Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Task Augmentation by Rotating for Meta-Learning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2003.00804 v1 pith:KKZFV624 submitted 2020-02-08 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords augmentationrotatingtaskimagesmeta-learningnumberclassesdeep
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Data augmentation is one of the most effective approaches for improving the accuracy of modern machine learning models, and it is also indispensable to train a deep model for meta-learning. In this paper, we introduce a task augmentation method by rotating, which increases the number of classes by rotating the original images 90, 180 and 270 degrees, different from traditional augmentation methods which increase the number of images. With a larger amount of classes, we can sample more diverse task instances during training. Therefore, task augmentation by rotating allows us to train a deep network by meta-learning methods with little over-fitting. Experimental results show that our approach is better than the rotation for increasing the number of images and achieves state-of-the-art performance on miniImageNet, CIFAR-FS, and FC100 few-shot learning benchmarks. The code is available on \url{www.github.com/AceChuse/TaskLevelAug}.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ViT-ProtoNet for Few-Shot Image Classification: A Multi-Benchmark Evaluation

    cs.CV 2025-07 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    ViT-ProtoNet, a Prototypical Network with a ViT-Small encoder, is reported to reach 95-97% 5-shot accuracy on three benchmarks and 81.88% on FC100, but the evaluation lacks critical baselines.

Pith tools