Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Label Distribution Learning using the Squared Neural Family on the Probability Simplex

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tractable distribution over label distributions, with closed-form moments, brings uncertainty quantification to label distribution learning.

desk verdict New tractable family on the simplex with closed-form moments; the theory is clean, but the training objective silently assumes positive label components and needs a boundary fix before the empirical claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07324 v2 pith:6EJYE5K6 submitted 2024-12-10 cs.LG

Daokun Zhang , Russell Tsuchida , Dino Sejdinovic This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords labeldistributionlearningsquaredneuralfamilyprobabilitysimplexuncertaintyquantificationclosed-formmomentsconformalpredictionactiveensemble
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

Label distribution learning (LDL) predicts a distribution over classes for each sample, but existing methods return only a single point estimate on the simplex. This paper argues that the right object is a distribution over all possible label distributions, and that the squared neural family (SNEFY) can provide it tractably when restricted to the simplex with an exponential activation and a logarithmic sufficient statistic. The central payoff is Theorem 3: closed-form conditional mean, variance, and covariance for each label's composition ratio, so the fitted model can be summarized and used for uncertainty quantification without sampling. The paper demonstrates the utility on conformal prediction, active learning, and ensemble learning, where SNEFY-LDL outperforms point-estimation baselines and a unimodal Dirichlet model.

What carries the argument

The central object is the squared neural family (SNEFY) restricted to the probability simplex: $P(d\ell|x) \propto \|V\sigma(W_1 \log \ell + W_2 t_2(x) + b)\|^2 d\ell$. The argument is carried by the closed-form kernel integral in Eq. (9), which evaluates $\int_{\Delta^{L-1}} \prod_l (\ell_l)^{w_{1il}+w_{1jl}} d\ell$ as the Dirichlet-type ratio $\prod_l \Gamma(1+w_{1il}+w_{1jl}) / \Gamma(L+\sum_l (w_{1il}+w_{1jl}))$. This identity, combined with the corresponding Dirichlet moments, yields the mean, variance, and covariance formulas of Theorem 3; the constraint $W_1 > -1/2$ keeps all Dirichlet parameters positive.

What would settle it

Train SNEFY-LDL exactly as described on a standard LDL dataset that contains a label distribution with a zero component (for instance, an emotion absent from a facial-expression label vector). If the training objective in Eq. (16) is evaluated at that sample, $\log 0$ is undefined and the density in Eq. (5) is not defined, so the published results can only be reproduced with an unstated preprocessing step; checking the released code for such a step would settle whether the modeling claim extends to the closed simplex or only to its interior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SNEFY-LDL models the conditional law $P(d\ell|x)$ of the label distribution vector $\ell \in \Delta^{L-1}$ as a squared neural family distribution on the simplex, with exponential activation, sufficient statistic $t_1(\ell)=(\log \ell_{y_1},\dots,\log \ell_{y_L})$, and Lebesgue base measure. Under the elementwise constraint $W_1 > -1/2$, the kernel function integrates in closed form to a Dirichlet-type gamma ratio (Theorem 2), giving a tractable normalizing constant. Theorem 3 then provides closed-form expressions for $\mathbb{E}[\ell_{y_r}|x]$, $\mathrm{Var}[\ell_{y_r}|x]$, and $\mathrm{Cov}[\ell_{y_r},\ell_{y_s}|x]$ as ratios of Hadamard products of the kernel matrix with moment matrices $F$, $G$, and $H$. This turns the fitted probabilistic model into an immediate source of prediction, confidence intervals, and label-correlation estimates, without Monte Carlo.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes every training label distribution has strictly positive components, because the sufficient statistic is the logarithm of each label proportion and the density is evaluated at the observed $\ell$; the paper gives no smoothing or boundary handling for zero proportions, yet real LDL datasets often contain them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Given a fitted model, per-label means, variances, and covariances for a new input $x$ are available in closed form in $O(mn^2 + Ln^2 + dD_2 + D_2^2)$ time, enabling real-time uncertainty quantification without sampling.
  • The variance can be combined with Chebyshev's inequality and conformal calibration to give instance-adaptive confidence intervals for each label's composition ratio.
  • The model's differential entropy, estimated by importance sampling, can drive max-entropy active learning, selecting the most informative unlabeled samples.
  • Base learner predictions in an ensemble can be weighted by their SNEFY-LDL density, yielding instance-wise ensemble weighting that outperforms uniform averaging in the paper's experiments.
  • Because the conditional distribution is a full density, the same fitted model supports reliability evaluation of a prediction via direct density values.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The Dirichlet-integral trick suggests SNEFY-LDL is essentially a mixture of Dirichlet-type components indexed by pairs of hidden units, so the closed-form moment formulas extend to any function whose Dirichlet expectation is known, such as entropy or cross-label moment bounds.
  • The strict positivity assumption could be relaxed by replacing $\log \ell$ with $\log(\ell+\varepsilon)$ or by choosing a Dirichlet base measure, a modification that would make the model applicable to compositional data with zeros; the paper does not explore this.
  • The instance-wise density weighting for ensembles points toward a broader principle: the same model could score any candidate label distribution, not just base-learner outputs, opening a route to rejection or calibration of arbitrary LDL predictions.
  • If the closed-form moments are as accurate as claimed, they also provide a cheap initialization or regularizer for other simplex-valued models, since they give an analytic objective on the simplex without sampling.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SNEFY-LDL, a conditional distribution model over label distribution vectors on the probability simplex, built on the squared neural family (SNEFY). With sufficient statistic t1(ℓ)=log ℓ, exponential activation, and Lebesgue base measure, the model obtains a closed-form normalizing constant (Theorem 2) and closed-form conditional mean, variance, and covariance (Theorem 3). Training is done by maximum likelihood (Eq. 16) with weight clipping to enforce W1 > -1/2. The paper reports experiments on conformal prediction, active learning, and ensemble learning across four LDL datasets, claiming that the closed-form moments enable instance-wise uncertainty quantification without sampling.

Significance. If the training procedure is well-defined, the contribution is useful: SNEFY-LDL moves beyond point estimation of label distributions to a full conditional distribution over the simplex, and the closed-form moments make uncertainty quantification cheap and instance-specific. The derivations in Theorems 2 and 3 are transparent and internally consistent, and the paper includes a code release and a parameter sensitivity study, which strengthen reproducibility. The main risk is that the maximum-likelihood objective, as stated, is undefined on boundary label vectors, which is a load-bearing gap for the experimental claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5, Eq. (16) and Algorithm 1] The MLE objective in Eq. (16) evaluates the conditional density at each observed label distribution ℓ_x′ through t1(ℓ)=log ℓ. If any component of an observed ℓ_x′ is zero, log is undefined; moreover, for ℓ_l→0 the unnormalized kernel in Eq. (6) behaves as ∏_l ℓ_l^{w1_il+w1_jl}, which can be zero, infinite, or undefined at the boundary. The paper states no assumption that all observed label distributions lie in the open simplex, and it describes no ε-smoothing or boundary-avoiding preprocessing. The benchmark datasets in Table 1, especially SJAFFE and SBU_3DFE, are facial-expression LDL datasets where zero label proportions are plausible, and the paper gives no reason to exclude them. The same boundary problem affects the ensemble weighting in Algorithm A4, which evaluates the density at base-learner predictions. This makes the training objective not well-defined on standard LDL data as presented. Please state and justify an explicit positivity assumption or a preprocessing step, or modify the model and objective to handle zero components; if the released code already implements smoothing, that must be described in the manuscript.
  2. [§6.1, Tables 2–3] The Dirichlet baseline is specified only as 'modeling the distribution ... using a Dirichlet distribution centered at the point prediction.' A Dirichlet distribution is determined by L concentration parameters; centering fixes their ratios but not their scale, and the scale controls the variance and hence the conformal interval width, coverage, and the resulting FSC scores. The manuscript does not state how the concentration parameters are estimated or set. Without this information the comparison is not reproducible, and the claimed greater adaptivity of SNEFY-LDL over the Dirichlet baseline is not established. The same underspecification applies to the Dirichlet active-learning baseline in §6.2.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§6.3] The text says 'SEU_3DFE' but the dataset is called 'SBU_3DFE' in Table 6 and elsewhere; please unify the spelling.
  2. [Table 4 and Appendix B.2] The dataset is called 'Motive' in Table 4 and Appendix B.2 but 'Movie' in Section 6.2, Table 1, and Table 5; please use a consistent name.
  3. [Table 7] The header contains 'Clarky↓' where it should read 'Clark↓'.
  4. [Figure A1(d)] The horizontal axis is labeled 'bit_size' instead of 'bin_size'.
  5. [Appendix A, proof of Theorem 2] The equality ∫_{Δ^{L-1}} ∏_l ℓ_l^{w1_il+w1_jl} dℓ = B(α) holds over the open simplex; please use consistent notation distinguishing the open simplex from the closed simplex Δ^{L-1} throughout the paper.
  6. [Algorithm A2] Differential entropy is estimated by importance sampling with a uniform proposal; no effective sample size or variance diagnostics are reported, so the reliability of the entropy estimates used for active learning is unclear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the closed-form moments are model summaries, the SNEFY citation is an independent prior result, and the experiments use external held-out benchmarks.

full rationale

SNEFY-LDL defines the conditional distribution P(dℓ|x; V, Θ) in Eq. (5) as a normalized squared neural network over the simplex. Theorem 2 is a direct calculation of the normalizing constant: with t1(ℓ)=log ℓ, σ=exp, and µ1(dℓ)=dℓ, the integrand is ∏_l ℓ_l^{w1_il+w1_jl}, whose integral over the simplex is the standard Dirichlet beta constant. Theorem 3 similarly computes E[ϕ(ℓ)|x] by expressing the numerator as KΘ(x) times a Dirichlet expectation and using the standard closed-form Dirichlet moments. The resulting formulas (10)–(15) are posterior summaries of the fitted model, not predictions forced by the data or by the objective; deriving moments of a fitted probability model is a legitimate summarization step, not circularity. The only self-citation is Theorem 1 of Tsuchida et al. (NeurIPS 2023), whose authors overlap with two of the present authors. That theorem is stated with its own assumptions (product base measure and additive sufficient statistic), does not assume any LDL-specific result, and is a published external derivation; invoking it is ordinary use of prior work rather than a reduction of the present claim to its own input. The conformal prediction experiments calibrate on a separated calibration set and evaluate on test data against a Dirichlet baseline; the active learning and ensemble protocols compare fixed strategies on held-out test sets and do not define the reported metrics in terms of the fitted model. The open boundary issue concerning log ℓ at zero label proportions is a correctness or well-posedness concern about the MLE, not a circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical claim rests on the SNEFY conditional theorem and standard Dirichlet integral identities; empirically, many hyperparameters are chosen by hand. The critical unstated input is the strict positivity of label distribution components, needed for the log statistic and MLE.

free parameters (10)
  • n = 64
    Hidden width of the SNEFY network; chosen by hand in all experiments.
  • m = 32
    Readout dimension; chosen by hand.
  • D2 = 64
    Dimension of the input feature embedding t2; set equal to n.
  • batch_size = 64 (conformal), 16 (active/ensemble)
    Training batch size; chosen by hand per experiment family.
  • epochs = 100
    Number of training epochs; chosen by hand.
  • Niter = 1000
    Importance sampling iterations for differential entropy estimation in active learning (Algorithm A2).
  • Ninitial = 400
    Size of the initial labeled pool in active learning.
  • Nquery = 100
    Number of samples queried in active learning.
  • Nsample = 50
    Number of samples used to train each base learner in ensemble learning.
  • Nbase = 25
    Number of base learners in ensemble learning.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Theorem 1 of Tsuchida et al. (2023): the conditional distribution of a SNEFY model is again SNEFY.
    Invoked in Section 5 to construct P(dℓ|x) from the joint model; accepted without proof.
  • standard math Dirichlet integral identity: ∫_{Δ^{L-1}} ∏ ℓ_l^{α_l-1} dℓ = ∏ Γ(α_l) / Γ(Σ α_l), with α_l > 0.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 2 to evaluate the kernel K_Θ(x) in closed form.
  • domain assumption W1 > -1/2 elementwise, enforced by weight clipping.
    Required for α_l = w1il + w1jl + 1 > 0 so the Dirichlet integral and moments are finite; stated in Theorem 2 and in the implementation details.
  • ad hoc to paper Training label distribution vectors have strictly positive components, or are preprocessed to be positive, so t1 = log ℓ and the point-evaluated density in Eq. (16) are well-defined.
    Implicit and unstated; necessary for MLE with the log statistic, and problematic for datasets with zero label proportions. This is the weakest assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Label Distribution Learning using the Squared Neural Family on the Probability Simplex." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6EJYE5K6

@misc{pith2026241207324,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Label Distribution Learning using the Squared Neural Family on the Probability Simplex},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6EJYE5K6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07324}
}
read the original abstract

Label distribution learning (LDL) provides a framework wherein a distribution over categories rather than a single category is predicted, with the aim of addressing ambiguity in labeled data. Existing research on LDL mainly focuses on the task of point estimation, i.e., finding an optimal distribution in the probability simplex conditioned on the given sample. In this paper, we propose a novel label distribution learning model SNEFY-LDL, which estimates a probability distribution of all possible label distributions over the simplex, by unleashing the expressive power of the recently introduced Squared Neural Family (SNEFY), a new class of tractable probability models. As a way to summarize the fitted model, we derive the closed-form label distribution mean, variance and covariance conditioned on the given sample, which can be used to predict the ground-truth label distributions, construct label distribution confidence intervals, and measure the correlations between different labels. Moreover, more information about the label distribution prediction uncertainties can be acquired from the modeled probability density function. Extensive experiments on conformal prediction, active learning and ensemble learning are conducted, verifying SNEFY-LDL's great effectiveness in LDL uncertainty quantification. The source code of this paper is available at https://github.com/daokunzhang/SNEFY-LDL.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty quantification

    Anastasios N Angelopoulos and Stephen Bates. A gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty quantification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07511, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Wasserstein generative adversarial networks

    Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and L \'e on Bottou. Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 214--223. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Bagging predictors

    Leo Breiman. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning, 24: 0 123--140, 1996

    1996

  4. [4]

    Label distribution learning on auxiliary label space graphs for facial expression recognition

    Shikai Chen, Jianfeng Wang, Yuedong Chen, Zhongchao Shi, Xin Geng, and Yong Rui. Label distribution learning on auxiliary label space graphs for facial expression recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13984--13993, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Elements of Information Theory

    Thomas M Cover. Elements of Information Theory. John Wiley & Sons, 1999

    1999

  6. [6]

    Ralf: A reinforced active learning formulation for object class recognition

    Sandra Ebert, Mario Fritz, and Bernt Schiele. Ralf: A reinforced active learning formulation for object class recognition. In 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3626--3633. IEEE, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Label distribution learning

    Xin Geng. Label distribution learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 28 0 (7): 0 1734--1748, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Pre-release prediction of crowd opinion on movies by label distribution learning

    Xin Geng and Peng Hou. Pre-release prediction of crowd opinion on movies by label distribution learning. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 3511--3517. Citeseer, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Facial age estimation by learning from label distributions

    Xin Geng, Chao Yin, and Zhi-Hua Zhou. Facial age estimation by learning from label distributions. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 35 0 (10): 0 2401--2412, 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    Decomposition-fusion for label distribution learning

    Manuel Gonz \'a lez, Germ \'a n Gonz \'a lez-Almagro, Isaac Triguero, Jos \'e -Ram \'o n Cano, and Salvador Garc \' a. Decomposition-fusion for label distribution learning. Information Fusion, 66: 0 64--75, 2021 a

    2021

  3. [11]

    Synthetic sample generation for label distribution learning

    Manuel Gonz \'a lez, Juli \'a n Luengo, Jos \'e -Ram \'o n Cano, and Salvador Garc \' a. Synthetic sample generation for label distribution learning. Information Sciences, 544: 0 197--213, 2021 b

    2021

  4. [12]

    Compositional data analysis

    Michael Greenacre. Compositional data analysis. Annual Review of Statistics and its Application, 8 0 (1): 0 271--299, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Probability and Random Processes

    Geoffrey Grimmett and David Stirzaker. Probability and Random Processes. Oxford university press, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Geometric Approximation Algorithms

    Sariel Har-Peled. Geometric Approximation Algorithms. Number 173. American Mathematical Soc., 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    Generative calibration of inaccurate annotation for label distribution learning

    Liang He, Yunan Lu, Weiwei Li, and Xiuyi Jia. Generative calibration of inaccurate annotation for label distribution learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 12394--12401, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Learning urban region representations with pois and hierarchical graph infomax

    Weiming Huang, Daokun Zhang, Gengchen Mai, Xu Guo, and Lizhen Cui. Learning urban region representations with pois and hierarchical graph infomax. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 196: 0 134--145, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Label distribution learning with label correlations on local samples

    Xiuyi Jia, Zechao Li, Xiang Zheng, Weiwei Li, and Sheng-Jun Huang. Label distribution learning with label correlations on local samples. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 33 0 (4): 0 1619--1631, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Adaptive weighted ranking-oriented label distribution learning

    Xiuyi Jia, Tian Qin, Yunan Lu, and Weiwei Li. Adaptive weighted ranking-oriented label distribution learning. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2023 a

    2023

  11. [19]

    Label distribution learning by maintaining label ranking relation

    Xiuyi Jia, Xiaoxia Shen, Weiwei Li, Yunan Lu, and Jihua Zhu. Label distribution learning by maintaining label ranking relation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35 0 (2): 0 1695--1707, 2023 b

    2023

  12. [20]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Bayesian estimates of equation system parameters: an application of integration by monte carlo

    Teun Kloek and Herman K Van Dijk. Bayesian estimates of equation system parameters: an application of integration by monte carlo. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 1--19, 1978

    1978

  14. [22]

    Deep neural decision forests

    Peter Kontschieder, Madalina Fiterau, Antonio Criminisi, and Samuel Rota Bulo. Deep neural decision forests. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1467--1475, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms

    David JC MacKay. Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2003

    2003

  16. [24]

    A comparison of algorithms for maximum entropy parameter estimation

    Robert Malouf. A comparison of algorithms for maximum entropy parameter estimation. In International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 2002

    2002

  17. [25]

    A learning law for density estimation

    Dharmendra S Modha and Yeshaiahu Fainman. A learning law for density estimation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 5 0 (3): 0 519--523, 1994

    1994

  18. [26]

    Dirichlet and Related Distributions: Theory, Methods and Applications

    Kai Wang Ng, Guo-Liang Tian, and Man-Lai Tang. Dirichlet and Related Distributions: Theory, Methods and Applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Numerical Optimization

    Jorge Nocedal and Stephen J Wright. Numerical Optimization. Springer, 1999

    1999

  20. [28]

    Computational Geometry: An Introduction

    Franco P Preparata and Michael I Shamos. Computational Geometry: An Introduction. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Active learning for convolutional neural networks: A core-set approach

    Ozan Sener and Silvio Savarese. Active learning for convolutional neural networks: A core-set approach. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Label distribution learning forests

    Wei Shen, Kai Zhao, Yilu Guo, and Alan L Yuille. Label distribution learning forests. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Learning emphasis selection for written text in visual media from crowd-sourced label distributions

    Amirreza Shirani, Franck Dernoncourt, Paul Asente, Nedim Lipka, Seokhwan Kim, Jose Echevarria, and Thamar Solorio. Learning emphasis selection for written text in visual media from crowd-sourced label distributions. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for C...

    2019

  24. [32]

    Squared neural families: a new class of tractable density models

    Russell Tsuchida, Cheng Soon Ong, and Dino Sejdinovic. Squared neural families: a new class of tractable density models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Convolutional Neural Networks in Visual Computing: A Concise Guide

    Ragav Venkatesan and Baoxin Li. Convolutional Neural Networks in Visual Computing: A Concise Guide. CRC Press, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Classification with label distribution learning

    Jing Wang and Xin Geng. Classification with label distribution learning. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 1, page 2, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Label distribution learning machine

    Jing Wang and Xin Geng. Label distribution learning machine. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10749--10759. PMLR, 2021 a

    2021

  29. [37]

    Learn the highest label and rest label description degrees

    Jing Wang and Xin Geng. Learn the highest label and rest label description degrees. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 3097--3103, 2021 b

    2021

  30. [38]

    Ordinal label distribution learning

    Changsong Wen, Xin Zhang, Xingxu Yao, and Jufeng Yang. Ordinal label distribution learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 23481--23491, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Joint acne image grading and counting via label distribution learning

    Xiaoping Wu, Ni Wen, Jie Liang, Yu-Kun Lai, Dongyu She, Ming-Ming Cheng, and Jufeng Yang. Joint acne image grading and counting via label distribution learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 10642--10651, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Top 10 algorithms in data mining

    Xindong Wu, Vipin Kumar, J Ross Quinlan, Joydeep Ghosh, Qiang Yang, Hiroshi Motoda, Geoffrey J McLachlan, Angus Ng, Bing Liu, Philip S Yu, et al. Top 10 algorithms in data mining. Knowledge and Information Systems, 14: 0 1--37, 2008

    2008

  33. [41]

    Rankmatch: A novel approach to semi-supervised label distribution learning leveraging inter-label correlations

    Kouzhiqiang Yucheng Xie, Jing Wang, Yuheng Jia, Boyu Shi, and Xin Geng. Rankmatch: A novel approach to semi-supervised label distribution learning leveraging inter-label correlations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06343, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Head pose estimation using improved label distribution learning with fewer annotations

    Luhui Xu, Jingying Chen, and Yanling Gan. Head pose estimation using improved label distribution learning with fewer annotations. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 78: 0 19141--19162, 2019 a

    2019

  35. [43]

    Incomplete label distribution learning

    Miao Xu and Zhi-Hua Zhou. Incomplete label distribution learning. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 3175--3181, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Label enhancement for label distribution learning

    Ning Xu, Yun-Peng Liu, and Xin Geng. Label enhancement for label distribution learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 33 0 (4): 0 1632--1643, 2019 b

    2019

  37. [45]

    Variational label enhancement

    Ning Xu, Jun Shu, Yun-Peng Liu, and Xin Geng. Variational label enhancement. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10597--10606. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Learning visual sentiment distributions via augmented conditional probability neural network

    Jufeng Yang, Ming Sun, and Xiaoxiao Sun. Learning visual sentiment distributions via augmented conditional probability neural network. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 31, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    A comparative survey of deep active learning

    Xueying Zhan, Qingzhong Wang, Kuan-hao Huang, Haoyi Xiong, Dejing Dou, and Antoni B Chan. A comparative survey of deep active learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13450, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Diverse mini-batch active learning

    Fedor Zhdanov. Diverse mini-batch active learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.05954, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Label information bottleneck for label enhancement

    Qinghai Zheng, Jihua Zhu, and Haoyu Tang. Label information bottleneck for label enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7497--7506, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.