the linear system, omitting the d gradient unknowns; the correct count is d + d(d+1)/2. This is not just a typo because it obscures the underdetermination discussed in Sec. 6.
  2. [App. D] There are typos such as 'Ridgr-Regreession' and 'o par'; please proofread the appendix.
  3. [Table 12] The DTI average R for CEMS is reported as '5.110 ± 0.005' while Table 2 shows 0.511; this appears to be a decimal-point typo and should be corrected.
  4. [App. G.2, Table 6] The text says the estimators show 'strong agreement' and cites that all three return 10 for Crimes, but for NO2 the estimates are TwoNN=6, PH=1, MLE=4. Please clarify or correct this statement.
  5. [Sec. 4, Step 5] The main text says the system is solved via 'differentiable least squares,' while App. D says an underdetermined system is 'solved used Ridgr-Regreession.' Please specify which solver is actually used in the released code and in the reported experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: CEMS's benchmark claims are evaluated against external data; the self-cited FOMA baseline and the underdetermined Hessian are correctness risks, not reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The method estimates a local second-order model by solving the linear system G = ΨX in Eq. 6, where Ψ is built from projected neighbor coordinates and G from normal-space coordinates, and then samples new points via the Taylor map in Eq. 4. The predicted quantities are held-out RMSE/MAPE/R values on external benchmarks; no equation uses those target results as an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-cited FOMA baseline (Kaufman & Azencot 2024b) is used as a published comparison method and as a first-order special case, but CEMS's second-order extension is tested empirically against FOMA rather than assumed from it. The theoretical error bound (Theorem A.1) is quoted from Fowkes et al. 2013 and is standard Taylor remainder analysis, not a self-citation chain. The paper's own stated limitation that the Eq. 6 system may be underdetermined at the implemented constant neighbor count is an identifiability and robustness concern about the recovered Hessian, not a circularity: a minimum-norm or ridge-regularized solve would change the geometric interpretation of the augmentation, but the benchmark numbers are still produced by an independent train/test protocol. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method depends on the manifold hypothesis and on local coordinate assumptions inherited from CAML (Li 2018). The only method-specific tuned quantities are d (intrinsic dimension estimate), sigma (noise scale), and k (neighborhood/batch size); all three affect the quality of the second-order model. No new physical or architectural entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Intrinsic dimension d = Airfoil 3, NO2 6, Crimes 10, SkillCraft 12 (App G.2)
    Estimated by the TwoNN estimator; controls tangent-space dimension and the number of Hessian unknowns. Different estimators disagree (e.g., NO2: TwoNN=6, PH=1, MLE=4), so d is a tuned input.
  • Noise scale sigma = Per dataset, e.g., Airfoil 1e-4, NO2 0.2, RCF 0.01, DTI 1e-3
    Chosen by validation per dataset; controls the sampling radius in tangent space. Sensitivity is reported in App G.3.
  • Neighborhood size k (batch size) = 16, 32, or 64 depending on dataset
    Fixed to the training batch size; determines SVD neighborhood and whether Eq. 6 is over- or underdetermined.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The data lie on a low-dimensional smooth manifold in the joint input-output space z=[x,y]
    Invoked in Sec. 4 and Sec. 3.1; if labels do not vary smoothly with inputs on a single manifold, sampled pairs may be invalid.
  • domain assumption Euclidean k-nearest neighbors in ambient space approximate local intrinsic geometry
    Sec. 4, 'Neighborhood extraction'; assumes the manifold is smooth at the scale of the neighborhood.
  • domain assumption The normal coordinates g are a well-defined function of tangent coordinates u
    Sec. 3.2: 'we assume that g is a map from the tangent space to the normal space'; requires the local chart to be a graph over the tangent space.
  • standard math Taylor approximation error bounds for twice-differentiable maps with Lipschitz Hessian (Theorem A.1)
    App. A.1; correct for a known f, but CEMS uses estimated gradient/Hessian from finite noisy neighbors, so the bound does not directly apply.
  • domain assumption TwoNN intrinsic dimension estimate is accurate for each dataset
    App. G.2; PH and MLE disagree substantially on NO2, so d may be mis-specified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Curvature Enhanced Data Augmentation for Regression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64IAAK3J

@misc{pith2026250606853,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Curvature Enhanced Data Augmentation for Regression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64IAAK3J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06853}
}
read the original abstract

Deep learning models with a large number of parameters, often referred to as over-parameterized models, have achieved exceptional performance across various tasks. Despite concerns about overfitting, these models frequently generalize well to unseen data, thanks to effective regularization techniques, with data augmentation being among the most widely used. While data augmentation has shown great success in classification tasks using label-preserving transformations, its application in regression problems has received less attention. Recently, a novel \emph{manifold learning} approach for generating synthetic data was proposed, utilizing a first-order approximation of the data manifold. Building on this foundation, we present a theoretical framework and practical tools for approximating and sampling general data manifolds. Furthermore, we introduce the Curvature-Enhanced Manifold Sampling (CEMS) method for regression tasks. CEMS leverages a second-order representation of the data manifold to enable efficient sampling and reconstruction of new data points. Extensive evaluations across multiple datasets and comparisons with state-of-the-art methods demonstrate that CEMS delivers superior performance in both in-distribution and out-of-distribution scenarios, while introducing only minimal computational overhead. Code is available at https://github.com/azencot-group/CEMS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06853 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We demonstrate the effect of sampling from a one-dimensional manifold embedded in a two-dimensional space. A) The original data representing a sine wave where the color of each point represents the curvature at that point (brighter means higher curvature). B) Sampling using FOMA. C) Sampling using a first-order approximation. D) Sampling using CEMS (our approach). CutMix (Yun et al., 2019) implants a random rectangu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CEMS forms a neighborhood for every point z (left), computes a basis BTu for the tangent space via SVD (middle) while obtaining an estimate for the embedding f, samples a new point η close to u (right), and un-projects it back to R D using f (red arrow). choices. Pseudo-code and illustration of CEMS are given in Alg. 1 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the relative improvement in RMSE of CEMS over ERM. The graph demonstrates the effect of curvature, indicating minimal gains for nearly flat manifolds but substantial improvements for highly curved manifolds. These results emphasize the influence of data geometry on the performance of CEMS relative to ERM. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    CMU statlib dataset

    Aldrin, M. CMU statlib dataset . http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/datasets/, 2004

    2004

  3. [3]

    H., and Zoccolan, D

    Ansuini, A., Laio, A., Macke, J. H., and Zoccolan, D. Intrinsic dimension of data representations in deep neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    L., Kiros, J

    Ba, J. L., Kiros, J. R., and Hinton, G. E. Layer normalization. In NIPS, 2016

    2016

  5. [5]

    and Niyogi, P

    Belkin, M. and Niyogi, P. Laplacian eigenmaps for dimensionality reduction and data representation. Neural computation, 15 0 (6): 0 1373--1396, 2003

    2003

  6. [6]

    Berthelot, D., Carlini, N., Goodfellow, I., Papernot, N., Oliver, A., and Raffel, C. A. MixMatch : A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    J., and Simsekli, U

    Birdal, T., Lou, A., Guibas, L. J., and Simsekli, U. Intrinsic dimension, persistent homology and generalization in neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 0 6776--6789, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Skillcraft1 master table dataset

    Blair, M., Thompson, J., Henrey, A., and Chen, B. Skillcraft1 master table dataset. UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2013

    2013

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Airfoil Self-Noise

    Brooks, T., Pope, D., and Marcolini, M. Airfoil Self-Noise . UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    A survey of mix-based data augmentation: Taxonomy, methods, applications, and explainability

    Cao, C., Zhou, F., Dai, Y., and Wang, J. A survey of mix-based data augmentation: Taxonomy, methods, applications, and explainability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10888, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    and Allassonnière, S

    Chadebec, C. and Allassonnière, S. Data generation in low sample size setting using manifold sampling and a geometry-aware vae. CoRR, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Vicinal risk minimization

    Chapelle, O., Weston, J., Bottou, L., and Vapnik, V. Vicinal risk minimization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 13, 2000

    2000

  5. [13]

    Learning flat latent manifolds with VAEs

    Chen, N., Klushyn, A., Ferroni, F., Bayer, J., and van der Smagt, P. Learning flat latent manifolds with VAEs . In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML , volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp.\ 1587--1596. PMLR , 2020 a

    2020

  6. [14]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M., and Hinton, G. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 1597--1607. PMLR, 2020 b

    2020

  7. [15]

    Coifman, R. R. and Lafon, S. Diffusion maps. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 21: 0 5--30, July 2006

    2006

  8. [16]

    and Hart, P

    Cover, T. and Hart, P. Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE transactions on information theory, 13 0 (1): 0 21--27, 1967

    1967

  9. [17]

    D., Zoph, B., Mane, D., Vasudevan, V., and Le, Q

    Cubuk, E. D., Zoph, B., Mane, D., Vasudevan, V., and Le, Q. V. AutoAugment : Learning augmentation strategies from data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 113--123, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Trajectory-aware principal manifold framework for data augmentation and image generation

    Cui, E., Li, B., Li, Y., Wong, W., and Wang, D. Trajectory-aware principal manifold framework for data augmentation and image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07801, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Improved regularization of convolutional neural networks with cutout

    DeVries, T. Improved regularization of convolutional neural networks with cutout. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.04552, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Donoho, D. L. and Grimes, C. Hessian eigenmaps: Locally linear embedding techniques for high-dimensional data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100 0 (10): 0 5591--5596, 2003

    2003

  13. [21]

    Dunson, D. B. and Wu, N. Inferring manifolds from noisy data using gaussian processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07478, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    H., Xu, W., Utrera, F., Cao, Z., and Mahoney, M

    Erichson, B., Lim, S. H., Xu, W., Utrera, F., Cao, Z., and Mahoney, M. NoisyMix : Boosting model robustness to common corruptions. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 4033--4041. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Estimating the intrinsic dimension of datasets by a minimal neighborhood information

    Facco, E., d’Errico, M., Rodriguez, A., and Laio, A. Estimating the intrinsic dimension of datasets by a minimal neighborhood information. Scientific reports, 7 0 (1): 0 12140, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    and Levin, D

    Faigenbaum-Golovin, S. and Levin, D. Manifold reconstruction and denoising from scattered data in high dimension via a generalization of l1-median. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12546, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Y., Gangal, V., Wei, J., Chandar, S., Vosoughi, S., Mitamura, T., and Hovy, E

    Feng, S. Y., Gangal, V., Wei, J., Chandar, S., Vosoughi, S., Mitamura, T., and Hovy, E. H. A survey of data augmentation approaches for NLP . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP , volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of Findings of ACL , pp.\ 968--988. A...

    2021

  18. [26]

    M., Gould, N

    Fowkes, J. M., Gould, N. I., and Farmer, C. L. A branch and bound algorithm for the global optimization of hessian lipschitz continuous functions. Journal of Global Optimization, 56: 0 1791--1815, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Hyperbolic feature augmentation via distribution estimation and infinite sampling on manifolds

    Gao, Z., Wu, Y., Jia, Y., and Harandi, M. Hyperbolic feature augmentation via distribution estimation and infinite sampling on manifolds. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 0 34421--34435, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Deep learning, 2016

    Goodfellow, I. Deep learning, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., and Bengio, Y

    Goodfellow, I. J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., and Bengio, Y. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    and Procaccia, I

    Grassberger, P. and Procaccia, I. Characterization of strange attractors. Physical review letters, 50 0 (5): 0 346, 1983

    1983

  23. [31]

    H., Gu, A., Yurochkin, M., Solomon, J., and Chien, E

    Greenewald, K. H., Gu, A., Yurochkin, M., Solomon, J., and Chien, E. k-Mixup regularization for deep learning via optimal transport. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Mixup as locally linear out-of-manifold regularization

    Guo, H., Mao, Y., and Zhang, R. Mixup as locally linear out-of-manifold regularization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pp.\ 3714--3722, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., and Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In CVPR, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    D., Zoph, B., Gilmer, J., and Lakshminarayanan, B

    Hendrycks, D., Mu, N., Cubuk, E. D., Zoph, B., Gilmer, J., and Lakshminarayanan, B. AugMix : A simple data processing method to improve robustness and uncertainty. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR , 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L., and Weinberger, K. Q. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 4700--4708, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    W., Xiao, C., Sun, J., and Zitnik, M

    Huang, K., Fu, T., Gao, W., Zhao, Y., Roohani, Y., Leskovec, J., Coley, C. W., Xiao, C., Sun, J., and Zitnik, M. Therapeutics data commons: Machine learning datasets and tasks for drug discovery and development. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track...

    2021

  29. [37]

    I., Balestriero, R., and Baraniuk, R

    Humayun, A. I., Balestriero, R., and Baraniuk, R. Magnet: Uniform sampling from deep generative network manifolds without retraining. In The International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) 2022, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    and Whang, S

    Hwang, S.-H. and Whang, S. E. Regmix: Data mixing augmentation for regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.03374, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hwang, S.-H., Kim, M., and Whang, S. E. RC-Mixup : A data augmentation strategy against noisy data for regression tasks. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp.\ 1155--1165, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    and Szegedy, C

    Ioffe, S. and Szegedy, C. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In ICML, 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Matrix backpropagation for deep networks with structured layers

    Ionescu, C., Vantzos, O., and Sminchisescu, C. Matrix backpropagation for deep networks with structured layers. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pp.\ 2965--2973, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    R-mixup: Riemannian mixup for biological networks

    Kan, X., Li, Z., Cui, H., Yu, Y., Xu, R., Yu, S., Zhang, Z., Guo, Y., and Yang, C. R-mixup: Riemannian mixup for biological networks. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp.\ 1073--1085, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    and Azencot, O

    Kaufman, I. and Azencot, O. Data representations’ study of latent image manifolds. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 15928--15945. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    and Azencot, O

    Kaufman, I. and Azencot, O. Analyzing deep transformer models for time series forecasting via manifold learning. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2024 a

    2024

  37. [45]

    and Azencot, O

    Kaufman, I. and Azencot, O. First-order manifold data augmentation for regression learning. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML , 2024 b

    2024

  38. [46]

    Kingma, D. P. and Welling, M. Auto-encoding variational bayes. In 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR , 2014

    2014

  39. [47]

    Contextual augmentation: Data augmentation by words with paradigmatic relations

    Kobayashi, S. Contextual augmentation: Data augmentation by words with paradigmatic relations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pp.\ 452--...

    2018

  40. [48]

    W., Sagawa, S., Marklund, H., Xie, S

    Koh, P. W., Sagawa, S., Marklund, H., Xie, S. M., Zhang, M., Balsubramani, A., Hu, W., Yasunaga, M., Phillips, R. L., Gao, I., et al. Wilds: A benchmark of in-the-wild distribution shifts. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 5637--5664. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Hinton, G. E. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In NIPS, 2012

    2012

  42. [50]

    Modeling long-and short-term temporal patterns with deep neural networks

    Lai, G., Chang, W.-C., Yang, Y., and Liu, H. Modeling long-and short-term temporal patterns with deep neural networks. In The 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval, pp.\ 95--104, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    Lee, J. M. Smooth manifolds. Springer, 2012

    2012

  44. [52]

    Lee, J. M. Introduction to Riemannian manifolds, volume 2. Springer, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    and Bickel, P

    Levina, E. and Bickel, P. Maximum likelihood estimation of intrinsic dimension. Advances in neural information processing systems, 17, 2004

    2004

  46. [54]

    Li, D., Mukhopadhyay, M., and Dunson, D. B. Efficient manifold approximation with spherelets. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 84 0 (4): 0 1129--1149, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Characterizing submanifold region for out-of-distribution detection

    Li, X., Fang, Z., Zhang, Y., Ma, N., Bu, J., Han, B., and Wang, H. Characterizing submanifold region for out-of-distribution detection. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Curvature-aware manifold learning

    Li, Y. Curvature-aware manifold learning. Pattern Recognition, 83: 0 273--286, 2018

    2018

  49. [57]

    Fast AutoAugment

    Lim, S., Kim, I., Kim, T., Kim, C., and Kim, S. Fast AutoAugment . Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    H., Erichson, N

    Lim, S. H., Erichson, N. B., Utrera, F., Xu, W., and Mahoney, M. W. Noisy feature mixup. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR , 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Long, J., Shelhamer, E., and Darrell, T. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 2015

    2015

  52. [60]

    E., Zhou, S., Erfani, S., Xia, S., Wijewickrema, S., and Bailey, J

    Ma, X., Wang, Y., Houle, M. E., Zhou, S., Erfani, S., Xia, S., Wijewickrema, S., and Bailey, J. Dimensionality-driven learning with noisy labels. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 3355--3364. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  53. [61]

    A., Veness, J., Bellemare, M

    Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Rusu, A. A., Veness, J., Bellemare, M. G., Graves, A., Riedmiller, M. A., Fidjeland, A., Ostrovski, G., Petersen, S., Beattie, C., Sadik, A., Antonoglou, I., King, H., Kumaran, D., Wierstra, D., Legg, S., and Hassabis, D. Human-level cont...

    2015

  54. [62]

    Utilizing image transforms and diffusion models for generative modeling of short and long time series

    Naiman, I., Berman, N., Pemper, I., Arbiv, I., Fadlon, G., and Azencot, O. Utilizing image transforms and diffusion models for generative modeling of short and long time series. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38: NeurIPS, 2024 a

    2024

  55. [63]

    B., Ren, P., Mahoney, M

    Naiman, I., Erichson, N. B., Ren, P., Mahoney, M. W., and Azencot, O. Generative modeling of regular and irregular time series data via Koopman VAEs . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR , 2024 b

    2024

  56. [64]

    and Han, B

    Nam, H. and Han, B. Learning multi-domain convolutional neural networks for visual tracking. In CVPR, 2016

    2016

  57. [65]

    and Azencot, O

    Nochumsohn, L. and Azencot, O. Data augmentation policy search for long-term forecasting. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2025

    2025

  58. [66]

    Learning deconvolution network for semantic segmentation

    Noh, H., Hong, S., and Han, B. Learning deconvolution network for semantic segmentation. In ICCV, 2015

    2015

  59. [67]

    O zt \"u rk, H., \

    \"O zt \"u rk, H., \"O zg \"u r, A., and Ozkirimli, E. DeepDTA : deep drug--target binding affinity prediction. Bioinformatics, 34 0 (17): 0 i821--i829, 2018

    2018

  60. [68]

    S., Chan, W., Zhang, Y., Chiu, C., Zoph, B., Cubuk, E

    Park, D. S., Chan, W., Zhang, Y., Chiu, C., Zoph, B., Cubuk, E. D., and Le, Q. V. SpecAugment : A simple data augmentation method for automatic speech recognition. In 20th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Interspeech, pp.\ 2613--2617. IS...

    2019

  61. [69]

    K., Girshick, R

    Redmon, J., Divvala, S. K., Girshick, R. B., and Farhadi, A. You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR , pp.\ 779--788, 2016

    2016

  62. [70]

    Communities and Crime

    Redmond, M. Communities and Crime . UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2009

    2009

  63. [71]

    and Saul, L

    Roweis, S. and Saul, L. Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding. Science, 290 0 (5500): 0 2323--2326, 2000

    2000

  64. [72]

    Anchor data augmentation

    Schneider, N., Goshtasbpour, S., and Perez-Cruz, F. Anchor data augmentation. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  65. [73]

    and Khoshgoftaar, T

    Shorten, C. and Khoshgoftaar, T. M. A survey on image data augmentation for deep learning. Journal of big data, 6 0 (1): 0 1--48, 2019

    2019

  66. [74]

    and Zisserman, A

    Simonyan, K. and Zisserman, A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR , 2015

    2015

  67. [75]

    and Wu, H.-T

    Singer, A. and Wu, H.-T. Vector diffusion maps and the connection laplacian. Communications on pure and applied mathematics, 65 0 (8): 0 1067--1144, 2012

    2012

  68. [76]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Sohl-Dickstein, J., Weiss, E., Maheswaranathan, N., and Ganguli, S. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 2256--2265. pmlr, 2015

    2015

  69. [77]

    Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting

    Srivastava, N., Hinton, G., Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Salakhutdinov, R. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The journal of machine learning research, 15 0 (1): 0 1929--1958, 2014

    1929

  70. [78]

    A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction

    Tenenbaum, J., de Silva, V., and Langford, J. A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. Science, 290 0 (5500): 0 2319--2323, 2000

    2000

  71. [79]

    Principles of risk minimization for learning theory

    Vapnik, V. Principles of risk minimization for learning theory. Advances in neural information processing systems, 4, 1991

    1991

  72. [80]

    Manifold mixup: Better representations by interpolating hidden states

    Verma, V., Lamb, A., Beckham, C., Najafi, A., Mitliagkas, I., Lopez-Paz, D., and Bengio, Y. Manifold mixup: Better representations by interpolating hidden states. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2019

    2019

  73. [81]

    Show and tell: A neural image caption generator

    Vinyals, O., Toshev, A., Bengio, S., and Erhan, D. Show and tell: A neural image caption generator. In CVPR, 2015

    2015

  74. [82]

    and Saul, L

    Weinberger, K. and Saul, L. Unsupervised learning of image manifolds by semidefinite programming. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), volume 2, pp.\ 988--995, 2004

    2004

  75. [83]

    V., Norouzi, M., Macherey, W., Krikun, M., Cao, Y., Gao, Q., Macherey, K., et al

    Wu, Y., Schuster, M., Chen, Z., Le, Q. V., Norouzi, M., Macherey, W., Krikun, M., Cao, Y., Gao, Q., Macherey, K., et al. Google’s neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08144, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Image data augmentation for deep learning: A survey

    Yang, S., Xiao, W., Zhang, M., Guo, S., Zhao, J., and Shen, F. Image data augmentation for deep learning: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.08610, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    C-mixup: Improving generalization in regression

    Yao, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, L., Zou, J., and Finn, C. C-mixup: Improving generalization in regression. In Proceeding of the Thirty-Sixth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  78. [86]

    J., Chun, S., Choe, J., and Yoo, Y

    Yun, S., Han, D., Oh, S. J., Chun, S., Choe, J., and Yoo, Y. Cutmix: Regularization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp.\ 6023--6032, 2019

    2019

  79. [87]

    N., and Lopez - Paz, D

    Zhang, H., Ciss \' e , M., Dauphin, Y. N., and Lopez - Paz, D. mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR , 2018

    2018

  80. [88]

    and Zha, H

    Zhang, Z. and Zha, H. Principal manifolds and nonlinear dimension reduction via local tangent space alignment. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 26 0 (1): 0 313--338, 2005

    2005

  81. [89]

    Random erasing data augmentation

    Zhong, Z., Zheng, L., Kang, G., Li, S., and Yang, Y. Random erasing data augmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pp.\ 13001--13008, 2020

    2020

  82. [90]

    LDMNet : Low dimensional manifold regularized neural networks

    Zhu, W., Qiu, Q., Huang, J., Calderbank, R., Sapiro, G., and Daubechies, I. LDMNet : Low dimensional manifold regularized neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 2743--2751, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.