Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Enhancing Environmental Robustness in Few-shot Learning via Conditional Representation Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · 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 few-shot learning models lose accuracy on real-world images that are camouflaged, small, blurry, or incomplete, and that a new benchmark (RD-FSL) plus a conditional representation learning network (CRLNet), which…

desk verdict The central contrastive loss is written with the sign flipped: it pushes positive pairs apart and ignores negative pairs, so the reported gains cannot be attributed to the described method. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01183 v1 pith:4ID4XKNB submitted 2025-02-03 cs.CV

Qianyu Guo , Jingrong Wu , Tianxing Wu , Haofen Wang , Weifeng Ge , Wenqiang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords few-shotlearningenvironmentalrobustnessconditionalrepresentationcross-domainbenchmarkcontrastiveimageclassificationdegradedimagesvisualrecognition
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

Few-shot learning works on clean, carefully framed images but degrades sharply on real-world images where the target is camouflaged, tiny, blurred, or cut off. The paper's central claim is that this failure is a missing evaluation axis it calls 'environmental robustness,' and that the gap can be measured with a new benchmark, RD-FSL, whose query images are manually selected to be harder than their support images. To close the gap, the paper proposes CRLNet, which lets the support image and the query image condition each other's feature representations, pulling same-class features together and pushing different classes apart. If the claim holds, few-shot classifiers can be built and tested for deployment in settings where images arrive damaged or occluded, and the paper reports gains of 6.83% to 16.98% over previous methods.

What carries the argument

The engine of the method is the conditional representation learning network (CRLNet), which re-represents each support or query image using a conditional weight matrix derived from the other image's features. A cross-attention layer first measures similarity between each feature map and the concatenated support–query features; a bidirectional 4D convolution then operates on the uncompressed relationship tensor to produce pixel-wise conditional matrices $\omega^s_c$ and $\omega^q_c$ that emphasize mutually relevant regions; finally a re-representation learner that combines self-attention and an MLP fuses these matrices with the original prototype features. The contrastive loss is intended to pull same-class pairs together and push different-class pairs apart, and the whole network is trained end-to-end in one stage.

What would settle it

Train CRLNet on the RD-FSL benchmark using Eqs. (8)–(9) exactly as printed and monitor the mean intra-class L2 distance between support and query features during training; if that distance increases or fails to decrease while accuracy rises, the stated learning objective is not what drives the reported gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that when support and query features are allowed to interact before classification, the network can re-represent each image using the other as a conditional guide, and this improves accuracy on images whose category cues are buried in background clutter, camouflage, or blur. In CRLNet, a conditional learner computes cross-attention between each feature map and the concatenation of both, then runs 4D convolutions over the uncompressed support–query relationship tensor to produce conditional weight matrices $\omega^s_c$ and $\omega^q_c$; a re-representation learner fuses these weights back into the prototype features through self-attention and a multilayer perceptron. A contrastive loss supervises the whole pipeline in a single training stage, and the paper reports that the resulting representations cluster same-class images more tightly and separate different classes more widely, with accuracy improvements over state-of-the-art methods on the RD-FSL benchmark ranging from 6.83% to 16.98% across ResNet-12, ResNet-50, and ViT backbones.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes the printed contrastive loss actually pulls same-class features together, even though Eq. (9) as written minimizes a negative log-distance that would push them apart unless a corrected loss is used in the implementation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CRLNet's gains reproduce, few-shot classifiers can be evaluated on deliberately degraded query images, and the same conditional re-representation mechanism provides a consistent accuracy lift across backbones and settings.
  • A strictly inductive testing protocol with no query-to-query leakage can outperform transductive methods on these hard images, implying that the support set alone carries enough information when the query is conditioned on it.
  • The reported improvements transfer to foundation models such as CLIP and Swin-T, though with smaller margins, suggesting the mechanism complements, rather than replaces, strong pretrained features.
  • The RD-FSL benchmark with manual support/query difficulty labels offers a reusable testbed for measuring environmental robustness in future few-shot learning work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the largest gains occur on the most degraded datasets and the smallest on near-clean ones, the method's practical effect may be mostly background and noise suppression; a direct test would replace the conditional learner with a simpler denoising attention module and compare.
  • The binary support/query split could become a graded difficulty scale, letting future work quantify how accuracy falls as camouflage, blur, or occlusion worsens.
  • If the printed loss in Eq. (9) is replaced with a conventional contrastive objective, a controlled comparison of loss variants would separate the contribution of the architecture from that of the training objective.
  • The paired clean/degraded image structure of RD-FSL could be reused in other tasks, such as robust retrieval or open-set recognition, where environmental robustness is also at stake.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces RD-FSL, a new benchmark for few-shot learning on real-world, environmentally degraded images, with six datasets spanning biology, mining, archaeology, and agriculture. Query images are manually labeled as difficult (camouflaged, small, incomplete, blurry, noisy), and support images are relatively clean. The paper also proposes CRLNet, which uses cross-attention, 4D convolution, and a re-representation learner to condition support and query features on each other, trained with a contrastive loss. The authors report large accuracy gains over existing few-shot methods across ResNet-12, ResNet-50, and ViT backbones, and conclude that CRLNet improves environmental robustness.

Significance. If the method's loss were correctly specified and the results reproducible, the RD-FSL benchmark would be a useful contribution: it targets an underexplored dimension (environmental robustness) and the construction with manual difficulty labels is a reasonable first step. However, the central technical claim is undermined by an internally inconsistent loss definition that, as written, trains positive pairs apart and provides no gradient for negative pairs. The abstract's claimed improvement range also does not match the tables. The benchmark contribution alone does not rescue the paper, because the primary claim is that CRLNet's described contrastive mechanism drives the reported gains.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-E, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The loss is incompatible with the stated objective. Eq. (8) defines d(F^q,F^s) = ||F^s - F^q||_2 (L2 distance), and Eq. (9) defines L = -1/N * sum_i I(L^q == L^s) log(d(F^q,F^s)). For a positive pair (indicator = 1), minimizing -log(d) is equivalent to maximizing d, because log is monotonically increasing; the gradient of -log(||F^s - F^q||_2) with respect to F^s is -(F^s-F^q)/||F^s-F^q||^2, which increases the distance under gradient descent. For a negative pair, the indicator is 0, so the loss contributes no gradient. Thus, as written, the loss neither pulls positive pairs together nor pushes negative pairs apart. This directly contradicts the text in Section IV-E that says the loss 'brings similar features closer and pushes dissimilar features apart' and undermines the central claim that CRLNet's gains come from the described conditional representation learning. The authors must correct the equation (e.g., to -log(1/d) or log(d) for negatives) or, if the implementation actually used a different loss, provide the exact loss used and verify that the reported experiments correspond to it.
  2. [Abstract and Section I contributions] The claimed performance improvement range '6.83% to 16.98%' is inconsistent with the tables. For example, in Table II, on Animal with ResNet-50 in 1-shot, CRLNet scores 62.76 versus 42.03 for FM*, a difference of 20.73 percentage points; with ViT in 1-shot, CRLNet scores 70.86 versus 42.46 for CPEA, a difference of 28.40 percentage points. Similar gaps appear throughout Tables II-IV. If the range is meant to refer to a different comparison (e.g., only some settings or a subset of datasets), the paper must state exactly which comparison the 6.83%-16.98% range refers to; as written, the headline claim is not supported by the reported data.
  3. [Section III, benchmark construction] The validity of the 'environmental robustness' evaluation rests entirely on the manual support/query annotation, but the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement statistics and gives only qualitative criteria (e.g., 'Small: Targets occupy less than approximately 1% of the total pixels') without a quantitative measurement protocol. Since the benchmark is new and is the sole evaluation for the method, the reader cannot assess how consistently the difficulty labels were applied or how stable the benchmark is. At minimum, the authors should report annotator agreement, per-criterion statistics (e.g., number of images per category), and the distribution of difficulty levels across datasets. Without this, the benchmark's reliability as a standard is unverified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-B] The phrase 'randomly altemycolor to create images with diverse resolutions' appears to contain a typo and is unclear; the intended meaning should be stated plainly.
  2. [Table IV] The rows labeled 'ResNet-5' for the IE, DeepEMD, StyleAdv, and ESPT baselines should read 'ResNet-50'; as printed, the backbone name is inconsistent with the rest of the paper.
  3. [Figure 4] The caption labels the module 'Contractive' where the text and context indicate 'Contrastive' (the contrastive learning loss); this mislabel should be corrected.
  4. [References] Reference [9] is cited as 'RelationNet' but points to a semantic segmentation paper by Zhuang et al., not the few-shot RelationNet (Sung et al., CVPR 2018) that the experiments apparently compare against; the citation should be corrected.
  5. [Section IV-E and Eq. (3)-(5)] Several notational issues should be cleaned up: 'FC(.)' is described as an activation function but appears to denote a linear/fully-connected layer; in Eq. (3), the final summation index 'n+ws' should likely be 'n+hs' to match the kernel dimensions; and the statement 'we set m and n to 1 for support and k and l to 1 for the query' is not reflected explicitly in Eqs. (4)-(5). These ambiguities make the architecture description harder to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: CRLNet's reported gains are empirical comparisons against external baselines on a new benchmark, not predictions forced by construction; the main red flag is an apparent sign error in Eq. (9), which is a correctness issue rather than a circular one.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense of the rubric. The RD-FSL benchmark is a newly assembled collection of images with manual support/query difficulty labels; the method is pre-trained on ILSVRC base classes and evaluated on novel-class episodes, so the reported accuracies are not fitted values renamed as predictions. Baselines, including self-citations [13] and [16], are used only as comparison methods with publicly available code, not as load-bearing premises, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The central claim that CRLNet improves environmental robustness is empirically falsifiable on the benchmark and against standard FSL methods, even though the benchmark is self-constructed and would benefit from independent third-party evaluation. The most serious issue is in Section IV-E, Eqs. (8)-(9): with d(F^q,F^s) = ||F^s - F^q||_2, the loss L = -1/N * sum I(L^q==L^s) log(d(F^q,F^s)) gives a gradient for positive pairs that increases the L2 distance and gives zero gradient for negative pairs, contradicting the paper's claim that the loss 'brings similar features closer and pushes dissimilar features apart.' This is an internal inconsistency that undermines the described mechanism, but it is not a circular reduction of a result to its inputs, so it does not raise the circularity score under the stated rubric.

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

The free parameters here are hand-chosen benchmark and training settings, not fitted constants; the central model has no physically meaningful constants. The key axioms are the transferability of ImageNet features and the reliability of the manual difficulty labels. The loss equation itself is listed as an ad-hoc assumption because the paper relies on it without derivation and it is internally inconsistent.

free parameters (3)
  • Query difficulty thresholds = Small: <1% pixels; Incomplete: >50% key attributes missing; Blurry: >=5% randomly altered
    Hand-chosen annotation rules define the benchmark split; they are not fitted to data, but they determine which images count as 'query' and thus shape all comparisons.
  • Positive/negative pair balance = 1:1 ratio
    The loss uses half same-class and half different-class pairs; this ratio is hand-set and affects training stability and gradient scale.
  • Training hyperparameters = lr=0.001, AdamW, batch size 80/250, weight decay 0.05 per 20 epochs
    Standard training choices; not derived from theory, but they influence the reported numbers.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained backbones transfer to the RD-FSL domains.
    Section V-A states all models are pre-trained on ILSVRC and evaluated on the six datasets; if this transfer fails, the benchmark and comparisons lose meaning.
  • domain assumption Majority-vote annotation of support/query difficulty is reliable.
    Section III-B says at least three annotators label each image and the majority label is used, but no inter-annotator agreement is reported; noisy labels could bias the query split.
  • ad hoc to paper The contrastive loss in Eq (9) correctly implements the stated objective.
    The paper assumes this without derivation; as written, the loss is inconsistent with the objective, so the premise is load-bearing and unverified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Environmental Robustness in Few-shot Learning via Conditional Representation Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ID4XKNB

@misc{pith2026250201183,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Environmental Robustness in Few-shot Learning via Conditional Representation Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ID4XKNB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01183}
}
read the original abstract

Few-shot learning (FSL) has recently been extensively utilized to overcome the scarcity of training data in domain-specific visual recognition. In real-world scenarios, environmental factors such as complex backgrounds, varying lighting conditions, long-distance shooting, and moving targets often cause test images to exhibit numerous incomplete targets or noise disruptions. However, current research on evaluation datasets and methodologies has largely ignored the concept of "environmental robustness", which refers to maintaining consistent performance in complex and diverse physical environments. This neglect has led to a notable decline in the performance of FSL models during practical testing compared to their training performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce a new real-world multi-domain few-shot learning (RD-FSL) benchmark, which includes four domains and six evaluation datasets. The test images in this benchmark feature various challenging elements, such as camouflaged objects, small targets, and blurriness. Our evaluation experiments reveal that existing methods struggle to utilize training images effectively to generate accurate feature representations for challenging test images. To address this problem, we propose a novel conditional representation learning network (CRLNet) that integrates the interactions between training and testing images as conditional information in their respective representation processes. The main goal is to reduce intra-class variance or enhance inter-class variance at the feature representation level. Finally, comparative experiments reveal that CRLNet surpasses the current state-of-the-art methods, achieving performance improvements ranging from 6.83% to 16.98% across diverse settings and backbones. The source code and dataset are available at https://github.com/guoqianyu-alberta/Conditional-Representation-Learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01183 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Motivation for enhancing “environmental robustness” in few-shot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between the framework of the (I) baseline and (II) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (I) The construction process of the real-world multi-domain few-shot visual recognition (RD-FSL) benchmark includes three steps: data collection, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The overview of the proposed conditional representation learning network (CRLNet) includes a feature extractor, a conditional learner, and a re￾representation learner. The feature extractor maps support I s and query images I q to prototype feature matrices f s and q s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The comparison experiment results between CRLNet and the baseline [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualizing the features of Backbone (ResNet-50) and CRLNet using t-SNE on both the training set (ImageNet) and the validation set (Animal). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of category distribution and category centers obtained by Backbone and CRLNet. The comparisons between panels (a) and (b), as well [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Feature visualization comparison between CRLNet and Backbone when support and query belong to the same category (a) or different categories (b), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2016, Las Vegas, NV , USA, June 27-30, 2016. IEEE Computer Society, 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  2. [2]

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

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale,” CoRR, vol. abs/2010.11929, 2020

    arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    Scaling vision transformers,

    X. Zhai, A. Kolesnikov, N. Houlsby, and L. Beyer, “Scaling vision transformers,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022 . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1204–1213

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model,

    X. Chen, X. Wang, S. Changpinyo, A. J. Piergiovanni, P. Padlewski, D. Salz, S. Goodman, A. Grycner, B. Mustafa, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, J. Puigcerver, N. Ding, K. Rong, H. Akbari, G. Mishra, L. Xue, A. V . Thapliyal, J. Bradbury, and W. Kuo, “Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning R...

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Matching networks for one shot learning,

    O. Vinyals, C. Blundell, T. Lillicrap, K. Kavukcuoglu, and D. Wierstra, “Matching networks for one shot learning,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2016, December 5-10, 2016, Barcelona, Spain, D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. von Luxburg, I. Guyon, and R. Garnett, Eds., 2016, pp....

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Prototypical networks for few- shot learning,

    J. Snell, K. Swersky, and R. S. Zemel, “Prototypical networks for few- shot learning,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA , I. Guyon, U. von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. M. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. V . N. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, Eds...

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks,

    C. Finn, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks,” in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, D. Precup and Y . W. Teh, Eds., vol. 70. PMLR, 2017, pp. 1126–1135

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    A closer look at few-shot classification,

    W. Chen, Y . Liu, Z. Kira, Y . F. Wang, and J. Huang, “A closer look at few-shot classification,” in 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019 . OpenReview.net, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Relationnet: Learning deep-aligned representation for semantic image segmentation,

    Y . Zhuang, L. Tao, F. Yang, C. Ma, Z. Zhang, H. Jia, and X. Xie, “Relationnet: Learning deep-aligned representation for semantic image segmentation,” in 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, ICPR 2018, Beijing, China, August 20-24, 2018 . IEEE Computer Society...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Joint distribution mat- ters: Deep brownian distance covariance for few-shot classification,

    J. Xie, F. Long, J. Lv, Q. Wang, and P. Li, “Joint distribution mat- ters: Deep brownian distance covariance for few-shot classification,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022 . IEEE, 2022, pp. 7962–7971

    2022

  3. [11]

    Deepemd: Differentiable earth mover’s distance for few-shot learning,

    C. Zhang, Y . Cai, G. Lin, and C. Shen, “Deepemd: Differentiable earth mover’s distance for few-shot learning,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 5632–5648, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Exploring complementary strengths of invariant and equivariant representations for few-shot learning,

    M. N. Rizve, S. H. Khan, F. S. Khan, and M. Shah, “Exploring complementary strengths of invariant and equivariant representations for few-shot learning,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021 . Computer Vision Found...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Rankdnn: Learning to rank for few-shot learning,

    Q. Guo, H. Gong, X. Wei, Y . Fu, Y . Yu, W. Zhang, and W. Ge, “Rankdnn: Learning to rank for few-shot learning,” in Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2023, Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2023, T...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Styleadv: Meta style adversarial training for cross-domain few-shot learning,

    Y . Fu, Y . Xie, Y . Fu, and Y . Jiang, “Styleadv: Meta style adversarial training for cross-domain few-shot learning,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023 . IEEE, 2023, pp. 24 575–24 584

    2023

  7. [15]

    Multi-layer tuning CLIP for few-shot image classification,

    R. Zhang, J. Geng, C. Liu, W. Zhang, Z. Feng, L. Xue, and Y . Bei, “Multi-layer tuning CLIP for few-shot image classification,” in Pattern Recognition and Computer Vision - 7th Chinese Conference, PRCV 2024, Urumqi, China, October 18-20, 2024, Proceedings, Part V , ser. Lectur...

    2024

  8. [16]

    At- tribute surrogates learning and spectral tokens pooling in transformers for few-shot learning,

    Y . He, W. Liang, D. Zhao, H. Zhou, W. Ge, Y . Yu, and W. Zhang, “At- tribute surrogates learning and spectral tokens pooling in transformers for few-shot learning,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24,...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Pushing the limits of simple pipelines for few-shot learning: External data and fine-tuning make a difference,

    S. X. Hu, D. Li, J. St ¨uhmer, M. Kim, and T. M. Hospedales, “Pushing the limits of simple pipelines for few-shot learning: External data and fine-tuning make a difference,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, Jun...

    2022

  10. [18]

    A broader study of cross-domain few-shot learning,

    Y . Guo, N. Codella, L. Karlinsky, J. V . Codella, J. R. Smith, K. Saenko, T. Rosing, and R. Feris, “A broader study of cross-domain few-shot learning,” in Computer Vision - ECCV 2020 - 16th European Conference, 14 Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXVII, ser....

    2020

  11. [19]

    Revisiting pose- normalization for fine-grained few-shot recognition,

    L. Tang, D. Wertheimer, and B. Hariharan, “Revisiting pose- normalization for fine-grained few-shot recognition,” in 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2020, Seattle, WA, USA, June 13-19, 2020 . Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE, 2020, pp...

    2020

  12. [20]

    Generalization of model- agnostic meta-learning algorithms: Recurring and unseen tasks,

    A. Fallah, A. Mokhtari, and A. E. Ozdaglar, “Generalization of model- agnostic meta-learning algorithms: Recurring and unseen tasks,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Con- ference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, Decem...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Bi-level meta-learning for few-shot domain generalization,

    X. Qin, X. Song, and S. Jiang, “Bi-level meta-learning for few-shot domain generalization,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023. IEEE, 2023, pp. 15 900–15 910

    2023

  14. [22]

    From sample poverty to rich feature learning: A new metric learning method for few-shot classification,

    L. Zhang, Y . Lin, X. Yang, T. Chen, X. Cheng, and W. Cheng, “From sample poverty to rich feature learning: A new metric learning method for few-shot classification,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 124 990–125 002, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Bridging the gap between few- shot and many-shot learning via distribution calibration,

    S. Yang, S. Wu, T. Liu, and M. Xu, “Bridging the gap between few- shot and many-shot learning via distribution calibration,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 9830–9843, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Variational feature disentangling for fine-grained few-shot classification,

    J. Xu, H. Le, M. Huang, S. Athar, and D. Samaras, “Variational feature disentangling for fine-grained few-shot classification,” in 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2021, Montreal, QC, Canada, October 10-17, 2021 . IEEE, 2021, pp. 8792– 8801

    2021

  17. [25]

    A comprehen- sive survey of few-shot learning: Evolution, applications, challenges, and opportunities,

    Y . Song, T. Wang, P. Cai, S. K. Mondal, and J. P. Sahoo, “A comprehen- sive survey of few-shot learning: Evolution, applications, challenges, and opportunities,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 55, no. 13s, pp. 271:1–271:40, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Plug- and-play feature generation for few-shot medical image classification,

    Q. Guo, H. Du, X. Jia, S. Gao, Y . Teng, H. Wang, and W. Zhang, “Plug- and-play feature generation for few-shot medical image classification,” in IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine, BIBM 2023, Istanbul, Turkiye, December 5-8, 2023 , X. Jiang, H. Wa...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Few-shot classification of screen defects with class-agnostic mask and context-based classifier,

    C. Zhou, M. Liu, S. Zhang, P. Wei, and B. Chen, “Few-shot classification of screen defects with class-agnostic mask and context-based classifier,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , vol. 72, pp. 1–16, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    An aggregated loss function based lightweight few shot model for plant leaf disease classification,

    S. Garg and P. Singh, “An aggregated loss function based lightweight few shot model for plant leaf disease classification,” Multim. Tools Appl., vol. 82, no. 15, pp. 23 797–23 815, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Cross-domain few- shot hyperspectral image classification with bias diminishing and domain bridging,

    J. Bei, G. Cao, J. Zhu, Y . Han, and Y . Zhang, “Cross-domain few- shot hyperspectral image classification with bias diminishing and domain bridging,” in IGARSS 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Athens, Greece, July 7-12, 2024 . IEEE, 2024...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Boosting few-shot fine-grained recognition with background suppression and foreground alignment,

    Z. Zha, H. Tang, Y . Sun, and J. Tang, “Boosting few-shot fine-grained recognition with background suppression and foreground alignment,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. , vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 3947– 3961, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Low-rank pairwise alignment bilinear network for few-shot fine-grained image classifica- tion,

    H. Huang, J. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. Xu, and Q. Wu, “Low-rank pairwise alignment bilinear network for few-shot fine-grained image classifica- tion,” IEEE Trans. Multim. , vol. 23, pp. 1666–1680, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    An adversarial meta-training framework for cross- domain few-shot learning,

    P. Tian and S. Xie, “An adversarial meta-training framework for cross- domain few-shot learning,” IEEE Trans. Multim. , vol. 25, pp. 6881– 6891, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    FHIST: A benchmark for few-shot classification of histological images,

    F. Shakeri, M. Boudiaf, S. Mohammadi, I. Sheth, M. Havaei, I. B. Ayed, and S. E. Kahou, “FHIST: A benchmark for few-shot classification of histological images,” CoRR, vol. abs/2206.00092, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Learning representations by graphical mutual information estimation and maximization,

    Z. Peng, M. Luo, W. Huang, J. Li, Q. Zheng, F. Sun, and J. Huang, “Learning representations by graphical mutual information estimation and maximization,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 722–737, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    A simple frame- work for contrastive learning of visual representations,

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. E. Hinton, “A simple frame- work for contrastive learning of visual representations,” in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event , ser. Proceedings of Machine Lear...

    2020

  28. [36]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,

    K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y . Li, P. Doll ´ar, and R. B. Girshick, “Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022 . IEEE, 2022, pp. 15 979–15 988

    2022

  29. [37]

    Unsupervised representation learning by predicting image rotations,

    S. Gidaris, P. Singh, and N. Komodakis, “Unsupervised representation learning by predicting image rotations,” in 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings . OpenReview.net, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Unsupervised learning of visual represen- tations by solving jigsaw puzzles,

    M. Noroozi and P. Favaro, “Unsupervised learning of visual represen- tations by solving jigsaw puzzles,” in Computer Vision - ECCV 2016 - 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11- 14, 2016, Proceedings, Part VI, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, B...

    2016

  31. [39]

    Boosting few-shot visual learning with self-supervision,

    S. Gidaris, A. Bursuc, N. Komodakis, P. P ´erez, and M. Cord, “Boosting few-shot visual learning with self-supervision,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2019, Seoul, Korea (South), October 27 - November 2, 2019 . IEEE, 2019, pp. 8058–8067

    2019

  32. [40]

    Pareto self- supervised training for few-shot learning,

    Z. Chen, J. Ge, H. Zhan, S. Huang, and D. Wang, “Pareto self- supervised training for few-shot learning,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE, 2021, pp. 13 663– 13 672

    2021

  33. [41]

    Learning a few-shot embedding model with contrastive learning,

    C. Liu, Y . Fu, C. Xu, S. Yang, J. Li, C. Wang, and L. Zhang, “Learning a few-shot embedding model with contrastive learning,” in Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, ...

    2021

  34. [42]

    Partner-assisted learning for few-shot image classification,

    J. Ma, H. Xie, G. Han, S. Chang, A. Galstyan, and W. Abd-Almageed, “Partner-assisted learning for few-shot image classification,” in 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2021, Montreal, QC, Canada, October 10-17, 2021. IEEE, 2021, pp. 10 553– 10 562

    2021

  35. [43]

    Crosstransformers: spatially- aware few-shot transfer,

    C. Doersch, A. Gupta, and A. Zisserman, “Crosstransformers: spatially- aware few-shot transfer,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual , H. Larochel...

    2020

  36. [44]

    Few-shot classification with contrastive learning,

    Z. Yang, J. Wang, and Y . Zhu, “Few-shot classification with contrastive learning,” in Computer Vision - ECCV 2022 - 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23-27, 2022, Proceedings, Part XX, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, S. Avidan, G. J. Brostow, M. Ciss...

    2022

  37. [45]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, “Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” in 2009 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2009), 20-25 June 2009, Miami, Florida, USA. IEEE Computer Society, 2009,...

    2009

  38. [46]

    Camouflaged object detection,

    D. Fan, G. Ji, G. Sun, M. Cheng, J. Shen, and L. Shao, “Camouflaged object detection,” in 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2020, Seattle, WA, USA, June 13-19,

    2020

  39. [47]

    “Kaggle,” https://www.kaggle.com/

  40. [48]

    Aistudio,

    “Aistudio,” https://aistudio.baidu.com/aistudio/datasetoverview

  41. [49]

    A realistic synthetic mushroom scenes dataset,

    D. Anagnostopoulou, G. Retsinas, N. Efthymiou, P. P. Filntisis, and P. Maragos, “A realistic synthetic mushroom scenes dataset,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023 - Workshops, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023 . IEEE, 2023, pp. ...

    2023

  42. [50]

    IP102: A large-scale benchmark dataset for insect pest recognition,

    X. Wu, C. Zhan, Y . Lai, M. Cheng, and J. Yang, “IP102: A large-scale benchmark dataset for insect pest recognition,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2019, Long Beach, CA, USA, June 16-20, 2019 . Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE, 2019, pp. ...

    2019

  43. [51]

    An open access repository of im- ages on plant health to enable the development of mobile disease diagnostics through machine learning and crowdsourcing,

    D. P. Hughes and M. Salath ´e, “An open access repository of im- ages on plant health to enable the development of mobile disease diagnostics through machine learning and crowdsourcing,” CoRR, vol. abs/1511.08060, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Oracle-mnist: a realistic image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,

    M. Wang and W. Deng, “Oracle-mnist: a realistic image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,” CoRR, vol. abs/2205.09442, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Graph attention networks,

    P. Velickovic, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Li `o, and Y . Bengio, “Graph attention networks,” in 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings . OpenReview.net, 2018. 15

    2018

  46. [54]

    V4D: 4d convolutional neural networks for video-level representation learning,

    S. Zhang, S. Guo, W. Huang, M. R. Scott, and L. Wang, “V4D: 4d convolutional neural networks for video-level representation learning,” in 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020 . OpenReview.net, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    ESPT: A self- supervised episodic spatial pretext task for improving few-shot learning,

    Y . Rong, X. Lu, Z. Sun, Y . Chen, and S. Xiong, “ESPT: A self- supervised episodic spatial pretext task for improving few-shot learning,” in Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2023, Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial ...

    2023

  48. [56]

    Learning to propagate labels: Transductive propagation network for few-shot learning,

    Y . Liu, J. Lee, M. Park, S. Kim, E. Yang, S. J. Hwang, and Y . Yang, “Learning to propagate labels: Transductive propagation network for few-shot learning,” in 7th International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019 . OpenRev...

    2019

  49. [57]

    Parameterless transductive feature re-representation for few-shot learning,

    W. Cui and Y . Guo, “Parameterless transductive feature re-representation for few-shot learning,” in Proceedings of the 38th International Confer- ence on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, M. Meila and ...

    2021

  50. [58]

    Easy - ensemble augmented-shot-y-shaped learning: State- of-the-art few-shot classification with simple components,

    Y . Bendou, Y . Hu, R. Lafargue, G. Lioi, B. Pasdeloup, S. Pateux, and V . Gripon, “Easy - ensemble augmented-shot-y-shaped learning: State- of-the-art few-shot classification with simple components,” J. Imaging, vol. 8, no. 7, p. 179, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Transductive few-shot learning with prototype- based label propagation by iterative graph refinement,

    H. Zhu and P. Koniusz, “Transductive few-shot learning with prototype- based label propagation by iterative graph refinement,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023 . IEEE, 2023, pp. 23 996– 24 006

    2023

  52. [60]

    Feature mixture on pre-trained model for few-shot learning,

    S. Wang, J. Lu, H. Xu, Y . Hao, and X. He, “Feature mixture on pre-trained model for few-shot learning,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , vol. 33, pp. 4104–4115, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Few-shot learning via embedding adaptation with set-to-set functions,

    H. Ye, H. Hu, D. Zhan, and F. Sha, “Few-shot learning via embedding adaptation with set-to-set functions,” in 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2020, Seattle, WA, USA, June 13-19, 2020 . Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE, 2020, pp. 8805–8814

    2020

  54. [62]

    Class-aware patch embedding adaptation for few-shot image classification,

    F. Hao, F. He, L. Liu, F. Wu, D. Tao, and J. Cheng, “Class-aware patch embedding adaptation for few-shot image classification,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023 . IEEE, 2023, pp. 18 859–18 869

    2023

  55. [63]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever, “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion,” in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine...

    2021

  56. [64]

    Clip-adapter: Better vision-language models with feature adapters,

    P. Gao, S. Geng, R. Zhang, T. Ma, R. Fang, Y . Zhang, H. Li, and Y . Qiao, “Clip-adapter: Better vision-language models with feature adapters,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 581–595, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Learning deep features for discriminative localization,

    B. Zhou, A. Khosla, `A. Lapedriza, A. Oliva, and A. Torralba, “Learning deep features for discriminative localization,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2016, Las Vegas, NV , USA, June 27-30, 2016. IEEE Computer Society, 2016, pp. 2921– ...

    2016

  58. [2020]

    2774–2784

    Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE, 2020, pp. 2774–2784

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.