Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 11 cited by

Self-Supervised Learning in Deep Networks: A Pathway to Robust Few-Shot Classification

T0 review · 4 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 This paper claims that a self-supervised contrastive pre-training step on ResNet-101, followed by fine-tuning only the last layers on Mini-ImageNet, achieves 95.12% accuracy and an F1 score of 95, outperforming five CNN baselines in…

desk verdict Standard SSL-plus-fine-tuning recipe with an unsupported 95.12% Mini-ImageNet claim; the reported protocol is not few-shot and the evidence is missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12151 v1 pith:ULI4KTWT submitted 2024-11-19 cs.CV

Yuyang Xiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords self-supervisedlearningfew-shotclassificationcontrastiveResNet-101Mini-ImageNetfine-tuningtransfer
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 argues that adding a self-supervised contrastive learning stage before supervised fine-tuning gives deep networks a decisive advantage in few-shot image classification. Using ResNet-101 as the backbone, it pre-trains on unlabeled data with a contrastive loss, then fine-tunes only the final layers on Mini-ImageNet with cross-entropy. The reported result is 95.12% classification accuracy and an F1 score of 95, which would place the method ahead of CNN, LSTM+CNN, ResNet-50, DenseNet, and MobileNet baselines on the same task. The broader claim is that self-supervised pre-training yields a feature representation strong enough that very little labeled data is needed for high classification performance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-stage transfer pipeline. First, a contrastive loss defined with cosine similarity over augmented views of images pre-trains ResNet-101 to produce a feature space where same-category images cluster and different-category images separate. Second, supervised fine-tuning with cross-entropy on the few-shot training set adjusts only the later layers while earlier layers stay frozen, preserving the self-supervised features and reducing overfitting. The paper names this combination—self-supervised pre-training, ResNet-101 backbone, and layer-freezing fine-tuning—as the source of the reported accuracy.

What would settle it

Run the identical pipeline under the standard Mini-ImageNet few-shot protocol, with a disjoint 64/16/20 class split, 5-way 5-shot episodes, hundreds of random trials, and reported mean plus standard deviation. If accuracy falls well below 95%, or if reaching 95% requires pre-training on the test classes, the central claim does not hold under the accepted benchmark definition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that self-supervised pre-training combined with a deep residual backbone is an effective pathway to robust few-shot classification: on Mini-ImageNet, the proposed pipeline reaches about 95.12% accuracy and a 95 F1 score, outperforming the five compared models. The author attributes this to the contrastive pre-training stage, which organizes the feature space by pulling augmented views of the same image together and pushing different images apart, giving the fine-tuning stage a favorable initialization. The paper further claims that the method generalizes well and does not overfit, based on loss and metric curves that stabilize around 200 epochs.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that the unlabeled data used for self-supervised pre-training is disjoint from the Mini-ImageNet test classes and that the reported 95.12% figure comes from a standard few-shot evaluation with repeated random episodes; the paper specifies neither.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Self-supervised pre-training could substitute for supervised pre-training in few-shot image classification, reducing the need for large labeled datasets.
  • The margin over MobileNet (93.41 vs 95.12) suggests that even strong lightweight feature extractors gain from a contrastive initialization.
  • Freezing early layers during fine-tuning preserves transferable features and limits overfitting, a recipe transferable to other low-data tasks.
  • The pipeline could be applied to other deep backbones and to non-image tasks where unlabeled data is plentiful and labels are scarce.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not state the pre-training data source or whether it overlaps with Mini-ImageNet's test classes; if the test classes appeared during pre-training, the 95.12% would not measure few-shot generalization, and under the standard 64/16/20 class episodic protocol the accuracy would likely be far lower.
  • The paper describes Mini-ImageNet as having 100 training and 50 testing images per class, which does not match the standard benchmark's class-disjoint split; this suggests the experiment may have used a different task, and aligning the protocol is the essential next step.
  • A direct ablation is needed to isolate the self-supervised contribution: fine-tune the same ResNet-101 on the same few-shot episodes with and without the contrastive pre-training stage, keeping seeds and episode sets identical.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a self-supervised learning pipeline for few-shot image classification: a ResNet-101 backbone is pre-trained with a contrastive learning objective and then fine-tuned on Mini-ImageNet. The authors report a classification accuracy of 95.12% and an F1 score of 95 on Mini-ImageNet, claiming that this verifies the effectiveness of self-supervised learning for few-shot classification. The manuscript contains an introduction, a related-work section, a high-level description of the method, a short experimental section with a single-table comparison against five CNN-based baselines, and a conclusion.

Significance. The topic is relevant, and the proposed combination of contrastive self-supervision with a ResNet-101 backbone is a plausible direction. However, the paper does not provide evidence that this particular instantiation advances the state of the art. The reported evaluation is not a standard few-shot benchmark: the dataset description in Section IV-A implies overlapping training and test classes, and no episodic evaluation protocol is described. The paper provides no code, no error bars, and no comparison with standard few-shot methods, so the empirical claim is not verifiable and cannot be accepted as evidence for few-shot generalization. If the reported result were valid, it would be a strong result, but as written the manuscript does not support it.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-A] The described dataset split is not the standard Mini-ImageNet few-shot split. The manuscript states that each category is divided into a training set and a test set, with 100 images for training and 50 for testing. This means the same 100 classes appear in both training and testing, which is a standard supervised classification setup, not a few-shot benchmark. The standard Mini-ImageNet few-shot protocol uses disjoint sets of 64 training, 16 validation, and 20 test classes. As a result, the reported 95.12% accuracy cannot be interpreted as few-shot classification performance and is not comparable to any result in the few-shot literature. This is a load-bearing flaw because the abstract and conclusion make the few-shot claim based on this number.
  2. [Section IV-B and IV-C] No few-shot evaluation protocol is specified. The paper does not state the number of ways (N) or support shots (K) per episode, the number of random episodes, or the standard deviation across episodes. The single ACC and F1 values in Table 1 are therefore unverifiable. Reporting point estimates without error bars or episode counts provides no statistical evidence for the claimed advantage.
  3. [Table 1] The comparison baselines (CNN, LSTM+CNN, ResNet50, DenseNet, MobileNet) are not few-shot classification methods, and no standard few-shot baselines (e.g., Prototypical Networks, Matching Networks, MAML, or self-supervised few-shot methods) are included. Without such comparisons, Table 1 cannot support the claim that the proposed pipeline improves few-shot classification.
  4. [Section III] The loss equations are garbled and unreadable in the manuscript, so the actual contrastive loss and cross-entropy loss are not available for verification. In addition, the self-supervised pre-training data is never specified; if the model is pre-trained on Mini-ImageNet itself, the class overlap with the test set further invalidates the evaluation, and if it is pre-trained on another dataset (e.g., ImageNet), that dataset and the pre-training protocol must be described.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion state that the method reaches 'about 95.12% in classification accuracy (ACC) and F1 score', which is misleading: the table reports ACC=95.12% and F1=95 as separate metrics.
  2. [Section IV-C] Figures 2 and 3 are referenced in the text, but no such figures are included in the manuscript; only their captions are present.
  3. [Section IV-A] The dataset description says each of the 100 categories contains 600 images, but then says each category has 100 images for training and 50 for testing; the arithmetic inconsistency (100+50=150, not 600) should be resolved.
  4. [References] Reference [29] is cited for the contrastive loss, but the reference is about a Wasserstein-distance adversarial network for credit risk and appears unrelated to contrastive learning.
  5. [Table 1 and Section IV-C] The F1-score values in Table 1 are given as integers without a percentage sign (e.g., 83), while the text sometimes expresses F1 as a percentage (e.g., '85.65%'); the formatting should be made consistent.
  6. [Section IV-B] The experimental setup does not report the contrastive learning hyperparameters (temperature, batch size, projection head dimensions) or the number of pre-training epochs, which are needed for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper reports an empirical measurement rather than a derivation, and no self-citation chain or fitted-input prediction is load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a derivation chain whose conclusion is equivalent to its inputs. The method section describes a standard self-supervised contrastive pre-training loss followed by fine-tuning with cross-entropy on Mini-ImageNet, and the reported 95.12% ACC/F1 is presented as an experimental measurement on a test split, not as a quantity forced by construction from the method's definitions. No parameter is fitted to the test set and then renamed a prediction; the model is fine-tuned on a training set and evaluated on a test set. The cited references are to prior work by other authors, and no load-bearing claim is justified by a self-citation or by an imported uniqueness theorem. The main weakness is the dataset description: the paper states 'each category has 100 images for training and 50 images for testing, forming a strict few-shot classification task setting,' which is inconsistent with the standard Mini-ImageNet few-shot protocol of disjoint meta-training and meta-test classes with N-way K-shot episodes. This is a serious validity and benchmark-integrity concern, but it is not circularity: the 95.12% figure is not by definition equal to any training loss, fitted parameter, or acceptance criterion. The claim may be unsupported or mislabeled as few-shot, but the paper's empirical result is not a self-referential construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new theoretical objects are introduced. The paper's contribution is an empirical claim that depends on several unstated data-handling assumptions and hyperparameter choices.

free parameters (4)
  • Learning rate = 0.001
    Chosen via validation; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Number of training epochs (early stopping) = around 200
    Based on loss convergence; the exact early stopping criterion is not described.
  • Layer freezing configuration = unspecified
    The text says 'last few layers' but no exact configuration is given; the result depends on this choice.
  • Contrastive loss hyperparameters (temperature, batch size, projection head) = unspecified
    The loss equation is garbled and no values are given; these affect the learned representation.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Self-supervised pre-training on a large unlabeled dataset improves few-shot classification performance.
    This is the central hypothesis; it is widely believed but the paper provides no ablation to isolate the effect.
  • domain assumption The Mini-ImageNet dataset was split into training, validation, and test sets with 100/50 images per class and no class overlap.
    The paper states this division, but the standard Mini-ImageNet split uses disjoint class sets; if the split is not standard, the comparison is invalid.
  • domain assumption The unlabeled pre-training data is disjoint from the fine-tuning and test classes.
    This is necessary to avoid information leakage, but the data source is never specified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-Supervised Learning in Deep Networks: A Pathway to Robust Few-Shot Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULI4KTWT

@misc{pith2026241112151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-Supervised Learning in Deep Networks: A Pathway to Robust Few-Shot Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULI4KTWT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12151}
}
read the original abstract

This study aims to optimize the few-shot image classification task and improve the model's feature extraction and classification performance by combining self-supervised learning with the deep network model ResNet-101. During the training process, we first pre-train the model with self-supervision to enable it to learn common feature expressions on a large amount of unlabeled data; then fine-tune it on the few-shot dataset Mini-ImageNet to improve the model's accuracy and generalization ability under limited data. The experimental results show that compared with traditional convolutional neural networks, ResNet-50, DenseNet, and other models, our method has achieved excellent performance of about 95.12% in classification accuracy (ACC) and F1 score, verifying the effectiveness of self-supervised learning in few-shot classification. This method provides an efficient and reliable solution for the field of few-shot image classification.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

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

  1. Collaborative Optimization in Financial Data Mining Through Deep Learning and ResNeXt

    cs.LG 2024-12 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A ResNeXt-based multi-task learning model reportedly outperforms LSTM, Transformer, MCCNN, and DSN on S&P 500 classification and regression, but the experiments lack error bars, code, and leakage controls.

  2. Enhancing Recommendation Systems with GNNs and Addressing Over-Smoothing

    cs.IR 2024-12 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    Adding initial residual connections and identity mapping to a LightGCN-style recommendation model yields small reported gains on Gowalla, Yelp-2018, and Amazon-Book.

  3. Deep Learning in Image Classification: Evaluating VGG19's Performance on Complex Visual Data

    cs.CV 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    On a public chest X-ray dataset, VGG19 is reported to outperform SVM, XGBoost, MLP, and ResNet50 in accuracy, AUC, F1, and recall, but without a reproducible evaluation protocol.

  4. Dynamic Scheduling Strategies for Resource Optimization in Computing Environments

    cs.DC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A weighted-sum container placement objective solved with a genetic algorithm is claimed to outperform static rules and heuristics on Google Cluster Data, but the comparison lacks methodology, baselines, and code.

  5. Adaptive User Interface Generation Through Reinforcement Learning: A Data-Driven Approach to Personalization and Optimization

    cs.HC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A DQN-based reinforcement learning system is reported to reach CTR 0.78 and RR 0.83 on an unverified CLIP Interactions dataset, beating five baselines, but no reproducible evidence is provided.

  6. Dynamic User Interface Generation for Enhanced Human-Computer Interaction Using Variational Autoencoders

    cs.HC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A vanilla VAE trained on the RICO dataset is reported to beat AE, GAN, cGAN, DBN, and VAE-GAN on SSIM/MAE for UI generation, but the comparison is under-specified and the dynamic feedback claim is untested.

  7. Accurate Medical Named Entity Recognition Through Specialized NLP Models

    cs.CL 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    The paper reports BioBERT as the best among five models on MIMIC-III NER, but the experimental description is too sparse to verify the numbers.

  8. Optimizing Multi-Task Learning for Enhanced Performance in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A multi-task GPT-4 model is said to beat single-task GPT-4, GPT-3, BERT, and Bi-LSTM on classification and summarization, but the experimental evidence is not reported.

  9. Advanced Risk Prediction and Stability Assessment of Banks Using Time Series Transformer Models

    q-fin.RM 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A standard Time Series Transformer is compared with five baselines on the UCI Bank Marketing dataset and reported as best for bank stability prediction, but the dataset contains no bank stability index.

  10. An Automated Data Mining Framework Using Autoencoders for Feature Extraction and Dimensionality Reduction

    cs.LG 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    An autoencoder is compared with five dimensionality reduction methods on one UCI dataset and reported to have the best reconstruction error, without error bars or released code.

  11. Leveraging Semi-Supervised Learning to Enhance Data Mining for Image Classification under Limited Labeled Data

    cs.CV 2024-11 reject novelty 1.0 of 10

    A self-training CNN on 10,000 labeled CIFAR-10 images reaches 0.897 accuracy, but missing implementation details and baseline comparisons make the result unverifiable.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 11 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Deep Learning with HM - VGG: AI Strategies for Multi -modal Image Analysis,

    J. Du, Y. Cang , T. Zhou, J. Hu, and W. He, "Deep Learning with HM - VGG: AI Strategies for Multi -modal Image Analysis," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24046, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Self - Supervised Graph Neural Networks for Enhanced Feature Extraction in Heterogeneous Information Networks,

    J. Wei, Y. Liu, X. Huang, X. Zhang, W. Liu, and X. Yan, "Self - Supervised Graph Neural Networks for Enhanced Feature Extraction in Heterogeneous Information Networks," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17617, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Efficient Few -Shot Classification Using Self - Supervised Learning and Class Factor Analysis,

    Lee and H. Park, "Efficient Few -Shot Classification Using Self - Supervised Learning and Class Factor Analysis," Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Information and Communication (ICAIIC), 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Visual Explanations of ResNet 101 for Blister Package Classification,

    N. Hnoohom, N. Maitrichit, K. Wongpatikaseree, S. Yuenyong, S. Mekruksavanich and A. Jitpattanakul, "Visual Explanations of ResNet 101 for Blister Package Classification," 2022 Research, Invention, and Innovation Congress: Innovative Electricals and Electronics (RI2C) , pp. 148-152, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Transformers in Opinion Mining: Addressing Semantic Complexity and Model Challenges in NLP,

    J. Du, Y. Jiang, and Y. Liang, "Transformers in Opinion Mining: Addressing Semantic Complexity and Model Challenges in NLP," Transactions on Computational and Scientific Methods, vol. 4, no. 10, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Deep Learning for Medical Text Processing: BERT Model Fine -Tuning and Comparative Study,

    J. Hu, Y. Cang, G. Liu, M. Wang, W. He, and R. Bao, "Deep Learning for Medical Text Processing: BERT Model Fine -Tuning and Comparative Study," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20792, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Optimizing Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Elasticsearch for Enhanced Question-Answering Systems,

    J. Chen, R. Bao, H. Zheng, Z. Qi, J. Wei, and J. Hu, "Optimizing Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Elasticsearch for Enhanced Question-Answering Systems," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14167, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Balancing Innovation and Privacy: Data Security Strategies in Natural Language Processing Applications,

    S. Liu, G. Liu, B. Zhu, Y. Luo, L. Wu, and R. Wang, "Balancing Innovation and Privacy: Data Security Strategies in Natural Language Processing Applications," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08553, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Graph Neural Networks in Financial Markets: Modeling Volatility and Assessing Value-at-Risk,

    K. Xu, Y. Wu, H. Xia, N. Sang, and B. Wang, "Graph Neural Networks in Financial Markets: Modeling Volatility and Assessing Value-at-Risk," Journal of Computer Technology and Software, vol. 1, no. 2, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Predicting Liquidity Coverage Ratio with Gated Recurrent Units: A Deep Learning Model for Risk Management,

    Z. Xu, J. Pan, S. Han, H. Ouyang, Y. Chen, and M. Jiang, "Predicting Liquidity Coverage Ratio with Gated Recurrent Units: A Deep Learning Model for Risk Management," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.19211, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Applying Hybrid Graph Neural Networks to Strengthen Credit Risk Analysis,

    M. Sun, W. Sun, Y. Sun, S. Liu, M. Jiang, and Z. Xu, "Applying Hybrid Graph Neural Networks to Strengthen Credit Risk Analysis," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04283, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Unveiling the Potential of Graph Neural Networks in SME Credit Risk Assessment,

    B. Liu, I. Li, J. Yao, Y. Chen, G. Huang, and J. Wang, "Unveiling the Potential of Graph Neural Networks in SME Credit Risk Assessment," arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17909, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Leveraging Deep Learning Techniques for Enhanced Analysis of Medical Textual Data,

    Y. Cang, Y. Zhong, R. Ji, Y. Liang, Y. Lei, and J. Wang, "Leveraging Deep Learning Techniques for Enhanced Analysis of Medical Textual Data," Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Sensors, Electronics and Computer Engineering (ICSECE), pp. 1259 - 1263, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Dynamic Hypergraph-Enhanced Prediction of Sequential Medical Visits,

    W. Yang, Z. Wu, Z. Zheng, B. Zhang, S. Bo, and Y. Yang, "Dynamic Hypergraph-Enhanced Prediction of Sequential Medical Visits," arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07084, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A Systematic Study on the Privacy Protection Mechanism of Natural Language Processing in Medical Health Records,

    X. Fei, S. Chai, W. He, L. Dai, R. Xu, and L. Cai, "A Systematic Study on the Privacy Protection Mechanism of Natural Language Processing in Medical Health Records," Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Sensors, Electronics and Computer Engineering (ICS...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Automated Genre -Aware Article Scoring and Feedback Using Large Language Models,

    C. Wang, Y. Dong, Z. Zhang, R. Wang, S. Wang, and J. Chen, "Automated Genre -Aware Article Scoring and Feedback Using Large Language Models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14165, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Self -Supervised Contrastive Learning for Consistent Few -Shot Image Representations,

    S. Karimijafarbigloo, R. Azad, and D. Merhof, "Self -Supervised Contrastive Learning for Consistent Few -Shot Image Representations," Proceedings of the International Workshop on Predictive Intelligence in Medicine, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Adversarial Neural Networks in Medical Imaging Advancements and Challenges in Semantic Segmentation,

    H. Liu, B. Zhang, Y. Xiang, Y. Hu, A. Shen, and Y. Lin, "Adversarial Neural Networks in Medical Imaging Advancements and Challenges in Semantic Segmentation," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13099, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Medical Image Segmentation with Bilateral Spatial Attention and Transfer Learning,

    D. Sun, M. Sui, Y. Liang, J. Hu, and J. Du, "Medical Image Segmentation with Bilateral Spatial Attention and Transfer Learning," Journal of Computer Science and Software Applications, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 19-27, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Axial Attention Transformer Networks: A New Frontier in Breast Cancer Detection,

    W. He, R. Bao, Y. Cang, J. Wei, Y. Zhang, and J. Hu, "Axial Attention Transformer Networks: A New Frontier in Breast Cancer Detection," arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12347, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Transforming Multidimensional Time Series into Interpretable Event Sequences for Advanced Data Mining

    X. Yan, Y. Jiang, W. Liu, D. Yi, and J. Wei, "Transforming Multidimensional Time Series into Interpretable Event Sequences for Advanced Data Mining", arXiv preprint, arXiv:2409.14327, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Optimizing YOLOv5s Object Detection through Knowledge Distillation Algorithm,

    G. Huang, A. Shen, Y. Hu, J. Du, J. Hu, and Y. Liang, "Optimizing YOLOv5s Object Detection through Knowledge Distillation Algorithm," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12259, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Convolutional Neural Networks for Predictive Modeling of Lung Disease,

    Y. Liang, X. Liu, H. Xia, Y. Cang, Z. Zheng, and Y. Yang, "Convolutional Neural Networks for Predictive Modeling of Lung Disease," arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12605, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A Lightweight GAN-Based Image Fusion Algorithm for Visible and Infrared Images,

    Z. Wu, J. Chen, L. Tan, H. Gong, Y. Zhou, and G. Shi, "A Lightweight GAN-Based Image Fusion Algorithm for Visible and Infrared Images," Proceedings of the 2024 4th International Conference on Computer Science and Blockchain (CCSB), pp. 466-470, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Deep Learning - Based Channel Squeeze U -Structure for Lung Nodule Detection and Segmentation,

    M. Sui, J. Hu, T. Zhou, Z. Liu, L. Wen, and J. Du, "Deep Learning - Based Channel Squeeze U -Structure for Lung Nodule Detection and Segmentation," arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13868, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Research on adverse drug reaction prediction model combining knowledge graph embedding and deep learning,

    Y. Li, W. Zhao, B. Dang, X. Yan, M. Gao, W. Wang, and M. Xiao, "Research on adverse drug reaction prediction model combining knowledge graph embedding and deep learning," Proceedings of the 2024 4th International Conference on Machine Learning and Intelligent Systems Engineeri...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Efficient and Aesthetic UI Design with a Deep Learning -Based Interface Generation Tree Algorithm,

    S. Duan, R. Zhang, M. Chen, Z. Wang, and S. Wang, "Efficient and Aesthetic UI Design with a Deep Learning -Based Interface Generation Tree Algorithm," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17586, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Dynamic Fraud Detection: Integrating Reinforcement Learning into Graph Neural Networks,

    Y. Dong, J. Yao, J. Wang, Y. Liang, S. Liao, and M. Xiao, "Dynamic Fraud Detection: Integrating Reinforcement Learning into Graph Neural Networks," Proceedings of the 2024 6th International Conference on Data-driven Optimization of Complex Systems (DOCS), pp. 818 -823, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Wasserstein Distance-Weighted Adversarial Network for Cross -Domain Credit Risk Assessment,

    M. Jiang, J. Lin, H. Ouyang, J. Pan, S. Han, and B. Liu, "Wasserstein Distance-Weighted Adversarial Network for Cross -Domain Credit Risk Assessment," arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18544, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Financial Risk Analysis Using Integrated Data and Transformer -Based Deep Learning,

    Y. Wei, K. Xu, J. Yao, M. Sun, and Y. Sun, "Financial Risk Analysis Using Integrated Data and Transformer -Based Deep Learning," Journal of Computer Science and Software Applications, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1 -8, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Fully Self -Supervised Out -of-Domain Few -Shot Learning with Masked Autoencoders,

    R. Walsh, et al., "Fully Self -Supervised Out -of-Domain Few -Shot Learning with Masked Autoencoders," Journal of Imaging, vol. 10, no. 1, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

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