REVIEW 2 cited by
Meta-Baseline: Exploring Simple Meta-Learning for Few-Shot 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
read the original abstract
Meta-learning has been the most common framework for few-shot learning in recent years. It learns the model from collections of few-shot classification tasks, which is believed to have a key advantage of making the training objective consistent with the testing objective. However, some recent works report that by training for whole-classification, i.e. classification on the whole label-set, it can get comparable or even better embedding than many meta-learning algorithms. The edge between these two lines of works has yet been underexplored, and the effectiveness of meta-learning in few-shot learning remains unclear. In this paper, we explore a simple process: meta-learning over a whole-classification pre-trained model on its evaluation metric. We observe this simple method achieves competitive performance to state-of-the-art methods on standard benchmarks. Our further analysis shed some light on understanding the trade-offs between the meta-learning objective and the whole-classification objective in few-shot learning.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Bridging the Catalog-to-Real Gap: Scalable Product Recognition via Multi-Stage Contrastive Learning
Multi-stage catalog-to-real contrastive learning (Cat2Real) lifts DINOv3 to 80.73% top-1 accuracy on real-to-catalog product retrieval with strong zero-shot transfer to unseen SKUs and categories.
-
ViT-ProtoNet for Few-Shot Image Classification: A Multi-Benchmark Evaluation
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.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.