Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 63 references

CAT: Class Aware Adaptive Thresholding for Semi-Supervised Domain Generalization

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CAT, a class-aware adaptive thresholding method with noisy-label refinement, reports state-of-the-art semi-supervised domain generalization using only 5 or 10 labels per class.

desk verdict The method is a sensible FreeMatch-plus-contrastive-refinement combination, but its headline SOTA claim is unsupported by the paper's own internally inconsistent tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08479 v1 pith:IT7LKOZ2 submitted 2024-12-11 cs.CV

Sumaiya Zoha , Jeong-Gun Lee , Young-Woong Ko This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semi-superviseddomaingeneralizationadaptivethresholdingpseudo-labelingnoisylabelrefinementsupervisedcontrastivelearninglow-labelregimeshift
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 claims that semi-supervised domain generalization, where a model must transfer to unseen domains using only a handful of labeled examples per class, can be made practical by replacing fixed pseudo-label thresholds with thresholds that adapt to both class and domain. The proposed method, CAT, combines this adaptive thresholding with a noisy-label refinement step and supervised contrastive learning. Across PACS, OfficeHome, VLCS, and miniDomainNet, CAT is reported to outperform existing semi-supervised domain generalization methods and also standalone domain generalization and semi-supervised learning baselines. If the claims hold, the result matters because it lowers the annotation cost of building domain-generalizable models while keeping accuracy close to fully supervised training.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a two-part pseudo-labeling pipeline. First, class-domain aware thresholding maintains a global confidence threshold updated by exponential moving average of model confidence, then scales it per class via max-normalization so that the unsupervised loss only accepts pseudo-labels whose confidence exceeds the class-specific threshold. Second, the noisy-label refinement module finds, for each pseudo-labeled sample, its top-K nearest neighbors in representation space, measures agreement between the pseudo-label and the neighbors' labels, and uses a per-class alpha-fractile to mark samples as clean or noisy; clean samples are trained with a supervised contrastive loss and the rest with an unsupervised contrastive loss. The final objective sums the supervised cross-entropy loss, the thresholded unsupervised loss, and the supervised contrastive loss.

What would settle it

Measure the precision of above-threshold pseudo-labels on a held-out source domain during CAT training, for example on PACS with 10 labels per class. If precision falls below the level needed for self-training to converge, or if removing the noisy-label refinement module changes final accuracy by less than the reported margin, then the claim that adaptive thresholding plus refinement drives the gains would be falsified. A direct ablation of the threshold and refinement components would settle which part carries the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that fixed-confidence pseudo-labeling, as used by FixMatch and StyleMatch, wastes too many usable unlabeled samples in multi-domain settings, and that class- and domain-aware adaptive thresholds recover those samples while a neighbor-agreement refinement step suppresses the noisy pseudo-labels that adaptive thresholding lets through. The resulting pseudo-labels feed a supervised contrastive loss that pulls representations from different source domains closer when they share a refined pseudo-label, producing domain-invariant features. The paper reports that this combination yields, for example, 82.95% average accuracy on PACS and 93.43% on VLCS with 10 labels per class, surpassing the compared SSDG methods and many fully supervised DG baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a pseudo-label whose confidence clears the adaptive threshold is accurate enough to be safely treated as a ground-truth label in supervised contrastive learning; the paper reports no measurement of pseudo-label accuracy or calibration to support this assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With only 5 or 10 labeled examples per class per source domain, CAT is reported to approach or exceed the fully supervised baseline on PACS and miniDomainNet, suggesting that low-label domain generalization is feasible without large annotation budgets.
  • Because the adaptive threshold is class- and domain-aware, the method should retain more high-confidence unlabeled samples than fixed-threshold baselines, which directly addresses the main limitation identified for StyleMatch and FixMatch.
  • The noisy-label refinement is what allows the contrastive loss to use pseudo-labels without being derailed by mislabeled samples, so the method's gains should persist as the number of source domains grows.
  • The reported improvements grow with the number of source domains, implying CAT makes better use of multi-domain structure rather than just adding more unlabeled data.
  • CAT is a loss-level modification rather than a new architecture, so it can be layered onto existing SSDG or SSL training pipelines with standard backbones like ResNet.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit which component contributes the reported gains: no ablation separates the adaptive threshold filter from the noisy-label refinement module, so a fair test would retrain CAT with each component removed.
  • A testable extension is to measure pseudo-label precision and calibration under domain shift; if above-threshold pseudo-labels are frequently wrong in a new domain, the self-training loop could amplify errors rather than correct them.
  • The method appears transferable to other low-label multi-domain settings such as medical imaging across hospitals or autonomous driving across weather conditions, but those settings would need explicit evaluation because their label noise and domain gaps differ from PACS and OfficeHome.
  • Connecting CAT to class-imbalanced SSDG is a natural next step, since the per-class thresholds and alpha-fractile refinement are sensitive to class frequency and could be adapted to rebalance pseudo-label selection.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CAT, a semi-supervised domain generalization method that combines class-adaptive thresholding (extending FreeMatch to a multi-domain setting) with a noisy pseudo-label refinement module and supervised contrastive learning. The method is evaluated on PACS, OfficeHome, VLCS, and miniDomainNet with 10 and 5 labels per class, and the paper claims that CAT outperforms existing SSDG methods (StyleMatch, MultiMatch) and approaches fully supervised DG performance. The main result is reported in Table 2, with per-dataset details in Tables 3-5, plus ablations on backbones, label counts, and number of source domains.

Significance. If the reported results were correct, CAT would be a simple and practical contribution to low-label domain generalization, combining known ingredients (adaptive thresholds, contrastive learning) in a straightforward way. The method is plausible and the per-dataset tables (3, 4, 5) are internally coherent. However, the quantitative evidence in the main summary table is internally inconsistent and does not support the claimed state-of-the-art performance. The paper also provides no code, no error bars, and no validation of the core pseudo-label quality assumption, so the significance of the contribution is not established by the submission.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 2 vs Tables 3-5] Table 2 is internally inconsistent with the detailed results. For example, CAT on OfficeHome with 10 labels per class is listed as 75.23% in Table 2 but 65.04% in Table 4; CAT on miniDomainNet with 10 labels per class is listed as 80.10% in Table 2 but 67.71% in Table 5. The printed averages in Table 2 also fail arithmetic checks: the CAT 10-label entries (82.95, 75.23, 93.43, 80.10) average to 82.93, not the reported 82.00, and the Full-Labels entries (79.50, 64.70, 95.96, 69.20) average to 77.34, not 79.50. Additionally, Table 3's Full-Labels row lists 95.96 and 69.20 under PACS columns, which are actually the VLCS and miniDomainNet values from Table 2, not PACS per-domain accuracies. Since the abstract and Section 5.1 use Table 2's averages to claim superiority over StyleMatch and MultiMatch, these discrepancies invalidate the central quantitative claim. No code or raw per-domain logs are provided to resolve which table is correct.
  2. [Section 3.3 / Eq. (10)] The paper's core mechanism is not validated. The method assumes that pseudo-labels exceeding the adaptive threshold are accurate enough to serve as supervision in supervised contrastive learning, and that the refinement module improves noisy labels. However, no measurement of pseudo-label accuracy, no calibration analysis, and no ablation separating the thresholding filter from the refinement module are reported. In particular, the paper does not quantify the fraction of pseudo-labels retained or the agreement rate used in the α-fractile step. Without these measurements, the claim in Section 1 that adaptive thresholding 'generates high-quality pseudo-labels' and that refinement 'improves reliability' is unsupported, especially under the domain shift that SSDG is designed to handle.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (5)-(8)] The method description is underspecified. The text states that CAT incorporates 'both class and domain dependencies' in pseudo-label selection, but Equations (5)-(8) contain no domain index and no domain-specific quantity. The global threshold τg is computed as an EMA over all unlabeled data, and τg(c) is a class-specific scaling of τg; there is no formulation of a domain-aware threshold. If domain-aware thresholding is an intended contribution, it is not defined in the equations, and the implementation could be no more than a direct application of FreeMatch's thresholds to the multi-domain setting.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The caption says the table summarizes PACS, OfficeHome, VLCS, and miniDomainNet, but the table only contains rows for PACS, OfficeHome, and miniDomainNet; a VLCS row is missing or the caption is incorrect.
  2. [Section 4.1] 'PCAS' is a typo and should be 'PACS'.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) has the same functional form as Equation (5), both averaging max confidence, so it does not implement a class-specific expectation as the text claims; the per-class averaging needs to be spelled out.
  4. [Section 2] FreeMatch is cited as '[ ?]' in the related work section; this broken citation should be replaced with the full reference.
  5. [Section 6, Figure 1] The description of Figure 1 is qualitative and the sentence 'our method can improve performance by 1.5% than MultiMatch, which is better 1.5% better than StyleMatch' is unclear; reporting exact numerical gains or error bars would improve clarity.
  6. [Table 5] The table caption lists domains as 'Clipart, Infograph, Painting, and Real', but the columns are labeled C, P, R, S and the text describes them as 'Clipart, Painting, Real, Sketch'; the caption and column labels should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method is an empirical SSL pipeline whose components are explicitly adapted from cited external work, and its claims rest on benchmark experiments, not on a derivation equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

CAT's construction does not contain a load-bearing step where an output is defined in terms of itself or where a fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The adaptive thresholds in Eqs. (5)-(8) are copied/adapted from FreeMatch [48], which is explicitly cited ("Inspired by this approach, we extend the concept..."), so this is acknowledged reuse, not circularity. The noisy-label refinement module uses the model's own pseudo-labels and nearest-neighbor agreements (Sec. 3.3), which is self-referential in the standard SSL sense (self-training), but it does not constitute derivation-level circularity: no empirical constant is predicted from an input that contains it, and no "uniqueness theorem" or same-author citation is invoked to force the design. The paper contains no self-citations by the present authors; [48], [59], and [61] are external prior works. The most important quantitative concern is the internal inconsistency of the experimental tables: Table 2 reports CAT OfficeHome as 75.23/75.50 while Table 4 reports 65.04/61.71, and several printed averages are not the arithmetic means of the listed entries (e.g., Table 2's 10-label CAT average is 82.00 while the listed entries average 82.93). That is a correctness/evidence problem that undermines the SOTA claim, but it is not a circularity pattern under the seven enumerated kinds, since the discrepancy does not show that any claimed result is equivalent to its inputs by construction. Similarly, the untested assumption that high-confidence pseudo-labels are accurate under domain shift is a robustness concern, not a circular derivation. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical, not derived, so the ledger lists the tuned hyperparameters and the domain assumptions that the pipeline silently relies on. The main burden is that the paper does not specify several of these values.

free parameters (6)
  • EMA momentum lambda = not reported (range typo lambda in {0,1} in Eq. 5)
    Controls the speed of threshold adaptation in Eqs. 5-6; the paper gives no value.
  • alpha fractile for pseudo-label agreement = not reported
    Determines which pseudo-labels are considered clean in Section 3.3; no value is given.
  • Number of neighbors K = not reported
    Top-K neighbor aggregation in Section 3.3; K unspecified.
  • Contrastive temperature tau = not reported
    Temperature in Eq. 10; affects contrastive loss sharpness.
  • Learning rate = 0.003
    Selected by tuning; text says 'we examined multiple learning rates to find the best one'.
  • Unsupervised loss weight lambda_u = 1
    Set to 1 for all experiments; a hand-chosen hyperparameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pseudo-labels above the adaptive threshold are reliable enough to train the model with supervised contrastive loss.
    Invoked in Eqs. 4-8 and Section 3.3; no validation of pseudo-label accuracy.
  • domain assumption Labeled and unlabeled source data come from the same label space.
    Section 3.1 defines SSDG with nL labeled and nU unlabeled per domain; the method does not handle unknown classes despite the introduction mentioning them.
  • domain assumption RandAugment and UDA strong and weak augmentation preserve the semantic label.
    Section 3.2 data augmentation; necessary for consistency loss Eq. 8.
  • domain assumption Leave-one-domain-out validation on these four datasets is a valid measure of domain generalization.
    Section 4.2; standard protocol but an assumption about evaluation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CAT: Class Aware Adaptive Thresholding for Semi-Supervised Domain Generalization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IT7LKOZ2

@misc{pith2026241208479,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CAT: Class Aware Adaptive Thresholding for Semi-Supervised Domain Generalization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IT7LKOZ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08479}
}
read the original abstract

Domain Generalization (DG) seeks to transfer knowledge from multiple source domains to unseen target domains, even in the presence of domain shifts. Achieving effective generalization typically requires a large and diverse set of labeled source data to learn robust representations that can generalize to new, unseen domains. However, obtaining such high-quality labeled data is often costly and labor-intensive, limiting the practical applicability of DG. To address this, we investigate a more practical and challenging problem: semi-supervised domain generalization (SSDG) under a label-efficient paradigm. In this paper, we propose a novel method, CAT, which leverages semi-supervised learning with limited labeled data to achieve competitive generalization performance under domain shifts. Our method addresses key limitations of previous approaches, such as reliance on fixed thresholds and sensitivity to noisy pseudo-labels. CAT combines adaptive thresholding with noisy label refinement techniques, creating a straightforward yet highly effective solution for SSDG tasks. Specifically, our approach uses flexible thresholding to generate high-quality pseudo-labels with higher class diversity while refining noisy pseudo-labels to improve their reliability. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our method, highlighting its effectiveness in achieving robust generalization under domain shift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08479 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between our method with StyleMatch and MultiMatch in different label settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Selective-supervised contrastive learning with noisy labels

    Shikun Li, Xiaobo Xia, Shiming Ge, and Tongliang Liu. Selective-supervised contrastive learning with noisy labels. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 316–325, 2022. 4, 5

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Adaptive consistency regular- ization for semi-supervised transfer learning

    Abulikemu Abuduweili, Xingjian Li, Humphrey Shi, Cheng- Zhong Xu, and Dejing Dou. Adaptive consistency regular- ization for semi-supervised transfer learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6923–6932, 2021. 1, 2

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Self-training: A survey

    Massih-Reza Amini, Vasilii Feofanov, Loic Pauletto, Lies Hadjadj, Emilie Devijver, and Yury Maximov. Self-training: A survey. Neurocomputing, page 128904, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    Learn- ing with pseudo-ensembles

    Philip Bachman, Ouais Alsharif, and Doina Precup. Learn- ing with pseudo-ensembles. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014. 1, 2

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    Metareg: Towards domain generalization using meta- regularization

    Yogesh Balaji, Swami Sankaranarayanan, and Rama Chel- lappa. Metareg: Towards domain generalization using meta- regularization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning

    David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Ian Goodfellow, Nicolas Papernot, Avital Oliver, and Colin A Raffel. Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019. 1

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Adamatch: A unified approach to semi-supervised learning and domain adaptation

    David Berthelot, Rebecca Roelofs, Kihyuk Sohn, Nicholas Carlini, and Alex Kurakin. Adamatch: A unified approach to semi-supervised learning and domain adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04732, 2021. 2

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Curriculum labeling: Revisiting pseudo-labeling for semi-supervised learning

    Paola Cascante-Bonilla, Fuwen Tan, Yanjun Qi, and Vicente Ordonez. Curriculum labeling: Revisiting pseudo-labeling for semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, pages 6912– 6920, 2021. 1

    work page 2021

Show all 63 references
  1. [8]

    Domain generalization by mutual-information regu- larization with pre-trained models

    Junbum Cha, Kyungjae Lee, Sungrae Park, and Sanghyuk Chun. Domain generalization by mutual-information regu- larization with pre-trained models. In European conference on computer vision, pages 440–457. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  2. [9]

    Debiased self-training for semi-supervised learning

    Baixu Chen, Junguang Jiang, Ximei Wang, Pengfei Wan, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Debiased self-training for semi-supervised learning. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 35:32424–32437, 2022. 2

    2022

  3. [10]

    Self-training avoids using spurious features under domain shift

    Yining Chen, Colin Wei, Ananya Kumar, and Tengyu Ma. Self-training avoids using spurious features under domain shift. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:21061–21071, 2020. 1

    2020

  4. [11]

    Randaugment: Practical automated data augmen- tation with a reduced search space

    Ekin D Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V Le. Randaugment: Practical automated data augmen- tation with a reduced search space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, pages 702–703, 2020. 4

    2020

  5. [12]

    Deep domain generalization with structured low-rank constraint

    Zhengming Ding and Yun Fu. Deep domain generalization with structured low-rank constraint. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 27(1):304–313, 2017. 2

    2017

  6. [13]

    Domain gener- alization with domain-specific aggregation modules

    Antonio D’Innocente and Barbara Caputo. Domain gener- alization with domain-specific aggregation modules. In Pat- tern Recognition: 40th German Conference, GCPR 2018, Stuttgart, Germany, October 9-12, 2018, Proceedings 40 , pages 187–198. Springer, 2019. 2

    2018

  7. [14]

    Domain-adversarial training of neural networks

    Yaroslav Ganin, Evgeniya Ustinova, Hana Ajakan, Pas- cal Germain, Hugo Larochelle, Franc ¸ois Laviolette, Mario March, and Victor Lempitsky. Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. Journal of machine learning research , 17(59):1–35, 2016. 2

    2016

  8. [15]

    Un- supervised representation learning by predicting image rota- tions

    Spyros Gidaris, Praveer Singh, and Nikos Komodakis. Un- supervised representation learning by predicting image rota- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07728, 2018. 2

    2018 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Semi-supervised learning by entropy minimization

    Yves Grandvalet and Yoshua Bengio. Semi-supervised learning by entropy minimization. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 17, 2004. 2, 5

    2004

  10. [17]

    Class-imbalanced semi- supervised learning with adaptive thresholding

    Lan-Zhe Guo and Yu-Feng Li. Class-imbalanced semi- supervised learning with adaptive thresholding. In Interna- tional conference on machine learning , pages 8082–8094. PMLR, 2022. 2, 3, 4

    2022

  11. [18]

    Semi-supervised learning

    Mohamed Farouk Abdel Hady and Friedhelm Schwenker. Semi-supervised learning. Handbook on Neural Information Processing, pages 215–239, 2013. 1

    2013

  12. [19]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 5

    2016

  13. [20]

    Self-challenging improves cross-domain generalization

    Zeyi Huang, Haohan Wang, Eric P Xing, and Dong Huang. Self-challenging improves cross-domain generalization. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16, pages 124–140. Springer, 2020. 5

    2020

  14. [21]

    Domain- guided weight modulation for semi-supervised domain gen- eralization

    Chamuditha Jayanaga Galappaththige, Zachary Izzo, Xilin He, Honglu Zhou, and Muhammad Haris Khan. Domain- guided weight modulation for semi-supervised domain gen- eralization. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2409, 2024. 3

    2024

  15. [22]

    Dual student: Breaking the limits of the teacher in semi-supervised learning

    Zhanghan Ke, Daoye Wang, Qiong Yan, Jimmy Ren, and Rynson WH Lau. Dual student: Breaking the limits of the teacher in semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 6728–6736, 2019. 2

    2019

  16. [23]

    Supervised contrastive learning

    Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. Supervised contrastive learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:18661–18673,

  17. [24]

    Selfreg: Self-supervised contrastive regu- larization for domain generalization

    Daehee Kim, Youngjun Yoo, Seunghyun Park, Jinkyu Kim, and Jaekoo Lee. Selfreg: Self-supervised contrastive regu- larization for domain generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 9619–9628, 2021. 2

    2021

  18. [25]

    Semi-supervised learning

    Semi-Supervised Learning. Semi-supervised learning. CSZ2006. html, 5:2, 2006. 1

    2006

  19. [26]

    Pseudo-label: The simple and effi- cient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural net- works

    Dong-Hyun Lee et al. Pseudo-label: The simple and effi- cient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural net- works. In Workshop on challenges in representation learn- ing, ICML, volume 3, page 896. Atlanta, 2013. 1, 2

    2013

  20. [27]

    Deeper, broader and artier domain generaliza- tion

    Da Li, Yongxin Yang, Yi-Zhe Song, and Timothy M Hospedales. Deeper, broader and artier domain generaliza- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 5542–5550, 2017. 1, 5

    2017

  21. [28]

    Domain generalization for med- ical imaging classification with linear-dependency regular- ization

    Haoliang Li, YuFei Wang, Renjie Wan, Shiqi Wang, Tie- Qiang Li, and Alex Kot. Domain generalization for med- ical imaging classification with linear-dependency regular- ization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:3118–3129, 2020. 2

    2020

  22. [30]

    Domain generalization via conditional invari- ant representations

    Ya Li, Mingming Gong, Xinmei Tian, Tongliang Liu, and Dacheng Tao. Domain generalization via conditional invari- ant representations. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32, 2018. 2

    2018

  23. [31]

    Feature-critic networks for heterogeneous do- main generalization

    Yiying Li, Yongxin Yang, Wei Zhou, and Timothy Hospedales. Feature-critic networks for heterogeneous do- main generalization. In International Conference on Ma- chine Learning, pages 3915–3924. PMLR, 2019. 2

    2019

  24. [32]

    Smooth neighbors on teacher graphs for semi-supervised learning

    Yucen Luo, Jun Zhu, Mengxi Li, Yong Ren, and Bo Zhang. Smooth neighbors on teacher graphs for semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition , pages 8896–8905,

  25. [33]

    Towards recognizing unseen categories in un- seen domains

    Massimiliano Mancini, Zeynep Akata, Elisa Ricci, and Bar- bara Caputo. Towards recognizing unseen categories in un- seen domains. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 466–483. Springer, 2020. 2

    2020

  26. [34]

    Robust place categorization with deep do- main generalization

    Massimiliano Mancini, Samuel Rota Bulo, Barbara Caputo, and Elisa Ricci. Robust place categorization with deep do- main generalization. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(3):2093–2100, 2018. 2

    2018

  27. [35]

    Domain generalization via invariant fea- ture representation

    Krikamol Muandet, David Balduzzi, and Bernhard Sch¨olkopf. Domain generalization via invariant fea- ture representation. In International conference on machine learning, pages 10–18. PMLR, 2013. 2

    2013

  28. [36]

    Unsupervised learning of visual representations by solving jigsaw puzzles

    Mehdi Noroozi and Paolo Favaro. Unsupervised learning of visual representations by solving jigsaw puzzles. In Euro- pean conference on computer vision, pages 69–84. Springer,

  29. [37]

    Multi-objective interpolation train- ing for robustness to label noise

    Diego Ortego, Eric Arazo, Paul Albert, Noel E O’Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. Multi-objective interpolation train- ing for robustness to label noise. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6606–6615, 2021. 4

    2021

  30. [38]

    Mul- timatch: Multi-task learning for semi-supervised domain generalization

    Lei Qi, Hongpeng Yang, Yinghuan Shi, and Xin Geng. Mul- timatch: Multi-task learning for semi-supervised domain generalization. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Comput- ing, Communications and Applications, 20(6):1–21, 2024. 3, 5

    2024

  31. [39]

    Learning to optimize domain specific normalization for domain generalization

    Seonguk Seo, Yumin Suh, Dongwan Kim, Geeho Kim, Jong- woo Han, and Bohyung Han. Learning to optimize domain specific normalization for domain generalization. In Com- puter Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glas- gow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXII 16 ...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Generalizing across domains via cross-gradient training

    Shiv Shankar, Vihari Piratla, Soumen Chakrabarti, Sid- dhartha Chaudhuri, Preethi Jyothi, and Sunita Sarawagi. Generalizing across domains via cross-gradient training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10745, 2018. 5

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence

    Kihyuk Sohn, David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Zizhao Zhang, Han Zhang, Colin A Raffel, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Alexey Kurakin, and Chun-Liang Li. Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:5...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Measuring domain shift for deep learning in histopathology

    Karin Stacke, Gabriel Eilertsen, Jonas Unger, and Claes Lundstr¨om. Measuring domain shift for deep learning in histopathology. IEEE journal of biomedical and health in- formatics, 25(2):325–336, 2020. 1

    2020

  35. [43]

    Sinkhorn label allocation: Semi-supervised classification via annealed self-training

    Kai Sheng Tai, Peter D Bailis, and Gregory Valiant. Sinkhorn label allocation: Semi-supervised classification via annealed self-training. In International conference on machine learn- ing, pages 10065–10075. PMLR, 2021. 2

    2021

  36. [44]

    Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results

    Antti Tarvainen and Harri Valpola. Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 2, 5

    2017

  37. [45]

    Inter- polation consistency training for semi-supervised learning

    Vikas Verma, Kenji Kawaguchi, Alex Lamb, Juho Kannala, Arno Solin, Yoshua Bengio, and David Lopez-Paz. Inter- polation consistency training for semi-supervised learning. Neural Networks, 145:90–106, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  38. [46]

    Generalizing to unseen domains: A survey on do- main generalization

    Jindong Wang, Cuiling Lan, Chang Liu, Yidong Ouyang, Tao Qin, Wang Lu, Yiqiang Chen, Wenjun Zeng, and S Yu Philip. Generalizing to unseen domains: A survey on do- main generalization. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 35(8):8052–8072, 2022. 1

    2022

  39. [47]

    Learning from extrinsic and intrinsic su- pervisions for domain generalization

    Shujun Wang, Lequan Yu, Caizi Li, Chi-Wing Fu, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Learning from extrinsic and intrinsic su- pervisions for domain generalization. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision , pages 159–176. Springer, 2020. 5

    2020

  40. [48]

    Freematch: Self-adaptive thresholding for semi-supervised learning

    Yidong Wang, Hao Chen, Qiang Heng, Wenxin Hou, Yue Fan, Zhen Wu, Jindong Wang, Marios Savvides, Takahiro Shinozaki, Bhiksha Raj, et al. Freematch: Self-adaptive thresholding for semi-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.07246, 2022. 2, 3, 4, 5

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Crest: A class-rebalancing self-training frame- work for imbalanced semi-supervised learning

    Chen Wei, Kihyuk Sohn, Clayton Mellina, Alan Yuille, and Fan Yang. Crest: A class-rebalancing self-training frame- work for imbalanced semi-supervised learning. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10857–10866, 2021. 2

    2021

  42. [50]

    Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training

    Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard Hovy, Thang Luong, and Quoc Le. Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6256–6268, 2020. 2, 4

    2020

  43. [51]

    Dash: Semi-supervised learning with dynamic thresholding

    Yi Xu, Lei Shang, Jinxing Ye, Qi Qian, Yu-Feng Li, Baigui Sun, Hao Li, and Rong Jin. Dash: Semi-supervised learning with dynamic thresholding. In International conference on machine learning, pages 11525–11536. PMLR, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  44. [52]

    Robust and generalizable visual represen- tation learning via random convolutions

    Zhenlin Xu, Deyi Liu, Junlin Yang, Colin Raffel, and Marc Niethammer. Robust and generalizable visual represen- tation learning via random convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.13003, 2020. 2

    2007 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A survey on deep semi-supervised learning

    Xiangli Yang, Zixing Song, Irwin King, and Zenglin Xu. A survey on deep semi-supervised learning. IEEE Trans- actions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 35(9):8934– 8954, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  46. [54]

    Pcl: Proxy-based contrastive learning for domain generalization

    Xufeng Yao, Yang Bai, Xinyun Zhang, Yuechen Zhang, Qi Sun, Ran Chen, Ruiyu Li, and Bei Yu. Pcl: Proxy-based contrastive learning for domain generalization. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7097–7107, 2022. 4

    2022

  47. [55]

    Semi-supervised domain generalization with known and unknown classes

    Lei Zhang, Ji-Fu Li, and Wei Wang. Semi-supervised domain generalization with known and unknown classes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:28735–28747, 2023. 3

    2023

  48. [56]

    Adaptive risk min- imization: Learning to adapt to domain shift

    Marvin Zhang, Henrik Marklund, Nikita Dhawan, Abhishek Gupta, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Adaptive risk min- imization: Learning to adapt to domain shift. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:23664–23678,

  49. [57]

    Lassl: Label-guided self-training for semi- supervised learning

    Zhen Zhao, Luping Zhou, Lei Wang, Yinghuan Shi, and Yang Gao. Lassl: Label-guided self-training for semi- supervised learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI confer- ence on artificial intelligence, volume 36, pages 9208–9216,

  50. [58]

    Domain generalization: A survey

    Kaiyang Zhou, Ziwei Liu, Yu Qiao, Tao Xiang, and Chen Change Loy. Domain generalization: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,

  51. [59]

    Semi-supervised domain generalization with stochastic stylematch

    Kaiyang Zhou, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. Semi-supervised domain generalization with stochastic stylematch. International Journal of Computer Vision , 131(9):2377–2387, 2023. 2, 3, 5

    2023

  52. [60]

    Deep domain-adversarial image generation for do- main generalisation

    Kaiyang Zhou, Yongxin Yang, Timothy Hospedales, and Tao Xiang. Deep domain-adversarial image generation for do- main generalisation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 34, pages 13025–13032,

  53. [61]

    Domain generalization with mixstyle

    Kaiyang Zhou, Yongxin Yang, Yu Qiao, and Tao Xi- ang. Domain generalization with mixstyle. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.02008, 2021. 1, 2, 5

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Mixstyle neural networks for domain generalization and adaptation

    Kaiyang Zhou, Yongxin Yang, Yu Qiao, and Tao Xi- ang. Mixstyle neural networks for domain generalization and adaptation. International Journal of Computer Vision , 132(3):822–836, 2024. 2

    2024

  55. [63]

    Introduction to semi- supervised learning

    Xiaojin Zhu and Andrew B Goldberg. Introduction to semi- supervised learning. Springer Nature, 2022. 1

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.