fix some typos and add some stuff
This commit is contained in:
		@@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
 | 
				
			|||||||
\usepackage{bbm}
 | 
					\usepackage{bbm}
 | 
				
			||||||
\usepackage{mathtools}
 | 
					\usepackage{mathtools}
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					\usepackage[inline]{enumitem}
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
%%
 | 
					%%
 | 
				
			||||||
%% \BibTeX command to typeset BibTeX logo in the docs
 | 
					%% \BibTeX command to typeset BibTeX logo in the docs
 | 
				
			||||||
\AtBeginDocument{%
 | 
					\AtBeginDocument{%
 | 
				
			||||||
@@ -69,7 +71,7 @@
 | 
				
			|||||||
%% The abstract is a short summary of the work to be presented in the
 | 
					%% The abstract is a short summary of the work to be presented in the
 | 
				
			||||||
%% article.
 | 
					%% article.
 | 
				
			||||||
\begin{abstract}
 | 
					\begin{abstract}
 | 
				
			||||||
  Cross-Model Pseudo-Labeling is a new Framework for generating Pseudo-labels
 | 
					  Cross-Model Pseudo-Labeling is a new framework for generating Pseudo-Labels
 | 
				
			||||||
  for supervised learning tasks where only a subset of true labels is known.
 | 
					  for supervised learning tasks where only a subset of true labels is known.
 | 
				
			||||||
  It builds upon the existing approach of FixMatch and improves it further by
 | 
					  It builds upon the existing approach of FixMatch and improves it further by
 | 
				
			||||||
  using two different sized models complementing each other.
 | 
					  using two different sized models complementing each other.
 | 
				
			||||||
@@ -80,9 +82,9 @@
 | 
				
			|||||||
%% the work being presented. Separate the keywords with commas.
 | 
					%% the work being presented. Separate the keywords with commas.
 | 
				
			||||||
\keywords{neural networks, videos, pseudo-labeling, action recognition}
 | 
					\keywords{neural networks, videos, pseudo-labeling, action recognition}
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
\received{20 February 2007}
 | 
					%\received{20 February 2007}
 | 
				
			||||||
\received[revised]{12 March 2009}
 | 
					%\received[revised]{12 March 2009}
 | 
				
			||||||
\received[accepted]{5 June 2009}
 | 
					%\received[accepted]{5 June 2009}
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
%%
 | 
					%%
 | 
				
			||||||
%% This command processes the author and affiliation and title
 | 
					%% This command processes the author and affiliation and title
 | 
				
			||||||
@@ -103,6 +105,7 @@ The goal is to fit a model to predict the labels from datapoints.
 | 
				
			|||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
In traditional unsupervised learning no labels are known.
 | 
					In traditional unsupervised learning no labels are known.
 | 
				
			||||||
The goal is to find patterns and structures in the data.
 | 
					The goal is to find patterns and structures in the data.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					Moreover, it can be used for clustering or downprojection.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
Those two techniques combined yield semi-supervised learning.
 | 
					Those two techniques combined yield semi-supervised learning.
 | 
				
			||||||
Some of the labels are known, but for most of the data we have only the raw datapoints.
 | 
					Some of the labels are known, but for most of the data we have only the raw datapoints.
 | 
				
			||||||
@@ -126,7 +129,7 @@ Equation~\ref{eq:fixmatch} defines the loss-function that trains the model.
 | 
				
			|||||||
The sum over a batch size $B_u$ takes the average loss of this batch and should be straight forward.
 | 
					The sum over a batch size $B_u$ takes the average loss of this batch and should be straight forward.
 | 
				
			||||||
The input data is augmented in two different ways.
 | 
					The input data is augmented in two different ways.
 | 
				
			||||||
At first there is a weak augmentation $\mathcal{T}_{\text{weak}}(\cdot)$ which only applies basic transformation such as filtering and bluring.
 | 
					At first there is a weak augmentation $\mathcal{T}_{\text{weak}}(\cdot)$ which only applies basic transformation such as filtering and bluring.
 | 
				
			||||||
Moreover, there is the strong augmentation $\mathcal{T}_{\text{strong}}(\cdot)$ which does cropouts and edge-detections.
 | 
					Moreover, there is the strong augmentation $\mathcal{T}_{\text{strong}}(\cdot)$ which does cropouts and random augmentations.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
\begin{equation}
 | 
					\begin{equation}
 | 
				
			||||||
  \label{eq:fixmatch}
 | 
					  \label{eq:fixmatch}
 | 
				
			||||||
@@ -144,7 +147,11 @@ Otherwise it will be kept and trains the model further.
 | 
				
			|||||||
\section{Cross-Model Pseudo-Labeling}\label{sec:cross-model-pseudo-labeling}
 | 
					\section{Cross-Model Pseudo-Labeling}\label{sec:cross-model-pseudo-labeling}
 | 
				
			||||||
The newly invented approach of this paper is called Cross-Model Pseudo-Labeling (CMPL)\cite{Xu_2022_CVPR}.
 | 
					The newly invented approach of this paper is called Cross-Model Pseudo-Labeling (CMPL)\cite{Xu_2022_CVPR}.
 | 
				
			||||||
In Figure~\ref{fig:cmpl-structure} one can see its structure.
 | 
					In Figure~\ref{fig:cmpl-structure} one can see its structure.
 | 
				
			||||||
We define two different models, a smaller and a larger one.
 | 
					We define two different models, a smaller, the auxiliary and a larger one, the primary model.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					The SG label means stop gradient.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					The loss function evaluations are fed into the opposite model as loss.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					The two models train each other.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
\begin{figure}[h]
 | 
					\begin{figure}[h]
 | 
				
			||||||
  \centering
 | 
					  \centering
 | 
				
			||||||
@@ -189,6 +196,8 @@ The loss is regulated by an hyperparamter $\lambda$ to enhance the importance of
 | 
				
			|||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
In figure~\ref{fig:results} a performance comparison is shown between just using the supervised samples for training against some different pseudo label frameworks.
 | 
					In figure~\ref{fig:results} a performance comparison is shown between just using the supervised samples for training against some different pseudo label frameworks.
 | 
				
			||||||
One can clearly see that the performance gain with the new CMPL framework is quite significant.
 | 
					One can clearly see that the performance gain with the new CMPL framework is quite significant.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					For evaluation the Kinetics-400 and UCF-101 datasets are used.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					And as a backbone model a 3D-ResNet18 and 3D-ResNet50 are used.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
\begin{figure}[h]
 | 
					\begin{figure}[h]
 | 
				
			||||||
  \centering
 | 
					  \centering
 | 
				
			||||||
@@ -198,6 +207,21 @@ One can clearly see that the performance gain with the new CMPL framework is qui
 | 
				
			|||||||
  \label{fig:results}
 | 
					  \label{fig:results}
 | 
				
			||||||
\end{figure}
 | 
					\end{figure}
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					\section{Further schemes}\label{sec:further-schemes}
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					How the pseudo-labels are generated my impact the overall performance.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					In this paper the pseudo-labels are obtained by the cross-model approach.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					But there might be other strategies.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					For example:
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					\begin{enumerate*}
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					  \item Self-First: Each network uses just its own prediction if its confident enough.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					  If not, it uses its sibling net prediction.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					  \item Opposite-First: Each net prioritizes the prediction of the sibling network.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					  \item Maximum: The most confident prediction is leveraged.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					  \item Average: The two predictions are averaged before deriving the pseudo-label
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					\end{enumerate*}.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					Those are just other approaches one can keep in mind.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					This doesn't mean they are better, in fact they performed even worse in this study.
 | 
				
			||||||
%%
 | 
					%%
 | 
				
			||||||
%% The next two lines define the bibliography style to be used, and
 | 
					%% The next two lines define the bibliography style to be used, and
 | 
				
			||||||
%% the bibliography file.
 | 
					%% the bibliography file.
 | 
				
			||||||
 
 | 
				
			|||||||
		Reference in New Issue
	
	Block a user