imagenet
- Oceania > Australia > Australian Capital Territory > Canberra (0.04)
- Europe > Switzerland > Vaud > Lausanne (0.04)
- Europe > Spain > Catalonia > Barcelona Province > Barcelona (0.04)
Matching Networks for One Shot Learning
Learning from a few examples remains a key challenge in machine learning. Despite recent advances in important domains such as vision and language, the standard supervised deep learning paradigm does not offer a satisfactory solution for learning new concepts rapidly from little data. In this work, we employ ideas from metric learning based on deep neural features and from recent advances that augment neural networks with external memories. Our framework learns a network that maps a small labelled support set and an unlabelled example to its label, obviating the need for fine-tuning to adapt to new class types. We then define one-shot learning problems on vision (using Omniglot, ImageNet) and language tasks. Our algorithm improves one-shot accuracy on ImageNet from 82.2% to 87.8% and from 88% accuracy to 95% accuracy on Omniglot compared to competing approaches. We also demonstrate the usefulness of the same model on language modeling by introducing a one-shot task on the Penn Treebank.
When More Experts Hurt: Underfitting in Multi-Expert Learning to Defer
Liu, Shuqi, Cao, Yuzhou, Feng, Lei, An, Bo, Ong, Luke
Learning to Defer (L2D) enables a classifier to abstain from predictions and defer to an expert, and has recently been extended to multi-expert settings. In this work, we show that multi-expert L2D is fundamentally more challenging than the single-expert case. With multiple experts, the classifier's underfitting becomes inherent, which seriously degrades prediction performance, whereas in the single-expert setting it arises only under specific conditions. We theoretically reveal that this stems from an intrinsic expert identifiability issue: learning which expert to trust from a diverse pool, a problem absent in the single-expert case and renders existing underfitting remedies failed. To tackle this issue, we propose PiCCE (Pick the Confident and Correct Expert), a surrogate-based method that adaptively identifies a reliable expert based on empirical evidence. PiCCE effectively reduces multi-expert L2D to a single-expert-like learning problem, thereby resolving multi expert underfitting. We further prove its statistical consistency and ability to recover class probabilities and expert accuracies. Extensive experiments across diverse settings, including real-world expert scenarios, validate our theoretical results and demonstrate improved performance.
- North America > United States > Iowa > Johnson County > Iowa City (0.05)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > Canada > British Columbia > Metro Vancouver Regional District > Vancouver (0.04)
Appendix A Training details
Models are trained with Stochastic Gradient Descent with momentum equal to 0.9 [ We use a learning rate annealing scheme, decreasing the learning rate by a factor of 0.1 every 30 epochs. We train all models for 150 epochs. Then, we select the best learning rate and weight decay for each method and run 5 different seeds to report mean and standard deviation. We use the validation set of ImageNet to perform cross-validation and report performance on it. In section G we train the Augerino method on top of the Resnet-18 architecture.
- North America > United States > New York > New York County > New York City (0.04)
- Europe > Spain > Andalusia > Cádiz Province > Cadiz (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Vision (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language (0.68)
- Information Technology > Sensing and Signal Processing > Image Processing (0.68)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.47)
- Asia > Japan > Honshū > Kantō > Tokyo Metropolis Prefecture > Tokyo (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Vision (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.94)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Cognitive Science (0.69)
Appendix A Proof of Theorem 2.1
We have the following lemma. Using the notation of Lemma A.1, we have E The third inequality uses the Lipschitz assumption of the loss function. Figure 10 supplements'Relation to disagreement ' at the end of Section 2. It shows an example where the behavior of inconsistency is different from disagreement. All the experiments were done using GPUs (A100 or older). The goal of the experiments reported in Section 3.1 was to find whether/how the predictiveness of The arrows indicate the direction of training becoming longer.