HiGDA: Hierarchical Graph of Nodes to Learn Local-to-Global Topology for Semi-Supervised Domain Adaptation

Ba Hung Ngo; Doanh C. Bui; Nhat-Tuong Do-Tran; Tae Jong Choi

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 35 references

HiGDA: Hierarchical Graph of Nodes to Learn Local-to-Global Topology for Semi-Supervised Domain Adaptation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 HiGDA—a two-level graph connecting image patches locally and same-class images globally—claims to set a new state of the art for semi-supervised domain adaptation, surpassing prior methods by up to 15.8 points on DomainNet.

desk verdict Clean architecture paper whose headline SOTA claim is undermined by comparing across backbones; the method deserves a controlled rerun, not a desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11819 v1 pith:JMKZF46X submitted 2024-12-16 cs.CV

Ba Hung Ngo , Doanh C. Bui , Nhat-Tuong Do-Tran , Tae Jong Choi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords semi-superviseddomainadaptationgraphneuralnetworkhierarchicalpseudo-labelinglocal-to-globaltopologyimageclassification

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

HiGDA is a proposed network for semi-supervised domain adaptation (SSDA) that organizes representations in a two-level graph: a local graph whose nodes are image patches connected to their nearest neighbors, and a global graph whose nodes are images connected when they share a class. The paper claims that this local-to-global topology lets the model focus on the main object, filter out background noise, and aggregate features across same-class samples, yielding a compact and effective architecture. On the standard SSDA benchmarks (Office-Home, DomainNet, VisDA2017), the paper reports that HiGDA, especially when combined with the Graph Active Learning (GAL) pseudo-labeling strategy and the MME or AAC losses, outperforms existing methods, with the best configuration surpassing the prior state of the art EFTL by 15.2 and 15.8 percentage points on DomainNet 1-shot and 3-shot, and reaching 97.8% on VisDA2017 3-shot. If true, the result would show that explicit hierarchical graph structure is a better inductive bias for domain shift than the per-image feature extractors used by prior SSDA methods.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the hierarchical graph $G = \{G^{(L)}, G^{(G)}\}$. $G^{(L)}$ is a per-image local graph whose nodes are patch embeddings; an edge $e^{(L)}_{i,j}$ exists only if patch $j$ is among the $k$-nearest neighbors of patch $i$, and the node update uses Max-relative graph convolution, which concatenates each node with the max per-channel difference to its neighbors before a linear projection. $G^{(G)}$ is a mini-batch-level global graph whose nodes are the pooled outputs of $G^{(L)}$; the edge network $f_E^{(G)}$ (from Progressive Graph Learning) outputs a sigmoid similarity for each node pair, the affinity matrix is symmetrically normalized, and the node network $f_N^{(G)}$ aggregates neighbor features by weighted sum (Eq. 3-5). The GAL loop (Eq. 9-11) pseudo-labels unlabeled target samples above a confidence threshold and reconnects them into the global graph, providing additional same-category edges that reduce source bias. This graph is trained with the node cross-entropy, edge binary cross-entropy, and an optional adversarial entropy (MME) or clustering (AAC) loss.

What would settle it

Run prior SSDA methods (e.g., MME, EFTL) on the Pyramid ViG-tiny backbone with the same MME/AAC training schedule, and run HiGDA on ResNet-34; if the backbone swap alone accounts for most of the reported margins, the central claim that the hierarchical graph and GAL drive the improvement would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that modeling an image as a graph of local patches at the feature level, and modeling a mini-batch as a graph of images at the category level, improves semi-supervised domain adaptation. The local graph connects each patch to its k-nearest neighbors using Euclidean distance in the embedding space, and applies Max-relative graph convolution to update node features, so the representation of an image is built from its most relevant patches rather than from all patches equally (as in vision transformers). The pooled output of each image becomes a global node; edges in the global graph exist only between nodes of the same category, either from ground-truth labels or from confident pseudo-labels produced by the GAL strategy. A global edge network predicts these edges and a global node network aggregates features along them. The paper reports that this architecture, with MME or AAC adversarial losses, achieves state-of-the-art accuracy across Office-Home, DomainNet, and VisDA2017, and that the gains hold even with the change of backbone to the more compact Pyramid ViG-tiny.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that the reported accuracy gains come from the proposed hierarchical graph and GAL algorithm themselves, rather than from swapping the backbone from ResNet-34 (used by every compared method) to the more compact Pyramid ViG-tiny; the paper does not control for this change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported numbers hold, SSDA accuracy on standard benchmarks improves substantially, with the best configuration reaching 97.8% on VisDA2017 3-shot and surpassing EFTL by 15.2% and 15.8% on DomainNet 1-shot and 3-shot.
A compact graph backbone (about 10.5M parameters) would outperform larger CNN and ViT backbones on SSDA, indicating that explicit graph structure rather than raw capacity drives the improvement.
The GAL pseudo-labeling strategy would provide large gains on its own, e.g., 7.1% improvement over the S+T baseline on DomainNet 3-shot, without needing adversarial losses.
The proposed graph modules are compatible with existing SSDA methods such as MME and AAC, so they could be plugged into other domain adaptation pipelines.

Reading between the lines

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

The reported margin over prior methods may partly stem from the backbone change: HiGDA uses Pyramid ViG-tiny while prior methods use ResNet-34, and the paper does not compare prior methods on the same backbone or HiGDA on ResNet-34 with the same MME/AAC training. A controlled backbone swap would clarify how much of the gain is architectural.
The k-NN local graph construction could be tested as a general substitute for attention in other vision tasks with scarce labels; its robustness to background clutter, shown qualitatively in GradCAM, may transfer to few-shot or test-time adaptation.
The paper's own limitation note—that GoG is sensitive to misaligned labels and can accumulate errors—suggests that GAL's pseudo-label threshold and episode length are critical hyperparameters; on noisier target domains, the method may require re-tuning or a noise-robust edge loss.
If the gains are indeed due to the hierarchical graph, the same design principle could be applied to other pairwise losses (e.g., contrastive or prototypical) that operate at the category level, potentially extending beyond the MME/AAC combinations tested.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this is a clearly written SSDA paper proposing a two-level graph — a local patch-level graph per image feeding a global category-level graph over a mini-batch, plus a pseudo-labeling loop (GAL). The local graph is essentially Pyramid ViG-tiny borrowed from prior work, and the global graph follows Luo et al., but the combination with GAL and the application to SSDA is genuinely new. The architecture is plausible, and the paper is honest about its limitations.

What it does well: Table 4 is actually informative. Under the same S+T setting on DomainNet 3-shot, LoG-Tiny beats ResNet-34 and PVT-Tiny with both MLP and GoG classifiers, and GoG beats MLP across all backbones. That is a controlled comparison, and it gives real evidence that the graph components help beyond the backbone in isolation. The paper also states its own limitation — GoG is sensitive to noisy labels — which is more than many papers do.

The soft spot is the SOTA claim. Tables 1–3 compare HiGDA (Pyramid ViG-tiny) against all prior methods running ResNet-34. Table 4 shows that just by switching backbones under plain S+T, you gain roughly 3 points on DomainNet 3-shot average (61.6→64.5 with MLP, 73.0→75.3 with GoG). The paper never runs MME/AAC/GAL on ResNet-34, nor runs prior methods on Pyramid ViG-tiny. So the reported margins of up to 15 points over EFTL cannot be attributed to the proposed hierarchy or GAL. Part of that gain is the backbone. That is a load-bearing flaw in the headline result.

Secondary issues: no error bars, single runs, and hyperparameters like the threshold τ and episode count q get no sensitivity analysis. The t-SNE and GradCAM figures are illustrative but not quantitative.

Still, the internal ablations suggest the method has real content beyond the backbone, so this is not a case of pure fabrication or fitting-to-test. The correct fix is a controlled comparison on a common backbone. For a reader keeping score on SSDA leaderboards, treat the SOTA claim with caution. For a reader interested in graph-based architectures for domain adaptation, the paper is worth a look.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. The architecture is real, the writing is clear, and the problems are addressable. A serious referee should ask for the ResNet-34 version of the integrated losses before the SOTA claim is accepted.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HiGDA, a hierarchical graph-of-nodes architecture for semi-supervised domain adaptation (SSDA). An input image is divided into patches treated as local nodes in a k-nearest-neighbor local graph, and image-level features are treated as global nodes in a category-conditioned global graph with an edge network and a node network. A Graph Active Learning (GAL) strategy iteratively adds confident pseudo-labeled target samples to the labeled set, and HiGDA is integrated with the existing MME and AAC losses. Experiments on Office-Home, DomainNet, and VisDA2017 report large gains, with HiGDA-T+GAL+MME surpassing EFTL by up to 15.2% and 15.8% on DomainNet and reaching 97.8% on VisDA2017 3-shot.

Significance. If the reported results were obtained under comparable conditions, the contribution would be substantial: the paper provides a full architecture, a clear loss formulation, ablations of the local and global graph components, and qualitative analyses. The central state-of-the-art claim, however, rests on a comparison in which HiGDA uses Pyramid ViG-tiny while all published baselines use ResNet-34. The paper's own Table 4 shows that the backbone change alone improves the plain S+T baseline on DomainNet 3-shot from 61.6 to 64.5 with an MLP head and from 73.0 to 75.3 with a GoG head. Because no controlled experiment isolates the proposed components from the backbone change, the headline SOTA claim is not currently supported. The paper would be substantially strengthened by same-backbone comparisons for the integrated losses and by error bars over multiple runs.

major comments (2)

[Comparison Results, Tables 1-3] All prior SSDA methods are evaluated with ResNet-34, while HiGDA uses Pyramid ViG-tiny. Table 4 shows that this backbone change alone improves the S+T baseline on DomainNet 3-shot by 2.9 points (61.6 to 64.5) with an MLP head and by 2.3 points (73.0 to 75.3) with GoG, and Table 2 shows that HiGDA-T's S+T baseline (69.2/75.3) already matches or exceeds published methods such as MME (66.4/68.9), SPA (72.1/73.2), and CDAC+SLA (75.0/76.9) without any adaptation-specific loss. Consequently, the claimed margins of 15.2% and 15.8% over EFTL cannot be attributed to the hierarchical graph or to GAL, because the backbone is not held fixed. Please provide controlled experiments: either run HiGDA with ResNet-34 and the integrated MME/AAC/GAL losses, or run prior SSDA methods on Pyramid ViG-tiny, and report the deltas attributable to each component.
[Table 4 and the ablation study in the Analyses section] The ablation compares backbones and classifiers only under plain S+T training; it does not test LoG and GoG together with MME, AAC, or GAL. Since the final reported configurations are HiGDA-T+GAL+MME and HiGDA-T+GAL+AAC, the contribution of the graph components in those exact configurations is unknown. Adding same-backbone ablations with the integrated losses is necessary to support the claim that the proposed graph modules, rather than the stronger backbone, are responsible for the reported improvements.

minor comments (5)

[Global graph, Eq. (5)] The summation in Eq. (5) is written over j in N(G), but N(G) is defined as an integer (the number of global nodes); the summation index should be over V(G) or over j = 1 to N(G).
[Implementation Details] The name 'HiGDA-T' is used throughout but not explicitly defined; please state that 'T' refers to the tiny version of Pyramid ViG used as the LoG backbone.
[Training scheme, Eq. (7)] The edge supervision loss Ledge is written for a single pair (i,j); please clarify whether it is summed over all global node pairs in the mini-batch and how class imbalance in edge labels is handled.
[Limitations] The paper acknowledges that GoG is sensitive to noise, such as samples that do not align with their annotated labels, but it provides no experiment quantifying this sensitivity; a small noisy-label or mislabeled-sample study would help calibrate the robustness claims.
[Graph Active Learning Strategy] The method is called 'Graph Active Learning', but it is confidence-threshold pseudo-labeling rather than active learning with human feedback or an acquisition function; please clarify the terminology or the connection to active learning.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical benchmark results with no fitted parameter presented as a prediction; self-citations are motivational, not load-bearing.

full rationale

HiGDA's claims are empirical classification accuracies on external benchmarks (Office-Home, DomainNet, VisDA2017), not derivations from assumptions that already contain the result. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction; no equation equates the proposed output to its input by construction. The GAL strategy uses the model's own pseudo-labels to construct global-graph edges (Eq. 11), which is a self-training loop, but the reported accuracies are measured on held-out target test sets, so the benchmark outcome is not forced by the pseudo-labeling procedure. The paper cites the authors' prior CVPR 2024 work (Ngo et al. 2024) only as motivation for a hybrid CNN/ViT idea, not as a load-bearing theorem or uniqueness proof. The use of Pyramid ViG-tiny as backbone while baselines use ResNet-34 is a genuine experimental-comparability concern and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the SOTA claim could be wrong without being circular. The acknowledged limitation about GoG noise sensitivity further supports that the authors do not present the method as a forced derivation. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on standard supervised learning assumptions plus several hand-chosen hyperparameters (number of neighbors K, mini-batch size N(G), pseudo-label threshold tau, episode length). No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

K (number of local neighbors) = 9
Set by hand in Implementation Details; no sensitivity analysis reported.
N(G) (mini-batch / global node count) = 32
Set by hand for the global graph; no ablation reported.
tau (pseudo-label confidence threshold) = 0.95
Set by hand in Equation 9; no sensitivity analysis reported.
episode q = 50 episodes of 1000 steps
Set by hand for GAL; no ablation reported.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Patches within an image that are close in embedding space are semantically related, so k-nearest-neighbor edges capture object structure.
Local graph edge construction (Eq. 1-2) relies on this; no independent validation.
domain assumption Connecting global nodes of the same class (including pseudo-labels) and aggregating their features improves classification under domain shift.
Global graph edge rule and Eq. 5-7 rely on this assumption.
domain assumption Pseudo-labels with max softmax probability >= 0.95 are reliable enough to be treated as ground truth for self-training.
GAL Step 1 (Eq. 9) hinges on this threshold; high thresholds reduce recall but the paper does not analyze the precision/recall tradeoff.
standard math Max-relative graph convolution (Li et al. 2019) is an effective message-passing operator for visual features.
Adopted without modification from DeepGCNs; standard in the GNN literature.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HiGDA: Hierarchical Graph of Nodes to Learn Local-to-Global Topology for Semi-Supervised Domain Adaptation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JMKZF46X

@misc{pith2026241211819,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HiGDA: Hierarchical Graph of Nodes to Learn Local-to-Global Topology for Semi-Supervised Domain Adaptation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JMKZF46X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11819}
}

read the original abstract

The enhanced representational power and broad applicability of deep learning models have attracted significant interest from the research community in recent years. However, these models often struggle to perform effectively under domain shift conditions, where the training data (the source domain) is related to but exhibits different distributions from the testing data (the target domain). To address this challenge, previous studies have attempted to reduce the domain gap between source and target data by incorporating a few labeled target samples during training - a technique known as semi-supervised domain adaptation (SSDA). While this strategy has demonstrated notable improvements in classification performance, the network architectures used in these approaches primarily focus on exploiting the features of individual images, leaving room for improvement in capturing rich representations. In this study, we introduce a Hierarchical Graph of Nodes designed to simultaneously present representations at both feature and category levels. At the feature level, we introduce a local graph to identify the most relevant patches within an image, facilitating adaptability to defined main object representations. At the category level, we employ a global graph to aggregate the features from samples within the same category, thereby enriching overall representations. Extensive experiments on widely used SSDA benchmark datasets, including Office-Home, DomainNet, and VisDA2017, demonstrate that both quantitative and qualitative results substantiate the effectiveness of HiGDA, establishing it as a new state-of-the-art method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11819 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of HiGDA. Each image forms a local graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** GradCAM results extracted by the local graph. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: t-SNE (Van der Maaten and Hinton 2008) visu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Dosovitskiy, A.; Beyer, L.; Kolesnikov, A.; Weissenborn, D.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Dehghani, M.; Minderer, M.; Heigold, G.; Gelly, S.; et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929

arXiv 2020
[4]

Ganin, Y.; Ustinova, E.; Ajakan, H.; Germain, P.; Larochelle, H.; Laviolette, F.; Marchand, M.; and Lempitsky, V. 2016. Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 17(1): 2096–2030

work page 2016
[5]

Han, K.; Wang, Y.; Guo, J.; Tang, Y.; and Wu, E. 2022. Vision GNN: An Image is Worth Graph of Nodes. In Koyejo, S.; Mohamed, S.; Agarwal, A.; Belgrave, D.; Cho, K.; and Oh, A., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, 8291--8303. Curran Associates, Inc

work page 2022
[6]

He, J.; Liu, B.; and Yin, G. 2024. Enhancing Semi-supervised Domain Adaptation via Effective Target Labeling. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 12385--12393

work page 2024
[7]

He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; and Sun, J. 2016. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 770--778

work page 2016
[8]

Huang, X.; Zhu, C.; and Chen, W. 2023. Semi-supervised Domain Adaptation via Prototype-based Multi-level Learning. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)

work page 2023

Show all 35 references

[9]

S.; and van Gemert, J

Kayhan, O. S.; and van Gemert, J. C. 2020. On translation invariance in cnns: Convolutional layers can exploit absolute spatial location. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., 14274–14285

2020
[10]

Kim, T.; and Kim, C. 2020. Attract, perturb, and explore: Learning a feature alignment network for semi-supervised domain adaptation. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ECCV), 591--607

2020
[11]

N.; and Welling, M

Kipf, T. N.; and Welling, M. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations

2017
[12]

Li, G.; Müller, M.; Thabet, A.; and Ghanem, B. 2019. DeepGCNs: Can GCNs Go As Deep As CNNs? In 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 9266--9275

2019
[13]

Li, J.; Li, G.; Shi, Y.; and Yu, Y. 2021 a . Cross-Domain Adaptive Clustering for Semi-Supervised Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2505--2514

2021
[14]

Li, J.; Li, G.; and Yu, Y. 2023. Adaptive Betweenness Clustering for Semi-Supervised Domain Adaptation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 32: 5580--5594

2023
[15]

Li, K.; Liu, C.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, Y.; and Fu, Y. 2021 b . ECACL: A Holistic Framework for Semi-Supervised Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 8578--8587

2021
[16]

Long, M.; Zhu, H.; Wang, J.; and Jordan, M. I. 2017. Deep transfer learning with joint adaptation networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70, 2208–2217

2017
[17]

Luo, Y.; Wang, Z.; Huang, Z.; and Baktashmotlagh, M. 2020. Progressive Graph Learning for Open-Set Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, 6468--6478

2020
[18]

Ma, X.; Zhang, T.; and Xu, C. 2019. GCAN: Graph Convolutional Adversarial Network for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

2019
[19]

H.; Do-Tran, N.-T.; Nguyen, T.-N.; Jeon, H.-G.; and Choi, T

Ngo, B. H.; Do-Tran, N.-T.; Nguyen, T.-N.; Jeon, H.-G.; and Choi, T. J. 2024. Learning CNN on ViT: A Hybrid Model to Explicitly Class-specific Boundaries for Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 28545--28554

2024
[20]

Peng, X.; Bai, Q.; Xia, X.; Huang, Z.; Saenko, K.; and Wang, B. 2019. Moment Matching for Multi-Source Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

2019
[21]

Peng, X.; Usman, B.; Kaushik, N.; Wang, D.; Hoffman, J.; and Saenko, K. 2018. VisDA: A Synthetic-to-Real Benchmark for Visual Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops

2018
[22]

Qin, C.; Wang, L.; Ma, Q.; Yin, Y.; Wang, H.; and Fu, Y. 2021. Contradictory Structure Learning for Semi-supervised Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the 2021 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM), 576--584

2021
[23]

Qin, C.; Wang, L.; Ma, Q.; Yin, Y.; Wang, H.; and Fu, Y. 2022. Semi-Supervised Domain Adaptive Structure Learning. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31: 7179--7190

2022
[24]

Saito, K.; Kim, D.; Sclaroff, S.; Darrell, T.; and Saenko, K. 2019. Semi-Supervised Domain Adaptation via Minimax Entropy. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

2019
[25]

Saito, K.; Watanabe, K.; Ushiku, Y.; and Harada, T. 2018. Maximum Classifier Discrepancy for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

2018
[26]

Van der Maaten, L.; and Hinton, G. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11)

2008
[27]

Venkateswara, H.; Eusebio, J.; Chakraborty, S.; and Panchanathan, S. 2017. Deep Hashing Network for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

2017
[28]

Wang, W.; Xie, E.; Li, X.; Fan, D.-P.; Song, K.; Liang, D.; Lu, T.; Luo, P.; and Shao, L. 2021. Pyramid Vision Transformer: A Versatile Backbone for Dense Prediction Without Convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 568--578

2021
[29]

Xiao, Z.; Wang, H.; Jin, Y.; Feng, L.; Chen, G.; Huang, F.; and Zhao, J. 2023. SPA: a graph spectral alignment perspective for domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

2023
[30]

Yan, Z.; Wu, Y.; Li, G.; Qin, Y.; Han, X.; and Cui, S. 2022. Multi-level Consistency Learning for Semi-supervised Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)

2022
[31]

Yang, J.; Liu, J.; Xu, N.; and Huang, J. 2023. TVT: Transferable Vision Transformer for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 520--530

2023
[32]

Q.; Chao, W.-L.; and Lim, S.-N

Yang, L.; Wang, Y.; Gao, M.; Shrivastava, A.; Weinberger, K. Q.; Chao, W.-L.; and Lim, S.-N. 2021. Deep Co-Training With Task Decomposition for Semi-Supervised Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 8906--8916

2021
[33]

Yu, Y.-C.; and Lin, H.-T. 2023. Semi-Supervised Domain Adaptation With Source Label Adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 24100--24109

2023
[34]

Zhu, J.; Bai, H.; and Wang, L. 2023. Patch-Mix Transformer for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation: A Game Perspective. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 3561--3571

2023
[35]

Zhu, R.; Jiang, X.; Lu, J.; and Li, S. 2023. Cross-Domain Graph Convolutions for Adversarial Unsupervised Domain Adaptation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 34(8): 3847--3858

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Dosovitskiy, A.; Beyer, L.; Kolesnikov, A.; Weissenborn, D.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Dehghani, M.; Minderer, M.; Heigold, G.; Gelly, S.; et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929

arXiv 2020

[4] [4]

Ganin, Y.; Ustinova, E.; Ajakan, H.; Germain, P.; Larochelle, H.; Laviolette, F.; Marchand, M.; and Lempitsky, V. 2016. Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 17(1): 2096–2030

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Han, K.; Wang, Y.; Guo, J.; Tang, Y.; and Wu, E. 2022. Vision GNN: An Image is Worth Graph of Nodes. In Koyejo, S.; Mohamed, S.; Agarwal, A.; Belgrave, D.; Cho, K.; and Oh, A., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, 8291--8303. Curran Associates, Inc

work page 2022

[6] [6]

He, J.; Liu, B.; and Yin, G. 2024. Enhancing Semi-supervised Domain Adaptation via Effective Target Labeling. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 12385--12393

work page 2024

[7] [7]

He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; and Sun, J. 2016. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 770--778

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Huang, X.; Zhu, C.; and Chen, W. 2023. Semi-supervised Domain Adaptation via Prototype-based Multi-level Learning. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)

work page 2023