Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 34 references

LTCXNet: Advancing Chest X-Ray Analysis with Solutions for Long-Tailed Multi-Label Classification and Fairness Challenges

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LTCXNet, a ConvNeXt-plus-ML-Decoder ensemble, raises average precision on a long-tailed chest X-ray benchmark from 0.351 to 0.377, with rare-class detection gains up to 79%.

desk verdict Read this one for its honest ablations; the fairness section needs a fix before you trust any of its claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10746 v1 pith:I23ZQWFM submitted 2024-11-16 cs.CV cs.AI

Chin-Wei Huang , Mu-Yi Shen , Kuan-Chang Shih , Shih-Chih Lin , Chi-Yu Chen , Po-Chih Kuo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords chestX-rayclassificationlong-tailedmulti-labelConvNeXtML-Decoderensemblelearningequalityofopportunitymedicalimaging
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 sets out to show that a deliberately assembled pipeline—ConvNeXt-small as the backbone, ML-Decoder as the classification head, traditional image augmentations, and a head/tail/all ensemble—improves multi-label chest X-ray classification on the Pruned MIMIC-CXR-LT dataset relative to the plain backbone and to standard long-tail remedies. The central performance claim is that the full system lifts test mAP from 0.351 to 0.377, with the largest per-class improvements in the rarest findings: Pneumoperitoneum +79%, Pneumomediastinum +48%, and Fracture +34%. The paper also claims that fairness, measured as equality of opportunity of false-negative rates across race and gender groups, is not automatically aligned with accuracy: data augmentation helps fairness, while ML-Decoder and ensembling have mixed or negative effects. A sympathetic reading is that the paper is trying to establish a practical configuration for long-tailed medical image classification plus a fairness evaluation protocol for judging such configurations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a three-branch ensemble. The 'All' branch trains on all 19 labels; the 'Head' branch trains only on the nine most common labels; the 'Tail' branch trains on the remaining ten, with 'Support device' included in both for sample-size reasons. Predictions are averaged between the Tail/Head branch and the All branch for corresponding classes. The classification head is ML-Decoder, a transformer-decoder variant that removes self-attention and uses group decoding so computational cost grows with the number of groups rather than quadratically with class count. ConvNeXt-small supplies features, and data augmentation (rotation, padding, brightness, Gaussian blur, contrast, posterization) improves both accuracy and fairness.

What would settle it

Train the same head/tail/all ensemble on a held-out training split, choose the Youden cut-off for each class from the validation set, and compute the average-precision and equality-of-opportunity numbers on a never-touched test split; if the tail-class AP gains shrink dramatically below the reported 79% and 48% or the fairness rankings of methods change, the central claims are not reproducible under a leakage-free protocol.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the combination works and is not reducible to any single ingredient: each added component raises validation and test mAP. The authors claim LTCXNet (ConvNeXt v1 Small + ML-Decoder + data augmentation + head/tail/all ensemble) achieves the best test mAP on the benchmark (0.377), improves AP for every class relative to baseline ConvNeXt, and makes the largest strides in tail classes. They further report that on the fairness axis, augmentations are the most consistently fairness-improving component, while ML-Decoder lowers fairness and ensembling helps tail classes but not head classes.

Load-bearing premise

The reported results assume that the test set is used only for final evaluation and that the cut-off points used in the fairness calculation come from training or validation data, not from the test set itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ensemble's largest AP gains fall on rare classes (Pneumoperitoneum +79%, Pneumomediastinum +48%, Fracture +34%), so its practical value concentrates where findings are scarce.
  • Because the fairness analysis shows ML-Decoder lowering equality of opportunity, adopting powerful classification heads for chest X-rays will require separate fairness monitoring rather than assuming accuracy gains transfer to fairness.
  • The paper's choice of mAP over mF1 can flip conclusions: ensembling raises mAP but lowers mF1, so the 'best' configuration depends on whether the deployment scenario cares about performance across all thresholds or at a single threshold.
  • The clinical-feasibility observation—under one second per image on a GTX 1080 at 35 GFLOPs—implies the method's cost profile fits routine screening if the accuracy gains survive in a prospective setting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The fairness section never states whether the Youden cut-offs are chosen on the test set; if they are, the equality-of-opportunity ratios are partly fitted to the evaluation data, and the fairness comparisons should be re-run with thresholds fixed from validation only.
  • The head/tail/all ensemble idea is general to any long-tailed multi-label image task, not just chest X-rays; a testable extension is to apply the same three-branch ensemble to other medical imaging benchmarks with differently skewed label distributions.
  • Because 79% and 48% are relative AP improvements on classes with very few positives, a small absolute change in true positives can produce a large percentage movement; per-class confidence intervals and calibration curves would clarify whether the tail gains are clinically material.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LTCXNet, a framework for long-tailed multi-label chest X-ray classification on the Pruned MIMIC-CXR-LT dataset. LTCXNet combines a ConvNeXt-small backbone, an ML-Decoder head, a set of traditional data-augmentation techniques, and a head/tail/all ensemble. The authors report mAP and macro-F1 performance across ablations, compare several backbone architectures and prior long-tail methods, and evaluate fairness across race and gender groups using an Equality of Opportunity metric defined as a mean over classes of min/max false-negative-rate ratios. The headline claims are improved mAP, especially for tail classes such as Pneumoperitoneum and Pneumomediastinum, and conclusions about which components help or hurt demographic fairness.

Significance. If the results are substantiated, the paper would provide a practical configuration for long-tailed multi-label CXR classification and a useful comparison of augmentation, ML-Decoder, and ensembling for fairness. The manuscript has strengths: the dataset split is clearly stated, the ablation table is internally consistent, and the comparison against several baselines (feature decoupling, focal loss, weighted loss, oversampling, SimCLR) is informative. However, the significance is limited by the small reported mAP gain of the final ensemble (0.377 vs. 0.372 over the non-ensembled configuration), the absence of any repeated-run statistics, and the unresolved question of whether fairness thresholds were selected on the test set. The fairness evaluation is a core contribution of the paper, so this last issue is load-bearing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.6, Eq. (2) and §3.5] The fairness evaluation never states whether the Youden-index cut-off points used to compute FNR are derived from the test set or from a held-out set. Section 3.5 says the experiment was conducted on the test set, which strongly suggests the thresholds may be fitted to the same labels used to report Table 3. If that is the case, the EO values are in-sample optimized and the conclusions that data augmentation improves fairness and that ML-Decoder/ensemble harm it are not valid evaluative claims. Please specify the threshold source explicitly; if test-set thresholds were used, recompute Table 3 using validation-derived thresholds or report the sensitivity of the EO numbers to the threshold-selection procedure.
  2. [§3.3, Table 2] The central performance claim rests on a very small and unreplicated improvement: in Table 2, adding the ensemble to the ConvNeXt+ML-Decoder+augmentation configuration raises test mAP from 0.372 to 0.377 (Δ≈0.005) while decreasing test mF1 from 0.307 to 0.287. No repeated runs, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any performance table. The paper then chooses mAP as the primary metric in §3.3 only after observing this mF1 drop. Although mAP is defensible as a threshold-free metric, the choice appears post hoc, and with no variance estimate the claim that the ensemble improves overall performance is not established. Please provide multi-run statistics and either pre-specify the primary metric or justify the choice independently of the observed mF1 decrease.
  3. [§3.5, Table 3] The fairness analysis excludes the 'Calcification of the Aorta' and 'Tortuous Aorta' classes because some demographic groups lack positive labels. This changes the class set relative to the performance evaluation, but the paper does not state how the exclusion affects the EO comparison or whether the reported EO values are comparable across rows that use the same excluded set. Please state the exact class set for each fairness entry and discuss whether the exclusion favors particular methods.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.5] The paper says the 'Support device' class appears in both the Head and Tail branches but does not explain how its two duplicate predictions are combined in the ensemble. Please clarify the exact aggregation rule for this class.
  2. [§2.4] The augmentation section lists rotation, padding, brightness, blur, contrast, and posterization but gives no magnitudes or probabilities. Since augmentation is one of the three core components, please provide the exact augmentation scheme used in the final model.
  3. [§2.7] The Lion optimizer is cited with [4,30], but reference [30] is the Triton compiler paper and does not appear to describe Lion. Please correct the citation.
  4. [§3.5] Table 3 reports EO as mean ± std, but it is unclear whether the standard deviation is across classes or across repeated runs. Since the paper gives no repeated runs, please clarify in the caption that the spread is across classes.
  5. [§3.6] There are two typos in this section: 'sensitiViTy' should be 'sensitivity', and 'The subsequent article will briefly introduce' should be 'The following section' or similar.
  6. [§3.4] The Grad-CAM section reports only three qualitative examples. It would strengthen the paper to include a quantitative localization evaluation or at least a statement that these examples are representative and not cherry-picked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all reported gains are measured comparisons against an external baseline; no load-bearing step reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

LTCXNet is an empirical composition of independently published components (ConvNeXt, ML-Decoder, data augmentation, and a head/tail/all ensemble) evaluated on the external Pruned MIMIC-CXR-LT dataset. The central performance claims (test mAP rising from 0.351 to 0.377, and rare-class AP improvements of 79% and 48%) are measured outputs of trained models compared against a baseline; they are not imposed by construction or by any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper contains no self-citations and invokes no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work. The ablation study selects mAP as the primary metric after observing that mF1 decreases with ensembling; this is a post-hoc metric-selection choice, not a circular derivation. The fairness evaluation uses Youden-index thresholds to compute FNR-based EO ratios, but the paper does not state whether thresholds are derived from the test set, so any claim that those numbers are in-sample fitted would be speculation rather than an exhibited reduction; at most this is a reporting-transparency concern, not circularity. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of its own output, and no cited result is load-bearing in a self-referential way. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

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

The central claim depends on standard empirical ML assumptions (label quality, transfer learning) plus ad hoc design choices (head/tail split, support-device duplication, fairness subsetting) and one potential evaluation-data fit (Youden thresholds). No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Learning rate = 6e-6
    Hand-tuned optimizer step size for all models; standard hyperparameter, but directly affects the magnitude of reported mAP.
  • Weight decay = 5e-5
    Hand-tuned regularization; affects generalization and hence test mAP.
  • Head/Tail class split = 9 head classes, 10 tail classes, 'Support device' duplicated in both
    Ad hoc division defining the ensemble branches; determines which classes receive the tail-branch average and directly shapes the rare-class improvements.
  • Augmentation set and magnitudes = rotation, padding, brightness, Gaussian blur, contrast, posterization (intensities unspecified)
    Chosen augmentation pipeline; exact intensities are not reported, so the gains attributed to augmentation are not exactly reproducible.
  • Youden index threshold = optimal cut-offs on the ROC curve
    Used to compute FNR for the EO fairness metric; if computed on the test set, this is a parameter fitted to the evaluation data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Pruned MIMIC-CXR-LT dataset labels are correct and the dataset is representative of the clinical CXR distribution.
    All results inherit the label quality and selection of this public dataset, introduced in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained ConvNeXt features transfer to chest X-rays.
    The backbone is initialized from ImageNet (Section 2.7), a standard but unproven assumption for CXR models.
  • domain assumption The ratio-based EO metric (min FNR / max FNR) is a valid fairness measure.
    Equation (2) defines fairness as a ratio of FNRs, a nonstandard variant of Equality of Opportunity; the paper does not justify this choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The Support Device class can be duplicated in both the Head and Tail branches without distorting the ensemble.
    Section 2.5 duplicates Support Device so the Tail branch has enough samples; this is an ad hoc design decision that affects all reported numbers.
  • ad hoc to paper Excluding Calcification of the Aorta and Tortuous Aorta from fairness evaluation is acceptable.
    Section 3.5 drops these classes because some demographic groups lack positive labels, narrowing the fairness claim to the remaining 17 classes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LTCXNet: Advancing Chest X-Ray Analysis with Solutions for Long-Tailed Multi-Label Classification and Fairness Challenges." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I23ZQWFM

@misc{pith2026241110746,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LTCXNet: Advancing Chest X-Ray Analysis with Solutions for Long-Tailed Multi-Label Classification and Fairness Challenges},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I23ZQWFM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10746}
}
read the original abstract

Chest X-rays (CXRs) often display various diseases with disparate class frequencies, leading to a long-tailed, multi-label data distribution. In response to this challenge, we explore the Pruned MIMIC-CXR-LT dataset, a curated collection derived from the MIMIC-CXR dataset, specifically designed to represent a long-tailed and multi-label data scenario. We introduce LTCXNet, a novel framework that integrates the ConvNeXt model, ML-Decoder, and strategic data augmentation, further enhanced by an ensemble approach. We demonstrate that LTCXNet improves the performance of CXR interpretation across all classes, especially enhancing detection in rarer classes like `Pneumoperitoneum' and `Pneumomediastinum' by 79\% and 48\%, respectively. Beyond performance metrics, our research extends into evaluating fairness, highlighting that some methods, while improving model accuracy, could inadvertently affect fairness across different demographic groups negatively. This work contributes to advancing the understanding and management of long-tailed, multi-label data distributions in medical imaging, paving the way for more equitable and effective diagnostic tools.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10746 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed method: input image processed by three branches (Head, Tail, All), followed by individual predictions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Class distribution in the Pruned MIMIC-CXR-LT dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ROC Curve and AUC score for 19 classes separated by Head and Tail classes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of LTCXNet and baseline (ConvNeXt): testing AP across disease conditions in CXRs sorted by frequency, high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Grad-CAM visualization of (a) Pleural Effusion, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Learning imbalanced datasets with label- distribution-aware margin loss

    Kaidi Cao, Colin Wei, Adrien Gaidon, Nikos Arechiga, and Tengyu Ma. Learning imbalanced datasets with label- distribution-aware margin loss. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 32, 2019. 1

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    A clarification of the nuances in the fairness metrics landscape

    Alessandro Castelnovo, Riccardo Crupi, Greta Greco, Daniele Regoli, Ilaria Giuseppina Penco, and Andrea Clau- dio Cosentini. A clarification of the nuances in the fairness metrics landscape. Scientific Reports, 12(1):4209, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Ge- offrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on ma- chine learning, pages 1597–1607. PMLR, 2020. 7

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Xiangning Chen, Chen Liang, Da Huang, Esteban Real, Kaiyuan Wang, Yao Liu, Hieu Pham, Xuanyi Dong, Thang Luong, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Yifeng Lu, and Quoc V . Le. Symbolic discovery of optimization algorithms, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    The relationship between precision-recall and roc curves

    Jesse Davis and Mark Goadrich. The relationship between precision-recall and roc curves. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning , pages 233– 240, 2006. 3

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 248–255, 2009. 2

    2009

  7. [7]

    The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge

    Mark Everingham, Luc Van Gool, Christopher KI Williams, John Winn, and Andrew Zisserman. The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge. International journal of computer vision, 88:303–338, 2010. 2

    2010

  8. [8]

    Gregory Holste, Ziyu Jiang, Ajay Jaiswal, Maria Hanna, Shlomo Minkowitz, Alan C Legasto, Joanna G Escalon, Sharon Steinberger, Mark Bittman, Thomas C Shen, et al. How does pruning impact long-tailed multi-label medical image classifiers? In International Conference on Medi- cal Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 663–673. Springer, ...

    work page 2023

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Cxr-lt: Multi- label long-tailed classification on chest x-rays

    Gregory Holste, Song Wang, Ajay Jaiswal, Yuzhe Yang, Mingquan Lin, Yifan Peng, and Atlas Wang. Cxr-lt: Multi- label long-tailed classification on chest x-rays. PhysioNet, 5:19, 2023. 1

    2023

  2. [10]

    Long-tailed classification of thorax dis- eases on chest x-ray: A new benchmark study

    Gregory Holste, Song Wang, Ziyu Jiang, Thomas C Shen, George Shih, Ronald M Summers, Yifan Peng, and Zhangyang Wang. Long-tailed classification of thorax dis- eases on chest x-ray: A new benchmark study. In MICCAI Workshop on Data Augmentation, Labelling, and Imperfec- tions, ...

    2022

  3. [11]

    An optimized ensemble framework for multi-label clas- sification on long-tailed chest x-ray data

    Jaehyup Jeong, Bosoung Jeoun, Yeonju Park, and Bohyung Han. An optimized ensemble framework for multi-label clas- sification on long-tailed chest x-ray data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 2739–2746, 2023. 1, 2 7

    2023

  4. [12]

    Decou- pling representation and classifier for long-tailed recogni- tion

    Bingyi Kang, Saining Xie, Marcus Rohrbach, Zhicheng Yan, Albert Gordo, Jiashi Feng, and Yannis Kalantidis. Decou- pling representation and classifier for long-tailed recogni- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09217, 2019. 1, 6, 7

    1910 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Chexfusion: Effective fusion of multi-view features using transformers for long-tailed chest x-ray clas- sification

    Dongkyun Kim. Chexfusion: Effective fusion of multi-view features using transformers for long-tailed chest x-ray clas- sification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2702–2710, 2023. 2

    2023

  6. [14]

    General multi-label image classification with transform- ers

    Jack Lanchantin, Tianlu Wang, Vicente Ordonez, and Yanjun Qi. General multi-label image classification with transform- ers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 16478–16488,

  7. [15]

    Trustworthy long-tailed classification

    Bolian Li, Zongbo Han, Haining Li, Huazhu Fu, and Changqing Zhang. Trustworthy long-tailed classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 6970–6979, 2022. 1

    2022

  8. [16]

    Focal loss for dense object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Doll´ar. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2980–2988, 2017. 6, 7

    2017

  9. [17]

    A convnet for the 2020s

    Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao-Yuan Wu, Christoph Feicht- enhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. A convnet for the 2020s. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition , pages 11976–11986,

  10. [18]

    Data aug- mentation for fairness-aware machine learning: Preventing algorithmic bias in law enforcement systems

    Ioannis Pastaltzidis, Nikolaos Dimitriou, Katherine Quezada-Tavarez, Stergios Aidinlis, Thomas Marquenie, Agata Gurzawska, and Dimitrios Tzovaras. Data aug- mentation for fairness-aware machine learning: Preventing algorithmic bias in law enforcement systems. InProceedings of ...

    2022

  11. [19]

    A deep learning ensemble approach for diabetic retinopathy detection

    Sehrish Qummar, Fiaz Gul Khan, Sajid Shah, Ah- mad Khan, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Zia Ur Rehman, Iftikhar Ahmed Khan, and Waqas Jadoon. A deep learning ensemble approach for diabetic retinopathy detection. Ieee Access, 7:150530–150539, 2019. 1

    2019

  12. [20]

    Bci competition iii: dataset ii-ensemble of svms for bci p300 speller

    Alain Rakotomamonjy and Vincent Guigue. Bci competition iii: dataset ii-ensemble of svms for bci p300 speller. IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering , 55(3):1147–1154,

  13. [21]

    Heart disease detection us- ing deep learning methods from imbalanced ecg sam- ples

    Adyasha Rath, Debahuti Mishra, Ganapati Panda, and Suresh Chandra Satapathy. Heart disease detection us- ing deep learning methods from imbalanced ecg sam- ples. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 68:102820,

  14. [22]

    You only look once: Unified, real-time object de- tection

    Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. You only look once: Unified, real-time object de- tection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 779–788, 2016. 1

    2016

  15. [23]

    Ml-decoder: Scalable and versatile classification head

    Tal Ridnik, Gilad Sharir, Avi Ben-Cohen, Emanuel Ben- Baruch, and Asaf Noy. Ml-decoder: Scalable and versatile classification head. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Win- ter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 32–41, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  16. [24]

    Ensemble-based classifiers

    Lior Rokach. Ensemble-based classifiers. Artificial intelli- gence review, 33:1–39, 2010. 2

    2010

  17. [25]

    Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization

    Ramprasaath R Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE in- ternational conference on computer vision , pages 618–626,

  18. [26]

    Data augmentation for discrimination prevention and bias disambiguation

    Shubham Sharma, Yunfeng Zhang, Jes ´us M R ´ıos Aliaga, Djallel Bouneffouf, Vinod Muthusamy, and Kush R Varsh- ney. Data augmentation for discrimination prevention and bias disambiguation. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Con- ference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 358–364, 2020. 5

    2020

  19. [27]

    A survey on image data augmentation for deep learning

    Connor Shorten and Taghi M Khoshgoftaar. A survey on image data augmentation for deep learning. Journal of big data, 6(1):1–48, 2019. 2

    2019

  20. [28]

    Fairness-aware class imbalanced learning

    Shivashankar Subramanian, Afshin Rahimi, Timothy Bald- win, Trevor Cohn, and Lea Frermann. Fairness-aware class imbalanced learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10444 ,

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    A review of methods for imbalanced multi-label classification

    Adane Nega Tarekegn, Mario Giacobini, and Krzysztof Michalak. A review of methods for imbalanced multi-label classification. Pattern Recognition, 118:107965, 2021. 7

    2021

  22. [30]

    Kung, and D

    Philippe Tillet, H. Kung, and D. Cox. Triton: an interme- diate language and compiler for tiled neural network com- putations. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN Inter- national Workshop on Machine Learning and Programming Languages, 2019. 3

    2019

  23. [31]

    Translating math formula images to latex sequences using deep neural networks with sequence-level training, 2019

    Zelun Wang and Jyh-Charn Liu. Translating math formula images to latex sequences using deep neural networks with sequence-level training, 2019. 1

    2019

  24. [32]

    Cnn: Single-label to multi-label

    Yunchao Wei, Wei Xia, Junshi Huang, Bingbing Ni, Jian Dong, Yao Zhao, and Shuicheng Yan. Cnn: Single-label to multi-label. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5726, 2014. 1

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pytorch image models

    Ross Wightman. Pytorch image models. https : //github.com/huggingface/pytorch- image- models, 2019. 2

    2019

  26. [34]

    Fair class bal- ancing: Enhancing model fairness without observing sen- sitive attributes

    Shen Yan, Hsien-te Kao, and Emilio Ferrara. Fair class bal- ancing: Enhancing model fairness without observing sen- sitive attributes. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Interna- tional Conference on Information & Knowledge Manage- ment, pages 1715–1724, 2020. 1 8

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.