Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 156 references

Advances in Set Function Learning: A Survey of Techniques and Applications

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey claims that set function learning — modeling functions over unordered inputs — can be organized into a unified taxonomy of deep and non-deep methods, and that this map helps practitioners choose models, datasets, and open…

desk verdict Useful survey taxonomy undercut by a genuine contradiction in the PointNet theory section; worth publishing after a careful revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14991 v1 pith:Y2UNNPPN submitted 2025-01-24 cs.LG

Jiahao Xie , Guangmo Tong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG MSC 68T07
keywords setfunctionlearningpermutationinvariancedeepsurveySetsTransformerPointNetsubmodularfunctionsmulti-labelclassification
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 surveys the field of set function learning: building models that take sets as input and are invariant to the order of the elements. Its central claim is that the many proposed methods can be organized into a coherent taxonomy — foundational theories, deep learning families such as DeepSets, Set Transformer, PointNet, set prediction networks, and deep submodular functions, plus kernel and decision-tree alternatives — and that this organization gives researchers a reliable map of the field. The paper argues that this map matters because practitioners need guidance on which method fits which task, which datasets to benchmark on, and where the open problems lie. If the survey's coverage is accurate, a new researcher can enter the area and choose methods without reading the entire literature.

What carries the argument

The organizing mechanism is the notion of permutation invariance, realized through symmetric aggregation: each element is mapped through an encoder $\phi$, the results are combined with a symmetric function such as sum, max, or attention, and the aggregate is passed through a decoder $\rho$. The canonical identity, from DeepSets, is that any set function over a countable domain can be written as $\rho(\sum_{x\in X}\phi(x))$, and the survey uses this identity as the backbone for comparing later methods (e.g., PointNet swaps sum for max, Set Transformer replaces pooling with attention, DSPN adds a gradient-based decoder). For the survey itself, the taxonomy is the load-bearing structure: it is what lets the authors summarize roughly seventy-five papers under a small set of families and map them onto applications.

What would settle it

A reader could test the survey's comprehensiveness by compiling the set of permutation-invariant network papers from a systematic search of recent literature and checking whether any widely used method family (for example, graph-based set encoders or newly proposed equivariant architectures) is absent. More narrowly, reading the two papers cited for the point cloud ranking claim (DuMLP-Pin and Point Transformer) and checking whether their experiments actually compare against DeepSets and Set Transformer on the same benchmarks would settle whether that empirical assertion is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that set function learning is now a mature enough field to warrant a unified survey, and that the literature divides along clear lines. The review identifies permutation-invariance as the defining requirement, presents the canonical decomposition $f(X)=\rho(\sum_{x\in X}\phi(x))$ (DeepSets) and its variants, and groups deep methods into CNN-, RNN-, FNN-, DeepSets-, PointNet-, Set Transformer-, DSPN-, and DSF-based families, with kernel methods, Fourier-sparse set functions, locality-sensitive hashing, and decision-tree learners as non-deep alternatives. It then catalogs applications (point cloud processing, anomaly detection, recommendation, set expansion, time series, multi-label classification, molecular property prediction, amortized inference, and others) with associated datasets, and closes with a list of open directions including learnability theory, mini-batch consistency, streaming data, and hybrid models.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's usefulness depends on whether its literature coverage is complete and whether its one- or two-sentence summaries of about seventy-five papers accurately represent what those papers proved; if a major method is missing or a summary misstates a result, the map misleads readers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the taxonomy is correct, a researcher facing a new set-learning task can narrow candidate methods by family (e.g., DeepSets for general invariance, Set Transformer for element interactions, PointNet variants for point clouds) before reading individual papers.
  • The survey's applications and dataset list gives a ready-made benchmark suite for evaluating new set function learning methods.
  • The identified open problems — learnability of general set functions, mini-batch consistency, streaming and dynamic sets — mark concrete research targets for the community.
  • The comparison with prior survey work implies that this survey fills a gap by covering not just typical methods but also applications and datasets.
  • The theoretical results surveyed (e.g., latent-dimension bounds for DeepSets) give practitioners explicit guidance on when sum-decomposition models are sufficient.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the survey's empirical claims, such as PointNet++ and Point Transformer outperforming DeepSets and Set Transformer on point clouds, rest on only a couple of cited comparisons; a reader should treat these as heuristic rather than as a systematic benchmark result.
  • Editorial inference: the taxonomy could be extended by situating set function learning relative to graph neural networks and equivariant architectures, which the survey mentions only in passing (e.g., via message passing); the same permutation-invariance principles apply there.
  • Editorial inference: a testable extension would be to build a living benchmark that evaluates the surveyed families on the listed datasets under a uniform protocol, which would verify or correct the relative strengths the survey reports.
  • Editorial inference: the survey's framing suggests that mini-batch consistency and streaming updates are the next bottleneck for real-world adoption, since many current methods assume the whole set fits in memory.
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. This manuscript surveys set function learning, organizing deep learning methods into categories (CNN-, RNN-, FNN-, DeepSets-, PointNet-, Set Transformer-, DSPN-, DSF-based, and other), discussing non-deep-learning approaches, and reviewing applications and relevant datasets. The authors claim to provide a comprehensive overview and a unified framework for understanding the field, covering foundational theories, key methodologies, applications, and open problems. The paper includes a summary table of reviewed works and concludes with future research directions.

Significance. If the survey were accurate and comprehensive, it would serve as a useful entry point for practitioners and researchers in set function learning. The taxonomy is broadly consistent with the known literature, and the coverage spans a wide range of methods, including recent work on mini-batch consistency, deep submodular functions, and set prediction networks. The compilation of applications and datasets is potentially valuable. However, the reliability of the survey is currently undermined by an unresolved contradiction in the theoretical foundations section and by unsupported empirical rankings in the applications section. Because the paper's central contribution is to provide a trustworthy map of the field, these issues are load-bearing and need to be fixed before the survey can be recommended for publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.5.1 vs. Section 3.5.2] The survey asserts that 'It is theoretically proved that PointNet is capable of approximating any continuous set function if the max-pooling layer contains enough neurons' (Section 3.5.1), and then immediately states, citing Bueno and Hylton [18], that 'PointNet cannot generally approximate averages of continuous functions over sets (e.g., center-of-mass), and DeepSets is strictly more expressive than PointNet in the constant cardinality setting' (Section 3.5.2). These two statements are mutually inconsistent. The first statement is a misreading of the PointNet universality theorem, which holds only under additional conditions (e.g., approximation with respect to the Hausdorff distance on compact metric spaces) and does not cover functions such as the mean. The authors should correct Section 3.5.1 to state the precise condition under which PointNet is universal and explicitly reconcile it with the negative results of Bueno and Hylton, since a survey of foundational theories cannot contain an unresolved contradiction about a pillar architecture.
  2. [Section 5.1] The empirical claim that 'PointNet++ and Point Transformer generally outperform DeepSets, PointNet, and Set Transformer in point cloud tasks on ModelNet40 and ShapeNet datasets' and that 'Point Transformer achieves the best performance' is supported only by references [32] and [150], which do not provide a systematic comparison of all these models under consistent experimental conditions. Without a comparative table or a meta-analysis, this overgeneralizes the results of two papers. The authors should either present a systematic comparison with clear experimental setups or qualify the statement as 'reported in the cited papers on their respective benchmarks,' rather than presenting it as a general empirical finding.
  3. [Abstract and Section 1] The central claim of comprehensiveness ('comprehensive overview,' 'complete view of current models') is not supported by any description of the literature search, inclusion criteria, or coverage period. The survey lists roughly seventy-five references but does not explain how they were selected, what databases or venues were searched, or what criteria excluded other works. Without this methodological transparency, the representativeness of the survey cannot be assessed. The authors should add a paragraph describing their review methodology, including search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the time frame of the literature covered.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Definition 3.1] The heading 'Permutation-eqivariance' contains a typo; it should read 'Permutation-equivariance.'
  2. [Section 3.1.1] The text refers to 'SipderConv' in the discussion of SpiderCNN; this should be 'SpiderConv.'
  3. [Section 3.5.2] The author name 'Chrisian' appears in the text; it should be 'Christian' (Bueno and Hylton).
  4. [Example 2.6 and Figure 1] The figure caption says 'Conors prediction' and the running text in Example 2.6 repeats this typo; it should be 'Corners prediction.'
  5. [Section 3.4.1] The statement 'For a countable set X and a set Y, the function f : X → Y is a valid set function... if and only if it can be decomposed' would benefit from identifying this as a theorem of Zaheer et al. [140] about sum-decomposability, rather than a definition, to avoid confusion with the general definition of a set function.
  6. [Table 1 and Section 5.1] Several entries in Table 1 cite references that are not discussed in the corresponding body text (e.g., [54] under set anomaly detection). Aligning the table with the text or adding a note about such references would improve the reader's ability to navigate the survey.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey performs no derivation, fits no parameters, and makes no prediction that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

This is a literature survey. Its central claim, providing a comprehensive overview, is supported by citation to roughly seventy-five independent prior works; it contains no original theorem, no learned parameters, no fitted constants, and no prediction step that could be equivalent to an input by construction. Section 3 summarizes external results such as DeepSets, PointNet, Set Transformer, DSPN, and DSF, but all mathematical content (e.g., Equation (2), the permutation-equivariance characterization in Equation (3), and the DSPN loss in Equation (7)) is imported from cited papers and is not used to derive a new conclusion. The paper's only assertions of comparative performance (Sections 5.1 through 5.8) are empirical claims about prior experiments, not outputs of a model fit in the paper. One internal inconsistency exists between Section 3.5.1's statement that PointNet can approximate any continuous set function and Section 3.5.2's summary that PointNet cannot approximate averages such as center-of-mass; this is a factual and consistency defect in summarizing the literature, not a circular derivation, so it does not raise the circularity score. Self-citations are absent and the authors' own prior work is not load-bearing. Consequently, there is no derivation chain whose conclusion is built into its premise.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new parameters, entities, or derivations are introduced. The survey's load-bearing content is the accuracy of its citations and the aptness of its taxonomy.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The descriptions of the cited papers are faithful and complete enough to support the survey's claims.
    The survey's content is a set of summaries of external works, for example Section 3.4.3 Table 2 which presents lower-bound comparisons among DeepSets expressive power results. If any summary is wrong, the survey's claim to be comprehensive is weakened.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen taxonomy, dividing methods into CNN, RNN, FNN, DeepSets, PointNet, Set Transformer, DSPN, DSF, and other categories, is a valid and complete organization of the field.
    Section 1 states the survey 'categorize[s] and discuss[es] existing approaches' but provides no selection or completeness criterion; the categories are the authors' judgment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Advances in Set Function Learning: A Survey of Techniques and Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y2UNNPPN

@misc{pith2026250114991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Advances in Set Function Learning: A Survey of Techniques and Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y2UNNPPN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14991}
}
read the original abstract

Set function learning has emerged as a crucial area in machine learning, addressing the challenge of modeling functions that take sets as inputs. Unlike traditional machine learning that involves fixed-size input vectors where the order of features matters, set function learning demands methods that are invariant to permutations of the input set, presenting a unique and complex problem. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current development in set function learning, covering foundational theories, key methodologies, and diverse applications. We categorize and discuss existing approaches, focusing on deep learning approaches, such as DeepSets and Set Transformer based methods, as well as other notable alternative methods beyond deep learning, offering a complete view of current models. We also introduce various applications and relevant datasets, such as point cloud processing and multi-label classification, highlighting the significant progress achieved by set function learning methods in these domains. Finally, we conclude by summarizing the current state of set function learning approaches and identifying promising future research directions, aiming to guide and inspire further advancements in this promising field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14991 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of examples around the origin. The corresponding label 𝑦𝑖 ∈ 𝑌 represents the four corners of the square after rotation. The goal is to find a function ℎ ∈ H that predicts the four corners 𝑦𝑖 for each set of vertices 𝑥𝑖 given the rotation angle 𝜃. With a growing literature focusing on designing novel set function learning methods, we summarize three issues that should be taken into account when designin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structure figures. 2(a) shows the structure of Section 3.1. 2(b) shows the structure of Section 3.4. 2(c) shows the structure of Section 3.5. 2(d) shows the structure of Section 3.6. 2(e) shows the structure of Section 3.7. 2(f ) shows the structure of Section 3.8. 3.1 CNN Based Methods CNNs are highly efficient architectures due to their ability to leverage local connectivity and shared weights [47], leading to bre… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

156 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [57]

    Masanari Kimura, Ryotaro Shimizu, Yuki Hirakawa, Ryosuke Goto, and Yuki Saito. 2024. On permutation-invariant neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17410 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [18]

    Christian Bueno and Alan Hylton. 2021. On the representation power of set pooling networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 17170–17182

    2021

  3. [32]

    Jiajun Fei, Ziyu Zhu, Wenlei Liu, Zhidong Deng, Mingyang Li, Huanjun Deng, and Shuo Zhang. 2022. Dumlp-pin: a dual-mlp-dot-product permutation-invariant network for set feature extraction. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 36. 598–606

    2022

  4. [150]

    Hengshuang Zhao, Li Jiang, Jiaya Jia, Philip HS Torr, and Vladlen Koltun. 2021. Point transformer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 16259–16268

    work page 2021

  5. [1]

    Alireza Abedin, S Hamid Rezatofighi, Qinfeng Shi, and Damith C Ranasinghe. 2019. SparseSense: human activity recognition from highly sparse sensor data-streams using set-based neural networks. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2019 . Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 5780–5786

    2019

  6. [2]

    Gediminas Adomavicius and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2010. Context-aware recommender systems. In Recommender systems handbook . Springer, 217–253

    2010

  7. [3]

    Miika Aittala and Frédo Durand. 2018. Burst image deblurring using permutation invariant convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) . 731–747

    2018

  8. [4]

    Relja Arandjelovic, Petr Gronat, Akihiko Torii, Tomas Pajdla, and Josef Sivic. 2016. NetVLAD: CNN architecture for weakly supervised place recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 5297–5307

    2016

Show all 156 references
  1. [5]

    Iro Armeni, Ozan Sener, Amir R Zamir, Helen Jiang, Ioannis Brilakis, Martin Fischer, and Silvio Savarese. 2016. 3d semantic parsing of large-scale indoor spaces. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 1534–1543

    2016

  2. [6]

    Eduardo Arnold, Sajjad Mozaffari, and Mehrdad Dianati. 2021. Fast and robust registration of partially overlapping point clouds. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7, 2 (2021), 1502–1509

    2021

  3. [7]

    Eirini Arvaniti and Manfred Claassen. 2017. Sensitive detection of rare disease-associated cell subsets via representation learning. Nature communications 8, 1 (2017), 14825

    2017

  4. [8]

    Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2016. Layer Normalization. stat 1050 (2016), 21

    2016

  5. [9]

    Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyung Hyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015

    2015

  6. [10]

    Jun Bai, Chuantao Yin, Hanhua Hong, Jianfei Zhang, Chen Li, Yanmeng Wang, and Wenge Rong. 2023. Permutation Invariant Training for Paraphrase Identification. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 1–5

    2023

  7. [11]

    Maria-Florina Balcan and Nicholas JA Harvey. 2018. Submodular functions: Learnability, structure, and optimization. SIAM J. Comput. 47, 3 (2018), 703–754

    2018

  8. [12]

    Sergey Bartunov, Fabian B Fuchs, and Timothy P Lillicrap. 2022. Equilibrium aggregation: encoding sets via optimization. InUncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. PMLR, 139–149

    2022

  9. [13]

    George Bebis and Michael Georgiopoulos. 1994. Feed-forward neural networks. Ieee Potentials 13, 4 (1994), 27–31

    1994

  10. [14]

    Mathieu Blondel, Quentin Berthet, Marco Cuturi, Roy Frostig, Stephan Hoyer, Felipe Llinares-López, Fabian Pedregosa, and Jean-Philippe Vert

  11. [15]

    Michael M Bronstein, Joan Bruna, Yann LeCun, Arthur Szlam, and Pierre Vandergheynst. 2017. Geometric deep learning: going beyond euclidean data. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34, 4 (2017), 18–42

    2017

  12. [16]

    Andreis Bruno, Jeffrey Willette, Juho Lee, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2021. Mini-batch consistent slot set encoder for scalable set encoding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 21365–21374

    2021

  13. [17]

    Poompol Buathong, David Ginsbourger, and Tipaluck Krityakierne. 2020. Kernels over sets of finite sets using rkhs embeddings, with application to bayesian (combinatorial) optimization. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics . PMLR, 2731–2741. Man...

    2020

  14. [19]

    Robin Burke. 2017. Multisided fairness for recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.00093 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Richard H Byrd, Peihuang Lu, Jorge Nocedal, and Ciyou Zhu. 1995. A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. SIAM Journal on scientific computing 16, 5 (1995), 1190–1208

    1995

  16. [21]

    Hanqing Chao, Yiwei He, Junping Zhang, and Jianfeng Feng. 2019. Gaitset: Regarding gait as a set for cross-view gait recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 33. null, 8126–8133

    2019

  17. [22]

    Gal Chechik, Varun Sharma, Uri Shalit, and Samy Bengio. 2010. Large Scale Online Learning of Image Similarity Through Ranking. Journal of Machine Learning Research 11 (2010), 1109–1135

    2010

  18. [23]

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Murphy, and Alan L Yuille. 2017. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 40, 4 (...

    2017

  19. [24]

    Dan dan Guo, Long Tian, Minghe Zhang, Mingyuan Zhou, and Hongyuan Zha. 2021. Learning Prototype-oriented Set Representations for Meta-Learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  20. [25]

    Abir De and Soumen Chakrabarti. 2022. Neural Estimation of Submodular Functions with Applications to Differentiable Subset Selection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 19537–19552

    2022

  21. [26]

    Don Dennis, Durmus Alp Emre Acar, Vikram Mandikal, Vinu Sankar Sadasivan, Venkatesh Saligrama, Harsha Vardhan Simhadri, and Prateek Jain

  22. [27]

    Benjamin Doerr, Carola Doerr, Aneta Neumann, Frank Neumann, and Andrew Sutton. 2020. Optimization of chance-constrained submodular functions. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 34. 1460–1467

    2020

  23. [28]

    Brian W Dolhansky and Jeff A Bilmes. 2016. Deep submodular functions: Definitions and learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (2016), 3404–3412

    2016

  24. [29]

    David K Duvenaud, Dougal Maclaurin, Jorge Iparraguirre, Rafael Bombarell, Timothy Hirzel, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Ryan P Adams. 2015. Convolutional networks on graphs for learning molecular fingerprints. Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015), 2224–2232

    2015

  25. [30]

    Francis Engelmann, Martin Bokeloh, Alireza Fathi, Bastian Leibe, and Matthias Nießner. 2020. 3d-mpa: Multi-proposal aggregation for 3d semantic instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 9031–9040

    2020

  26. [31]

    Felix A Faber, Alexander Lindmaa, O Anatole Von Lilienfeld, and Rickard Armiento. 2016. Machine learning energies of 2 million elpasolite (A B C 2 D 6) crystals. Physical review letters 117, 13 (2016), 135502

    2016

  27. [33]

    Vitaly Feldman, Pravesh Kothari, and Jan Vondrák. 2013. Representation, approximation and learning of submodular functions using low-rank decision trees. In Conference on Learning Theory . PMLR, 711–740

    2013

  28. [34]

    Gregory Gelly and Jean-Luc Gauvain. 2017. Optimization of RNN-based speech activity detection. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 26, 3 (2017), 646–656

    2017

  29. [35]

    Alireza Ghadimi and Hamid Beigy. 2020. Deep submodular network: An application to multi-document summarization. Expert Systems with Applications 152 (2020), 113392

    2020

  30. [36]

    Jennifer A Gillenwater, Alex Kulesza, Emily Fox, and Ben Taskar. 2014. Expectation-maximization for learning determinantal point processes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (2014)

    2014

  31. [37]

    Justin Gilmer, Samuel S Schoenholz, Patrick F Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E Dahl. 2017. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 1263–1272

    2017

  32. [38]

    Mogan Gim, Donghyeon Park, Michael Spranger, Kana Maruyama, and Jaewoo Kang. 2021. Recipebowl: A cooking recommender for ingredients and recipes using set transformer. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 143623–143633

    2021

  33. [39]

    Roger Girgis, Florian Golemo, Felipe Codevilla, Martin Weiss, Jim Aldon D’Souza, Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Felix Heide, and Christopher Pal. 2021. Latent Variable Sequential Set Transformers for Joint Multi-Agent Motion Prediction. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  34. [40]

    T Hackel, N Savinov, L Ladicky, JD Wegner, K Schindler, and M Pollefeys. 2017. SEMANTIC3D. NET: A NEW LARGE-SCALE POINT CLOUD CLASSIFICATION BENCHMARK. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 4 (2017), 91–98

    2017

  35. [41]

    Jason Hartford, Devon Graham, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Siamak Ravanbakhsh. 2018. Deep models of interactions across sets. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 1909–1918

    2018

  36. [42]

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

    2016

  37. [43]

    Max Horn, Michael Moor, Christian Bock, Bastian Rieck, and Karsten Borgwardt. 2020. Set functions for time series. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 4353–4363

    2020

  38. [44]

    Armin Hornung, Kai M Wurm, Maren Bennewitz, Cyrill Stachniss, and Wolfram Burgard. 2013. OctoMap: An efficient probabilistic 3D mapping framework based on octrees. Autonomous robots 34 (2013), 189–206

    2013

  39. [45]

    Weihua Hu, Matthias Fey, Marinka Zitnik, Yuxiao Dong, Hongyu Ren, Bowen Liu, Michele Catasta, and Jure Leskovec. 2020. Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 22118–22133. Manuscript submitted ...

    2020

  40. [46]

    Zicheng Hu, Benjamin S Glicksberg, and Atul J Butte. 2019. Robust prediction of clinical outcomes using cytometry data. Bioinformatics 35, 7 (2019), 1197–1203

    2019

  41. [47]

    Binh-Son Hua, Minh-Khoi Tran, and Sai-Kit Yeung. 2018. Pointwise convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 984–993

    2018

  42. [48]

    Guang-Bin Huang, Yan-Qiu Chen, and Haroon A Babri. 2000. Classification ability of single hidden layer feedforward neural networks. IEEE transactions on neural networks 11, 3 (2000), 799–801

    2000

  43. [49]

    Rishabh Iyer, Ninad Khargoankar, Jeff Bilmes, and Himanshu Asanani. 2021. Submodular combinatorial information measures with applications in machine learning. In Algorithmic Learning Theory. PMLR, 722–754

    2021

  44. [50]

    Saurav Jha, Dong Gong, Xuesong Wang, Richard E Turner, and Lina Yao. 2022. The neural process family: Survey, applications and perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00517 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Yinghui Jiang, Shuting Jin, Xurui Jin, Xianglu Xiao, Wenfan Wu, Xiangrong Liu, Qiang Zhang, Xiangxiang Zeng, Guang Yang, and Zhangming Niu

  46. [52]

    Justin Johnson, Bharath Hariharan, Laurens Van Der Maaten, Li Fei-Fei, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Ross Girshick. 2017. Clevr: A diagnostic dataset for compositional language and elementary visual reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern reco...

    2017

  47. [53]

    John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ronneberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin Žídek, Anna Potapenko, et al. 2021. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 7873 (2021), 583–589

    2021

  48. [54]

    In-Soo Jung, Mario Berges, James H Garrett Jr, and Barnabas Poczos. 2015. Exploration and evaluation of AR, MPCA and KL anomaly detection techniques to embankment dam piezometer data. Advanced Engineering Informatics 29, 4 (2015), 902–917

    2015

  49. [55]

    Mateusz Jurewicz and Leon Derczynski. 2022. Set Interdependence Transformer: Set-to-Sequence Neural Networks for Permutation Learning and Structure Prediction. In Proceedings on the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence

    2022

  50. [56]

    Masanari Kimura, Takuma Nakamura, and Yuki Saito. 2023. SHIFT15M: Fashion-specific dataset for set-to-set matching with several distribution shifts. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 3508–3513

    2023

  51. [58]

    Adam R Kosiorek, Hyunjik Kim, and Danilo J Rezende. 2020. Conditional set generation with transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16841 (2020), arXiv–2006

    2020 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2012. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 25 (2012)

    2012

  53. [60]

    Matevž Kunaver and Tomaž Požrl. 2017. Diversity in recommender systems–A survey. Knowledge-based systems 123 (2017), 154–162

    2017

  54. [61]

    Alex H Lang, Sourabh Vora, Holger Caesar, Lubing Zhou, Jiong Yang, and Oscar Beijbom. 2019. Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 12697–12705

    2019

  55. [62]

    Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2015. Deep learning. nature 521, 7553 (2015), 436–444

    2015

  56. [63]

    Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc. IEEE 86, 11 (1998), 2278–2324

    1998

  57. [64]

    Juho Lee, Yoonho Lee, Jungtaek Kim, Adam Kosiorek, Seungjin Choi, and Yee Whye Teh. 2019. Set transformer: A framework for attention-based permutation-invariant neural networks. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 3744–3753

    2019

  58. [65]

    Juho Lee, Yoonho Lee, and Yee Whye Teh. 2019. Deep amortized clustering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.13433 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Seanie Lee, Bruno Andreis, Kenji Kawaguchi, Juho Lee, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2022. Set-based meta-interpolation for few-task meta-learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 6775–6788

    2022

  60. [67]

    Diya Li and Mohammed J Zaki. 2020. Reciptor: An effective pretrained model for recipe representation learning. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 1719–1727

    2020

  61. [68]

    Jiangnan Li, Yice Zhang, Bin Liang, Kam-Fai Wong, and Ruifeng Xu. 2023. Set learning for generative information extraction. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 13043–13052

    2023

  62. [69]

    Yang Li, Haidong Yi, Christopher Bender, Siyuan Shan, and Junier B Oliva. 2020. Exchangeable neural ode for set modeling. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 6936–6946

    2020

  63. [70]

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proce...

    2014

  64. [71]

    Yang Liu and Mirella Lapata. 2019. Hierarchical Transformers for Multi-Document Summarization. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 5070–5081

    2019

  65. [72]

    Zhihai Liu, Yan Li, Li Han, Jie Li, Jie Liu, Zhixiong Zhao, Wei Nie, Yuchen Liu, and Renxiao Wang. 2015. PDB-wide collection of binding data: current status of the PDBbind database. Bioinformatics 31, 3 (2015), 405–412

    2015

  66. [73]

    Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo, Xiaogang Wang, and Xiaoou Tang. 2015. Deep learning face attributes in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision . 3730–3738. Manuscript submitted to ACM Advances in Set Function Learning: A Survey of Techniques and A...

    2015

  67. [74]

    Yi Lu. 2016. Practical tera-scale Walsh-Hadamard transform. In 2016 Future Technologies Conference (FTC). IEEE, 1230–1236

    2016

  68. [75]

    Yuzhe Lu, Xinran Liu, Andrea Soltoggio, and Soheil Kolouri. 2024. Slosh: Set locality sensitive hashing via sliced-wasserstein embeddings. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision . 2566–2576

    2024

  69. [76]

    Piyushi Manupriya, Tarun Ram Menta, Sakethanath N Jagarlapudi, and Vineeth N Balasubramanian. 2022. Improving attribution methods by learning submodular functions. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics . PMLR, 2173–2190

    2022

  70. [77]

    Javier Marın, Aritro Biswas, Ferda Ofli, Nicholas Hynes, Amaia Salvador, Yusuf Aytar, Ingmar Weber, and Antonio Torralba. 2021. Recipe1m+: A dataset for learning cross-modal embeddings for cooking recipes and food images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intel...

    2021

  71. [78]

    Haggai Maron, Heli Ben-Hamu, Hadar Serviansky, and Yaron Lipman. 2019. Provably powerful graph networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  72. [79]

    Haggai Maron, Ethan Fetaya, Nimrod Segol, and Yaron Lipman. 2019. On the universality of invariant networks. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 4363–4371

    2019

  73. [80]

    Haggai Maron, Or Litany, Gal Chechik, and Ethan Fetaya. 2020. On learning sets of symmetric elements. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 6734–6744

    2020

  74. [81]

    Andres Milioto, Ignacio Vizzo, Jens Behley, and Cyrill Stachniss. 2019. Rangenet++: Fast and accurate lidar semantic segmentation. In2019 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) . IEEE, 4213–4220

    2019

  75. [82]

    Samuel Müller, Noah Hollmann, Sebastian Pineda Arango, Josif Grabocka, and Frank Hutter. 2022. Transformers Can Do Bayesian Inference. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2022

  76. [83]

    Ryan L Murphy, Balasubramaniam Srinivasan, Vinayak Rao, and Bruno Ribeiro. 2018. Janossy pooling: Learning deep permutation-invariant functions for variable-size inputs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.01900 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Giannis Nikolentzos, Polykarpos Meladianos, and Michalis Vazirgiannis. 2017. Matching node embeddings for graph similarity. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 31

    2017

  78. [85]

    Tae-Hyun Oh, Tali Dekel, Changil Kim, Inbar Mosseri, William T Freeman, Michael Rubinstein, and Wojciech Matusik. 2019. Speech2face: Learning the face behind a voice. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 7539–7548

    2019

  79. [86]

    Zijing Ou, Tingyang Xu, Qinliang Su, Yingzhen Li, Peilin Zhao, and Yatao Bian. 2022. Learning neural set functions under the optimal subset oracle. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 35021–35034

    2022

  80. [87]

    Ari Pakman, Yueqi Wang, Catalin Mitelut, JinHyung Lee, and Liam Paninski. 2020. Neural clustering processes. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 7455–7465

    2020

  81. [88]

    Ashutosh Pandey and DeLiang Wang. 2022. Self-attending RNN for speech enhancement to improve cross-corpus generalization. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 30 (2022), 1374–1385

    2022

  82. [89]

    Razvan Pascanu, Tomas Mikolov, and Yoshua Bengio. 2013. On the difficulty of training recurrent neural networks. In International conference on machine learning. Pmlr, 1310–1318

    2013

  83. [90]

    James Philbin, Ondrej Chum, Michael Isard, Josef Sivic, and Andrew Zisserman. 2007. Object retrieval with large vocabularies and fast spatial matching. In 2007 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . IEEE, 1–8

    2007

  84. [91]

    I Gethzi Ahila Poornima and B Paramasivan. 2020. Anomaly detection in wireless sensor network using machine learning algorithm. Computer communications 151 (2020), 331–337

    2020

  85. [92]

    Sergey Prokudin, Christoph Lassner, and Javier Romero. 2019. Efficient learning on point clouds with basis point sets. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 4332–4341

    2019

  86. [93]

    Markus Püschel. 2018. A discrete signal processing framework for set functions. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 4359–4363

    2018

  87. [94]

    Markus Püschel and Chris Wendler. 2020. Discrete signal processing with set functions.IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 69 (2020), 1039–1053

    2020

  88. [95]

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. 2017. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 652–660

    2017

  89. [96]

    Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J Guibas. 2017. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  90. [97]

    Kechen Qin, Cheng Li, Virgil Pavlu, and Javed Aslam. 2019. Adapting RNN Sequence Prediction Model to Multi-label Set Prediction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, V...

    2019

  91. [98]

    Akbar Rafiey and Yuichi Yoshida. 2020. Fast and Private Submodular and𝑘-Submodular Functions Maximization with Matroid Constraints. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 7887–7897

    2020

  92. [99]

    Neelima Rajput and SK Verma. 2014. Back propagation feed forward neural network approach for speech recognition. In Proceedings of 3rd international conference on reliability, infocom technologies and optimization . IEEE, 1–6

    2014

  93. [100]

    Sofya Raskhodnikova and Grigory Yaroslavtsev. 2013. Learning pseudo-boolean k-dnf and submodular functions. InProceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms . SIAM, 1356–1368

    2013

  94. [101]

    Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. 2016. You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 779–788. Manuscript submitted to ACM 34 Xie et al

    2016

  95. [102]

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2016. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 39, 6 (2016), 1137–1149

    2016

  96. [103]

    Hamid Rezatofighi, Tianyu Zhu, Roman Kaskman, Farbod T Motlagh, Javen Qinfeng Shi, Anton Milan, Daniel Cremers, Laura Leal-Taixé, and Ian Reid. 2021. Learn to predict sets using feed-forward neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 44, 12...

    2021

  97. [104]

    S Hamid Rezatofighi, Vijay Kumar Bg, Anton Milan, Ehsan Abbasnejad, Anthony Dick, and Ian Reid. 2017. Deepsetnet: Predicting sets with deep neural networks. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . IEEE, 5257–5266

    2017

  98. [105]

    Tal Ridnik, Emanuel Ben-Baruch, Nadav Zamir, Asaf Noy, Itamar Friedman, Matan Protter, and Lihi Zelnik-Manor. 2021. Asymmetric loss for multi-label classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 82–91

    2021

  99. [106]

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. 2015. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings,...

    2015

  100. [107]

    Renato F Salas-Moreno, Richard A Newcombe, Hauke Strasdat, Paul HJ Kelly, and Andrew J Davison. 2013. Slam++: Simultaneous localisation and mapping at the level of objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 1352–1359

    2013

  101. [108]

    Attilio Sbrana, André Luis Debiaso Rossi, and Murilo Coelho Naldi. 2020. N-BEATS-RNN: deep learning for time series forecasting. In 2020 19th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA) . IEEE, 765–768

    2020

  102. [109]

    Robin Scheibler, Saeid Haghighatshoar, and Martin Vetterli. 2015. A fast Hadamard transform for signals with sublinear sparsity in the transform domain. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 61, 4 (2015), 2115–2132

    2015

  103. [110]

    Suvash Sedhain, Aditya Krishna Menon, Scott Sanner, and Lexing Xie. 2015. Autorec: Autoencoders meet collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on World Wide Web . 111–112

    2015

  104. [111]

    Eva Sharma, Guoli Ye, Wenning Wei, Rui Zhao, Yao Tian, Jian Wu, Lei He, Ed Lin, and Yifan Gong. 2020. Adaptation of rnn transducer with text-to-speech technology for keyword spotting. In ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing ...

    2020

  105. [112]

    Yifeng Shi, Junier Oliva, and Marc Niethammer. 2020. Deep message passing on sets. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 34. 5750–5757

    2020

  106. [113]

    Konstantinos Skianis, Giannis Nikolentzos, Stratis Limnios, and Michalis Vazirgiannis. 2020. Rep the set: Neural networks for learning set representations. In International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics . PMLR, 1410–1420

    2020

  107. [114]

    Yi Sun, Xiaogang Wang, and Xiaoou Tang. 2014. Deep learning face representation from predicting 10,000 classes. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 1891–1898

    2014

  108. [115]

    Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

    2014

  109. [116]

    Mingxing Tan and Quoc Le. 2019. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 6105–6114

    2019

  110. [117]

    Xu Tan, Jiawei Chen, Haohe Liu, Jian Cong, Chen Zhang, Yanqing Liu, Xi Wang, Yichong Leng, Yuanhao Yi, Lei He, et al. 2024. Naturalspeech: End-to-end text-to-speech synthesis with human-level quality. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024)

    2024

  111. [118]

    Samuel Thomas, Brian Kingsbury, George Saon, and Hong-Kwang J Kuo. 2022. Integrating text inputs for training and adapting rnn transducer asr models. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 8127–8131

    2022

  112. [119]

    Aäron Van Den Oord, Nal Kalchbrenner, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. 2016. Pixel recurrent neural networks. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 1747–1756

    2016

  113. [120]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  114. [121]

    Oriol Vinyals, Samy Bengio, and Manjunath Kudlur. 2016. Order matters: Sequence to sequence for sets. (2016)

    2016

  115. [122]

    Edward Wagstaff, Fabian Fuchs, Martin Engelcke, Ingmar Posner, and Michael A Osborne. 2019. On the limitations of representing functions on sets. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 6487–6494

    2019

  116. [123]

    Edward Wagstaff, Fabian B Fuchs, Martin Engelcke, Michael A Osborne, and Ingmar Posner. 2022. Universal approximation of functions on sets. Journal of Machine Learning Research 23, 151 (2022), 1–56

    2022

  117. [124]

    Dingrong Wang, Deep Shankar Pandey, Krishna Prasad Neupane, Zhiwei Yu, Ervine Zheng, Zhi Zheng, and Qi Yu. 2023. Deep temporal sets with evidential reinforced attentions for unique behavioral pattern discovery. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 36205–36223

    2023

  118. [125]

    Peihao Wang, Shenghao Yang, Shu Li, Zhangyang Wang, and Pan Li. 2023. Polynomial Width is Sufficient for Set Representation with High- dimensional Features. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  119. [126]

    Yueqi Wang, Yoonho Lee, Pallab Basu, Juho Lee, Yee Whye Teh, Liam Paninski, and Ari Pakman. 2020. Amortized probabilistic detection of communities in graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.15727 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  120. [127]

    Yue Wang, Yongbin Sun, Ziwei Liu, Sanjay E Sarma, Michael M Bronstein, and Justin M Solomon. 2019. Dynamic graph cnn for learning on point clouds. ACM Transactions on Graphics (tog) 38, 5 (2019), 1–12

    2019

  121. [128]

    Kai Wei, Yuzong Liu, Katrin Kirchhoff, and Jeff Bilmes. 2014. Unsupervised submodular subset selection for speech data. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 4107–4111. Manuscript submitted to ACM Advances in Set Func...

    2014

  122. [129]

    Chris Wendler, Andisheh Amrollahi, Bastian Seifert, Andreas Krause, and Markus Püschel. 2021. Learning set functions that are sparse in non-orthogonal Fourier bases. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 35. 10283–10292

    2021

  123. [130]

    Chris Wendler, Markus Püschel, and Dan Alistarh. 2019. Powerset convolutional neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  124. [131]

    Jeffrey Willette, Seanie Lee, Bruno Andreis, Kenji Kawaguchi, Juho Lee, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2023. Scalable set encoding with universal mini-batch consistency and unbiased full set gradient approximation. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 37008–37041

    2023

  125. [132]

    Zhirong Wu, Shuran Song, Aditya Khosla, Fisher Yu, Linguang Zhang, Xiaoou Tang, and Jianxiong Xiao. 2015. 3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 1912–1920

    2015

  126. [133]

    Yifan Xu, Tianqi Fan, Mingye Xu, Long Zeng, and Yu Qiao. 2018. Spidercnn: Deep learning on point sets with parameterized convolutional filters. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) . 87–102

    2018

  127. [134]

    Bin Yang, Wenjie Luo, and Raquel Urtasun. 2018. Pixor: Real-time 3d object detection from point clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 7652–7660

    2018

  128. [135]

    Vacit Oguz Yazici, Abel Gonzalez-Garcia, Arnau Ramisa, Bartlomiej Twardowski, and Joost van de Weijer. 2020. Orderless recurrent models for multi-label classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 13440–13449

    2020

  129. [136]

    Chih-Kuan Yeh, Wei-Chieh Wu, Wei-Jen Ko, and Yu-Chiang Frank Wang. 2017. Learning deep latent space for multi-label classification. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 31

    2017

  130. [137]

    Haidong Yi and Natalie Stanley. 2021. CytoSet: Predicting clinical outcomes via set-modeling of cytometry data. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics . 1–8

    2021

  131. [138]

    Li Yi, Vladimir G Kim, Duygu Ceylan, I-Chao Shen, Mengyan Yan, Hao Su, Cewu Lu, Qixing Huang, Alla Sheffer, and Leonidas Guibas. 2016. A scalable active framework for region annotation in 3d shape collections. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) 35, 6 (2016), 1–12

    2016

  132. [139]

    Le Yu, Zihang Liu, Tongyu Zhu, Leilei Sun, Bowen Du, and Weifeng Lv. 2023. Predicting temporal sets with simplified fully connected networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 37. 4835–4844

    2023

  133. [140]

    Manzil Zaheer, Satwik Kottur, Siamak Ravanbakhsh, Barnabas Poczos, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Alexander J Smola. 2017. Deep sets. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  134. [141]

    David W Zhang, Gertjan J Burghouts, and Cees GM Snoek. 2020. Set Prediction without Imposing Structure as Conditional Density Estimation. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2020

  135. [142]

    Fengzhuo Zhang, Boyi Liu, Kaixin Wang, Vincent Tan, Zhuoran Yang, and Zhaoran Wang. 2022. Relational reasoning via set transformers: Provable efficiency and applications to MARL. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 35825–35838

    2022

  136. [143]

    Jie Zhang, Chen Cai, George Kim, Yusu Wang, and Wei Chen. 2022. Composition design of high-entropy alloys with deep sets learning. npj Computational Materials 8, 1 (2022), 89

    2022

  137. [144]

    Lily Zhang, Veronica Tozzo, John Higgins, and Rajesh Ranganath. 2022. Set norm and equivariant skip connections: Putting the deep in deep sets. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 26559–26574

    2022

  138. [145]

    Yan Zhang, Jonathon Hare, and Adam Prugel-Bennett. 2019. Deep set prediction networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  139. [146]

    Yan Zhang, Jonathon Hare, and Adam Prügel-Bennett. 2019. FSPool: Learning Set Representations with Featurewise Sort Pooling. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  140. [147]

    Yan Zhang, Jonathon Hare, and Adam Prügel-Bennett. 2019. Learning Representations of Sets through Optimized Permutations. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  141. [148]

    Yan Zhang, David W Zhang, Simon Lacoste-Julien, Gertjan J Burghouts, and Cees GM Snoek. 2021. Multiset-Equivariant Set Prediction with Approximate Implicit Differentiation. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  142. [149]

    Ziming Zhang, Yun Yue, Guojun Wu, Yanhua Li, and Haichong Zhang. 2021. SBO-RNN: reformulating recurrent neural networks via stochastic bilevel optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 25839–25851

    2021

  143. [151]

    Yujie Zhong, Relja Arandjelovic, and Andrew Zisserman. 2018. Compact deep aggregation for set retrieval. InProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) workshops . 0–0

    2018

  144. [152]

    Yin Zhou and Oncel Tuzel. 2018. Voxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 4490–4499

    2018

  145. [153]

    Aaron Zweig and Joan Bruna. 2022. Exponential separations in symmetric neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 33134–33145. Received 6 September 2024; revised 2 January 2025; accepted 18 January 2025 Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2022

  146. [2019]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    Shallow rnn: accurate time-series classification on resource constrained devices. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  147. [2022]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 5230–5242

    Efficient and modular implicit differentiation. Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 5230–5242

    2022

  148. [2023]

    Communications Chemistry 6, 1 (2023), 60

    Pharmacophoric-constrained heterogeneous graph transformer model for molecular property prediction. Communications Chemistry 6, 1 (2023), 60

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.