Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Hierarchical mutual distillation for multi-view fusion: Learning from all possible view combinations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Training on all possible view subsets lifts multi-view classification accuracy and enables flexible inference with any number of test views.

desk verdict Solid training recipe for variable-view classification, but the SOTA claim is currently confounded by training compute and missing error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10077 v3 pith:MWBQLUTM submitted 2024-11-15 cs.CV

Jiwoong Yang , Haejun Chung , Ikbeom Jang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords multi-viewlearninghierarchicalmutualdistillationuncertaintyweightingviewcombinationsfusionflexibleinferenceimageclassificationknowledge
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

This paper proposes HMDMV, a multi-view image classification method that trains on all possible subsets of the input views—single view, every partial combination, and the full set—rather than only on individual views and the complete set. For each combination set it fuses the member predictions with uncertainty weights, then applies bidirectional mutual distillation between each combination level and the full-multi-view prediction. Across structured (Carvana) and unstructured (Hotels-8k, GLDv2) datasets, the method reports top-1 accuracy gains over prior fusion and distillation baselines, with the largest gains when three or four views are available. The practical payoff is flexibility: after training with n views, the model can classify with any number of test views, fewer or greater, without retraining.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the combination set C_k—the collection of all k-view subsets of the n input views—together with the uncertainty-weighted fusion P(C_k) and the hierarchical mutual distillation loss L_hmd, which aligns each single/partial combined prediction with the full multi-view prediction by bidirectional KL divergence. This machinery propagates supervision through the exponential family of view subsets so the network learns consistent representations across all granularities of view availability.

What would settle it

Train the strongest baseline with the same number of view-combination forward passes per optimization step as HMDMV (or match total FLOPs), then compare top-1 accuracy on Hotels-8k; if the gap disappears, the method's benefit over a similarly expensive ensemble of all view subsets is unestablished.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that inter-view relationships are better learned by explicitly supervising every view-combination level than by distilling only between single-view and full-multi-view predictions. HMDMV builds a hybrid CNN-Transformer that outputs a prediction for each k-view subset; within each level the predictions are averaged with weights inversely proportional to an entropy-plus-cross-entropy uncertainty. These combined level predictions are then mutually distilled against the full multi-view prediction in both directions, with the distillation weight scaled by k^α. The paper reports that this scheme achieves the highest top-1 and top-5 accuracies on Hotels-8k, GLDv2, and Carvana across 2-, 3-, and 4-view settings, and that it degrades gracefully when individual test samples have more or fewer views than the training configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy gains are caused by the proposed hierarchical mutual distillation and uncertainty weighting rather than by the much larger training compute used to evaluate all 2^n - 1 view subsets per sample; the paper does not equalize FLOPs or wall-clock time across methods.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inference view count becomes a free parameter: at test time the model accepts any subset of views without padding or duplication when nt ≤ n, and ensembles valid subsets when nt > n.
  • Performance improves as the number of views grows, and on unstructured datasets HMDMV holds accuracy where baselines decline under variable view counts.
  • The method is not tied to a fixed backbone, so the combination-set training and distillation losses can be ported to stronger or lighter CNN-Transformer architectures.
  • A light version that randomly samples view subsets per iteration reduces training cost, making the approach more practical for large numbers of views.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reported gains are causal, the same combination-set distillation could transfer to multi-modal inputs (e.g., RGB plus depth plus text), where the partial-combination levels correspond to modality subsets.
  • The strongest baseline, MV-HFMD, is trained with fewer forward passes per step, so an equal-compute comparison would clarify how much of the gain comes from the distillation and how much from ensembling many view subsets; the paper does not provide that comparison.
  • The uncertainty weighting uses ground-truth cross-entropy during training, meaning the weights are not purely uncertainty-based; at test time the fusion must fall back to entropy alone, so a test-time-only evaluation could quantify how much of the benefit relies on label access.
  • A testable extension: vary the number of training views and measure whether the marginal accuracy gain from HMDMV saturates; the method's exponential training cost makes a sampling schedule an obvious practical variant.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HMDMV, a multi-view classification method that trains a hybrid CNN-transformer to produce predictions for every non-empty subset of n input views. Within each k-view combination set, predictions are fused by inverse-uncertainty weighting based on entropy plus cross-entropy, and hierarchical mutual distillation aligns single-view and partial multi-view predictions with the full multi-view prediction through a KL-based loss with a per-scale weight. Experiments on Hotels-8k, GLDv2, and Carvana compare fixed-view and variable-view inference against MVCNN, GVCNN, MVT, and MV-HFMD, with ablations and inference-time measurements.

Significance. If the claims are established, HMDMV extends mutual-distillation multi-view fusion from single-view/full-view pairs to all view subsets, and its flexible-inference property (handling fewer or more views than seen in training) is practically useful for unstructured data. The method is clearly specified, the code is released, and the evaluation spans both unstructured and structured settings with an ablation study. However, the central state-of-the-art claim is not yet demonstrated because training compute is neither matched nor reported, the inference-time weighting rule is underspecified in a way that depends on ground-truth labels in Eq. (5), and no statistical variability is reported for the main tables. The flexible-inference contribution is credible and independent of the SOTA accuracy debate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (2)-(4); Tables 1-2] The reported accuracy gains over MV-HFMD are confounded by a training-compute gap. HMDMV evaluates all 2^n-1 subsets C_k per training sample, whereas MV-HFMD evaluates n single views and the full n-view combination; given the sequence lengths in Eq. (3), HMDMV's transformer FLOPs are approximately twice those of MV-HFMD at n=3 and about four times at n=4. The paper reports no training epochs, FLOPs, or wall-clock training time, and the authors themselves note the increased training cost in Section 7. The abstract additionally promises a light version with random subset sampling, but no such experiment appears anywhere in the paper. To support the state-of-the-art claim, the authors need a compute-matched comparison (e.g., MV-HFMD trained for as many FLOPs), a cost-versus-accuracy analysis, or an evaluated light version; otherwise the gains in Tables 1-2 cannot be attributed to the proposed components.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (5)-(7); Section 5] The uncertainty weight w_i^k is defined through u_i^k in Eq. (5), which includes the cross-entropy term q_j log(p_i^k(j)+epsilon) with q_j the ground-truth one-hot label. The same weights are then used in Eq. (7) to compute P(C_k), the fusion mechanism used for the results in Tables 1-2 and for the unstructured-view ensembling described in Section 5. No procedure is given for computing these weights at inference time, when q_j is unavailable. The authors must specify the test-time weighting rule (e.g., entropy-only, equal weights, or a different unsupervised estimate) and, if it differs from Eq. (5), evaluate that rule explicitly; otherwise the reported fusion results are not reproducible.
  3. [Tables 1-2] The state-of-the-art claim is not statistically supported because no error bars, multiple-seed results, or significance tests are reported. Several margins are small: Carvana 2-view top-1 is 93.33% vs 93.23% for MV-HFMD, GLDv2 4-view top-5 is 99.95% vs 99.89%, and on GLDv2 2-view top-1 HMDMV is below MV-HFMD (96.35% vs 96.48%). Without repeated runs, these differences are within plausible run-to-run variability. Please add mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds and a significance test for the headline comparisons.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 3] The checkmark columns are not aligned with the component names in the typeset table, and two rows show three checkmarks that appear to represent different component sets; please reformat the table so each row explicitly names the enabled components.
  2. [Table 5] There are apparent typographical errors in the inference-time numbers, such as '430 .27', '530 .99', '648 .06', and '1684 .37', with stray spaces and missing digits; also, the column headers mix 'nt > n' and 'nt ≥ n'.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eq. (12)] The text calls λ, τ, and α three primary hyperparameters, but τ is fixed at 4 and λ_k is a scaled version of λ; the term 'adaptive λ' is confusing because the scale is set to a fixed α=1.2 and λ=0.1 after tuning rather than adapted during training.
  4. [Abstract and Section 7] The abstract promises a light version with reduced training cost by random subset sampling, but the experiments and Section 7 only discuss future work on combination optimization; please either add the promised light-version experiments or remove the claim from the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: HMDMV's reported accuracies are empirical outcomes of supervised training objectives, not quantities defined by fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical benchmark results, and none of the reported predictions reduce by construction to a fitted quantity. The uncertainty weight in Eq. (5) depends on the ground-truth label q_j, but this is a training-time mechanism that shapes distillation and classification losses; it does not define the held-out test accuracy, which is measured on unseen labels. Hyperparameters lambda=0.1 and alpha=1.2 are selected based on validation experiments and are standard tuning practice, not fitted quantities renamed as predictions. The comparison baselines (MV-HFMD, MVT, GVCNN, MVCNN) are external prior work, and the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or a load-bearing self-citation from the present authors. The critique that HMDMV trains on all 2^n-1 view subsets and therefore receives more compute than MV-HFMD is a meaningful experimental-control concern, but it is a fairness/validity issue rather than a circularity issue under the required rubric. No equation in the paper is definitionally equivalent to the reported accuracy, and no result is imported from prior work by the same authors to force a conclusion. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The method introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. Its central claim rests on standard supervised learning assumptions, the expressiveness of the hybrid CNN-Transformer, and hyperparameters tuned on validation data.

free parameters (4)
  • λ (initial distillation weight) = 0.1
    Set based on validation experiments (Section 4.1, Hyperparameter Tuning).
  • α (exponent for adaptive λ) = 1.2
    Set based on experiments (Section 4.1).
  • τ (distillation temperature) = 4
    Shared with prior distillation methods [3, 8, 62] (Section 4.1).
  • ε (stability constant in Eq 5) = unspecified
    Small constant for numerical stability in the uncertainty formula; no value given in the text.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Multi-view class labels are complete and correctly assigned.
    The supervised loss LCE and uncertainty weighting rely on ground truth labels y in Eq 5 and Eq 9.
  • domain assumption The transformer can effectively fuse concatenated token sequences from arbitrary subsets of views.
    Core architectural premise; the paper does not provide evidence across different backbones.
  • standard math KL divergence between temperature-scaled outputs is a valid distillation objective.
    Follows Hinton et al. [25] and Deep Mutual Learning [64].
  • domain assumption Training on all view combinations will transfer to inference with variable view counts without fine-tuning.
    Used for the flexibility claim in Section 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical mutual distillation for multi-view fusion: Learning from all possible view combinations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWBQLUTM

@misc{pith2026241110077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical mutual distillation for multi-view fusion: Learning from all possible view combinations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWBQLUTM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10077}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-view learning often struggles to effectively leverage images captured from diverse angles and locations. Learning methods for unstructured multi-view images remain largely underexplored. We propose a novel Hierarchical Mutual Distillation for Multi-View Fusion (HMDMV) method, which can handle both structured and unstructured multi-view scenarios. It makes predictions utilizing all possible view combinations: single view, partial multi-view, and full multi-view. The method generates predictions for each view combination and then applies hierarchical mutual distillation to enhance inter-view consistency. An uncertainty-based weighting mechanism further refines the fusion process by adjusting the influence of each view combination according to its prediction confidence, reducing the impact of low-confidence views. Extensive experiments on large-scale structured and unstructured datasets demonstrate that HMDMV consistently achieves state-of-the-art classification accuracy. Another unique advantage of HMDMV is that it provides improved flexibility in inference, allowing for more or fewer view counts in inference than those used in training without additional processing. We also provide a light version with reduced training cost by designing an efficient strategy that randomly samples subsets of view combinations during each training iteration. These results highlight HMDMV's robustness in real-world settings where view availability is variable or incomplete. The code is available at https://github.com/labhai/HMDMV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10077 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Hotels-8k [29] and (b) Google Landmarks Dataset v2 [56] are unstructured data with varying angles and environments. (c) Carvana [46] is structured data with fixed angles and environ￾ments. Mediolateral Oblique (MLO) views [44, 51, 52, 57, 66]. In contrast, in non-medical fields, some less structured cross￾view tasks captured from diverse angles are often used, such as for 3D object recognition [18, 43, 50, 53] a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Unstructured multi-view of a hotel room, where im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of HMDMV Method. Multi-view images serve as input and are processed by a hybrid CNN-Transformer network. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inference with Varying View Counts. The number of test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance comparison of multi-view methods. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Uncertainty-based continual learning with adaptive regularization

    Hongjoon Ahn, Sungmin Cha, Donggyu Lee, and Taesup Moon. Uncertainty-based continual learning with adaptive regularization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019. 3

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    On the benefits of early fusion in multimodal representation learning

    George Barnum, Sabera Talukder, and Yisong Yue. On the benefits of early fusion in multimodal representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.07191, 2020. 2

    arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Multi-view classifica- tion using hybrid fusion and mutual distillation

    Samuel Black and Richard Souvenir. Multi-view classifica- tion using hybrid fusion and mutual distillation. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 270–280, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Model compression

    Cristian Buciluˇa, Rich Caruana, and Alexandru Niculescu- Mizil. Model compression. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 535–541, 2006. 3

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Deep learning models for classifying mammogram exams containing unregistered multi-view images and segmentation maps of lesions

    Gustavo Carneiro, Jacinto Nascimento, and Andrew P Bradley. Deep learning models for classifying mammogram exams containing unregistered multi-view images and segmentation maps of lesions. Deep learning for medical image analysis, pages 321–339, 2017. 2

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Learning efficient object detection mod- els with knowledge distillation

    Guobin Chen, Wongun Choi, Xiang Yu, Tony Han, and Man- mohan Chandraker. Learning efficient object detection mod- els with knowledge distillation. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 30, 2017. 3

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Mvt: Multi-view vi- sion transformer for 3d object recognition

    Shuo Chen, Tan Yu, and Ping Li. Mvt: Multi-view vi- sion transformer for 3d object recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.13083, 2021. 2, 6, 7, 8

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    On the efficacy of knowledge distillation

    Jang Hyun Cho and Bharath Hariharan. On the efficacy of knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 4794– 4802, 2019. 3, 5

    work page 2019

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Structural knowledge distillation for object detection

    Philip De Rijk, Lukas Schneider, Marius Cordts, and Dariu Gavrila. Structural knowledge distillation for object detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:3858– 3870, 2022. 3

    2022

  2. [10]

    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. Ieee, 2009. 5

    2009

  3. [11]

    Aleatory or epis- temic? does it matter? Structural safety, 31(2):105–112, 2009

    Armen Der Kiureghian and Ove Ditlevsen. Aleatory or epis- temic? does it matter? Structural safety, 31(2):105–112, 2009. 2

    2009

  4. [12]

    Entropy-based uncer- tainty modeling for trajectory prediction in autonomous driv- ing

    Aron Distelzweig, Andreas Look, Eitan Kosman, Faris Janjoˇs, J¨org Wagner, and Abhinav Valadaa. Entropy-based uncer- tainty modeling for trajectory prediction in autonomous driv- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01628, 2024. 4

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Plant identification using score-based fusion of multi- organ images

    Thanh-Binh Do, Huy-Hoang Nguyen, Hai Vu, Thi-Lan Le, et al. Plant identification using score-based fusion of multi- organ images. In 2017 9th International conference on knowl- edge and systems engineering (KSE), pages 191–196. IEEE,

    2017

  6. [14]

    Uncertainty-aware multi-view learning for prostate cancer grading with dwi

    Zhicheng Dong, Xiaodong Yue, Yufei Chen, Xujing Zhou, and Jiye Liang. Uncertainty-aware multi-view learning for prostate cancer grading with dwi. In International Confer- ence on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 739–748. Springer, 2024. 2

    2024

  7. [15]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. 1

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A hybrid network of cnn and transformer for lightweight image super-resolution

    Jinsheng Fang, Hanjiang Lin, Xinyu Chen, and Kun Zeng. A hybrid network of cnn and transformer for lightweight image super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1103–1112, 2022. 3

    2022

  9. [17]

    Convolutional two-stream network fusion for video action recognition

    Christoph Feichtenhofer, Axel Pinz, and Andrew Zisserman. Convolutional two-stream network fusion for video action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition, pages 1933–1941, 2016. 1

    1933

  10. [18]

    Gvcnn: Group-view convolutional neural networks for 3d shape recognition

    Yifan Feng, Zizhao Zhang, Xibin Zhao, Rongrong Ji, and Yue Gao. Gvcnn: Group-view convolutional neural networks for 3d shape recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 264–272,

  11. [19]

    Early vs late fusion in multimodal convolutional neural networks

    Konrad Gadzicki, Razieh Khamsehashari, and Christoph Zet- zsche. Early vs late fusion in multimodal convolutional neural networks. In 2020 IEEE 23rd international conference on information fusion (FUSION), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  12. [20]

    Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learn- ing

    Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learn- ing. In international conference on machine learning, pages 1050–1059. PMLR, 2016. 2

    2016

  13. [21]

    Multi-view distillation based on multi-modal fusion for few-shot action recognition (clip-mdmf)

    Fei Guo, YiKang Wang, Han Qi, Wenping Jin, Li Zhu, and Jing Sun. Multi-view distillation based on multi-modal fusion for few-shot action recognition (clip-mdmf). Knowledge- Based Systems, 304:112539, 2024. 2

    2024

  14. [22]

    Cmt: Convolutional neural networks meet vision transformers

    Jianyuan Guo, Kai Han, Han Wu, Yehui Tang, Xinghao Chen, Yunhe Wang, and Chang Xu. Cmt: Convolutional neural networks meet vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition, pages 12175–12185, 2022. 3

    2022

  15. [23]

    Trusted multi-view classification with dynamic evi- dential fusion

    Zongbo Han, Changqing Zhang, Huazhu Fu, and Joey Tianyi Zhou. Trusted multi-view classification with dynamic evi- dential fusion. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 45(2):2551–2566, 2022. 2

    2022

  16. [24]

    A comprehensive overhaul of feature distillation

    Byeongho Heo, Jeesoo Kim, Sangdoo Yun, Hyojin Park, No- jun Kwak, and Jin Young Choi. A comprehensive overhaul of feature distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision, pages 1921–1930,

    1921

  17. [25]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network

    Geoffrey Hinton. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015. 3, 5

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Deep multi-view feature learning for detecting covid-19 based on chest x-ray images

    Hamidreza Hosseinzadeh. Deep multi-view feature learning for detecting covid-19 based on chest x-ray images. Biomedi- cal Signal Processing and Control, 75:103595, 2022. 1

    2022

  19. [27]

    Structural and statistical texture knowledge distillation for semantic segmentation

    Deyi Ji, Haoran Wang, Mingyuan Tao, Jianqiang Huang, Xian- Sheng Hua, and Hongtao Lu. Structural and statistical texture knowledge distillation for semantic segmentation. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16876–16885, 2022. 3

    2022

  20. [28]

    Show, attend and distill: Knowledge distillation via attention-based fea- ture matching

    Mingi Ji, Byeongho Heo, and Sungrae Park. Show, attend and distill: Knowledge distillation via attention-based fea- ture matching. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 7945–7952, 2021. 3 9

    2021

  21. [29]

    The 2021 hotel-id to combat human trafficking competition dataset

    Rashmi Kamath, Gregory Rolwes, Samuel Black, and Abby Stylianou. The 2021 hotel-id to combat human trafficking competition dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05746, 2021. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Multi-task learning using uncertainty to weigh losses for scene geometry and semantics

    Alex Kendall, Yarin Gal, and Roberto Cipolla. Multi-task learning using uncertainty to weigh losses for scene geometry and semantics. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7482–7491,

  23. [31]

    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. 1

    2023

  24. [32]

    Feature fusion for online mutual knowledge distillation

    Jangho Kim, Minsung Hyun, Inseop Chung, and Nojun Kwak. Feature fusion for online mutual knowledge distillation. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 4619–4625. IEEE, 2021. 3

    2020

  25. [33]

    Analytical uncertainty-based loss weighting in multi-task learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07985, 2024

    Lukas Kirchdorfer, Cathrin Elich, Simon Kutsche, Heiner Stuckenschmidt, Lukas Schott, and Jan M K¨ohler. Analytical uncertainty-based loss weighting in multi-task learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07985, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Seman- tic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty es- timation in natural language generation

    Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. Seman- tic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty es- timation in natural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09664, 2023. 4

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bossnas: Exploring hybrid cnn-transformers with block-wisely self- supervised neural architecture search

    Changlin Li, Tao Tang, Guangrun Wang, Jiefeng Peng, Bing Wang, Xiaodan Liang, and Xiaojun Chang. Bossnas: Exploring hybrid cnn-transformers with block-wisely self- supervised neural architecture search. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Knowledge distil- lation via the target-aware transformer

    Sihao Lin, Hongwei Xie, Bing Wang, Kaicheng Yu, Xiaojun Chang, Xiaodan Liang, and Gang Wang. Knowledge distil- lation via the target-aware transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10915–10924, 2022. 3

    2022

  29. [37]

    Multispectral deep neural networks for pedestrian detection

    Jingjing Liu, Shaoting Zhang, Shu Wang, and Dimitris N Metaxas. Multispectral deep neural networks for pedestrian detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.02644, 2016. 2

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Point2sequence: Learning the shape representa- tion of 3d point clouds with an attention-based sequence to sequence network

    Xinhai Liu, Zhizhong Han, Yu-Shen Liu, and Matthias Zwicker. Point2sequence: Learning the shape representa- tion of 3d point clouds with an attention-based sequence to sequence network. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 8778–8785, 2019. 2

    2019

  31. [39]

    Structured knowledge distillation for semantic segmentation

    Yifan Liu, Ke Chen, Chris Liu, Zengchang Qin, Zhenbo Luo, and Jingdong Wang. Structured knowledge distillation for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2604–2613, 2019. 3

    2019

  32. [40]

    Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03983,

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Learning multi-view representation with lstm for 3-d shape recognition and retrieval

    Chao Ma, Yulan Guo, Jungang Yang, and Wei An. Learning multi-view representation with lstm for 3-d shape recognition and retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 21(5):1169– 1182, 2018. 2

    2018

  34. [42]

    Ro- bust re-identification by multiple views knowledge distillation

    Angelo Porrello, Luca Bergamini, and Simone Calderara. Ro- bust re-identification by multiple views knowledge distillation. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part X 16, pages 93–110. Springer, 2020. 3

    2020

  35. [43]

    V olumetric and multi-view cnns for object classification on 3d data

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Matthias Nießner, Angela Dai, Mengyuan Yan, and Leonidas J Guibas. V olumetric and multi-view cnns for object classification on 3d data. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5648–5656, 2016. 1, 2

    2016

  36. [44]

    Mv-swin-t: Mammogram classification with multi- view swin transformer

    Sushmita Sarker, Prithul Sarker, George Bebis, and Alireza Tavakkoli. Mv-swin-t: Mammogram classification with multi- view swin transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16298 ,

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Multi-view classifica- tion with convolutional neural networks

    Marco Seeland and Patrick M ¨ader. Multi-view classifica- tion with convolutional neural networks. Plos one, 16(1): e0245230, 2021. 2

    2021

  38. [46]

    Carvana image masking challenge

    Brian Shaler, DanGill, Maggie, Mark McDonald, Patricia, and Will Cukierski. Carvana image masking challenge. https: //kaggle.com/competitions/carvana-image- masking-challenge, 2017. Kaggle. 1, 5, 6

    2017

  39. [47]

    A mathematical theory of commu- nication

    Claude Elwood Shannon. A mathematical theory of commu- nication. The Bell system technical journal, 27(3):379–423,

  40. [48]

    Deep- pano: Deep panoramic representation for 3-d shape recogni- tion

    Baoguang Shi, Song Bai, Zhichao Zhou, and Xiang Bai. Deep- pano: Deep panoramic representation for 3-d shape recogni- tion. IEEE Signal Processing Letters , 22(12):2339–2343,

  41. [49]

    How to train your vit? data, augmentation, and regularization in vision transformers

    A Steiner, A Kolesnikov, X Zhai, R Wightman, J Uszkoreit, and L Beyer. How to train your vit? data, augmentation, and regularization in vision transformers. arxiv 2021. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10270. 5

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Multi-view convolutional neural networks for 3d shape recognition

    Hang Su, Subhransu Maji, Evangelos Kalogerakis, and Erik Learned-Miller. Multi-view convolutional neural networks for 3d shape recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE interna- tional conference on computer vision, pages 945–953, 2015. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8

    2015

  43. [51]

    Multi-view convolutional neural networks for mammo- graphic image classification

    Lilei Sun, Junqian Wang, Zhijun Hu, Yong Xu, and Zhongwei Cui. Multi-view convolutional neural networks for mammo- graphic image classification. IEEE Access, 7:126273–126282,

  44. [52]

    Multi-view analysis of unregistered medical images using cross-view transformers

    Gijs Van Tulder, Yao Tong, and Elena Marchiori. Multi-view analysis of unregistered medical images using cross-view transformers. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Con- ference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–Octobe...

    2021

  45. [53]

    Mmss: Multi-modal sharable and specific feature learning for rgb-d object recognition

    Anran Wang, Jianfei Cai, Jiwen Lu, and Tat-Jen Cham. Mmss: Multi-modal sharable and specific feature learning for rgb-d object recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 1125–1133, 2015. 1, 2

    2015

  46. [54]

    Double- uncertainty weighted method for semi-supervised learn- ing

    Yixin Wang, Yao Zhang, Jiang Tian, Cheng Zhong, Zhongchao Shi, Yang Zhang, and Zhiqiang He. Double- uncertainty weighted method for semi-supervised learn- ing. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru,...

    2020

  47. [55]

    View-gcn: View-based graph convolutional network for 3d shape analysis

    Xin Wei, Ruixuan Yu, and Jian Sun. View-gcn: View-based graph convolutional network for 3d shape analysis. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1850–1859, 2020. 2

    2020

  48. [56]

    Google landmarks dataset v2-a large-scale benchmark for instance-level recognition and retrieval

    Tobias Weyand, Andre Araujo, Bingyi Cao, and Jack Sim. Google landmarks dataset v2-a large-scale benchmark for instance-level recognition and retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2575–2584, 2020. 1, 5, 6, 7

    2020

  49. [57]

    Neural network model based on global and local features for multi-view mammogram classification

    Lili Xia, Jianpeng An, Chao Ma, Hongjun Hou, Yanpeng Hou, Linyang Cui, Xuheng Jiang, Wanqing Li, and Zhongke Gao. Neural network model based on global and local features for multi-view mammogram classification. Neurocomputing, 536:21–29, 2023. 1

    2023

  50. [58]

    Action recognition for depth video using multi-view dynamic images

    Yang Xiao, Jun Chen, Yancheng Wang, Zhiguo Cao, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Xiang Bai. Action recognition for depth video using multi-view dynamic images. Information Sciences, 480:287–304, 2019. 1

    2019

  51. [59]

    Multiview transform- ers for video recognition

    Shen Yan, Xuehan Xiong, Anurag Arnab, Zhichao Lu, Mi Zhang, Chen Sun, and Cordelia Schmid. Multiview transform- ers for video recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3333–3343, 2022. 2

    2022

  52. [60]

    Cross-image relational knowl- edge distillation for semantic segmentation

    Chuanguang Yang, Helong Zhou, Zhulin An, Xue Jiang, Yongjun Xu, and Qian Zhang. Cross-image relational knowl- edge distillation for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12319–12328, 2022. 3

    2022

  53. [61]

    Knowledge transfer via dense cross-layer mutual-distillation

    Anbang Yao and Dawei Sun. Knowledge transfer via dense cross-layer mutual-distillation. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23– 28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XV 16, pages 294–311. Springer,

    2020

  54. [62]

    Regularizing class-wise predictions via self-knowledge dis- tillation

    Sukmin Yun, Jongjin Park, Kimin Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. Regularizing class-wise predictions via self-knowledge dis- tillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 13876–13885,

  55. [63]

    Improve object detection with feature-based knowledge distillation: Towards accurate and efficient detectors

    Linfeng Zhang and Kaisheng Ma. Improve object detection with feature-based knowledge distillation: Towards accurate and efficient detectors. In International Conference on Learn- ing Representations, 2020. 3

    2020

  56. [64]

    Deep mutual learning

    Ying Zhang, Tao Xiang, Timothy M Hospedales, and Huchuan Lu. Deep mutual learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4320–4328, 2018. 3, 5

    2018

  57. [65]

    Decoupled knowledge distillation

    Borui Zhao, Quan Cui, Renjie Song, Yiyu Qiu, and Jiajun Liang. Decoupled knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11953–11962, 2022. 3

    2022

  58. [66]

    Cross-view attention network for breast cancer screening from multi-view mammo- grams

    Xuran Zhao, Luyang Yu, and Xun Wang. Cross-view attention network for breast cancer screening from multi-view mammo- grams. In ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1050–1054. IEEE, 2020. 1

    2020

  59. [67]

    Local- ization distillation for dense object detection

    Zhaohui Zheng, Rongguang Ye, Ping Wang, Dongwei Ren, Wangmeng Zuo, Qibin Hou, and Ming-Ming Cheng. Local- ization distillation for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9407–9416, 2022. 3

    2022

  60. [68]

    Mvc-net: Multi-view chest radiograph classification network with deep fusion

    Xiongfeng Zhu and Qianjin Feng. Mvc-net: Multi-view chest radiograph classification network with deep fusion. In 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pages 554–558. IEEE, 2021. 1, 2, 3 11

    2021

Pith tools

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