Xiao Wang, Daisuke Kihara, Jiebo Luo, Guo-Jun Qi
Deep neural networks have been successfully applied to many real-world applications. However, such successes rely heavily on large amounts of labeled data that is expensive to obtain. Recently, many methods for semi-supervised learning have been proposed and achieved excellent performance. In this study, we propose a new EnAET framework to further improve existing semi-supervised methods with self-supervised information. To our best knowledge, all current semi-supervised methods improve performance with prediction consistency and confidence ideas. We are the first to explore the role of {\bf self-supervised} representations in {\bf semi-supervised} learning under a rich family of transformations. Consequently, our framework can integrate the self-supervised information as a regularization term to further improve {\it all} current semi-supervised methods. In the experiments, we use MixMatch, which is the current state-of-the-art method on semi-supervised learning, as a baseline to test the proposed EnAET framework. Across different datasets, we adopt the same hyper-parameters, which greatly improves the generalization ability of the EnAET framework. Experiment results on different datasets demonstrate that the proposed EnAET framework greatly improves the performance of current semi-supervised algorithms. Moreover, this framework can also improve {\bf supervised learning} by a large margin, including the extremely challenging scenarios with only 10 images per class. The code and experiment records are available in \url{https://github.com/maple-research-lab/EnAET}.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image Classification | CIFAR-10 | Percentage correct | 98.01 | EnAET |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-100 | Percentage correct | 83.13 | EnAET |
| Image Classification | STL-10 | Percentage correct | 95.48 | EnAET |
| Image Classification | SVHN | Percentage error | 2.22 | EnAET |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-10, 4000 Labels | Percentage error | 4.18 | EnAET |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-100, 1000 Labels | Percentage correct | 41.27 | EnAET |
| Image Classification | STL-10, 1000 Labels | Accuracy | 91.96 | EnAET |
| Image Classification | cifar-100, 10000 Labels | Percentage error | 22.92 | EnAET (WRN-28-2-Large) |
| Image Classification | STL-10 | Accuracy | 95.48 | EnAET |
| Image Classification | SVHN, 1000 labels | Accuracy | 97.58 | EnAET |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-100, 5000Labels | Percentage correct | 68.17 | EnAET |
| Image Classification | cifar10, 250 Labels | Percentage correct | 92.4 | EnAET |
| Image Classification | SVHN, 250 Labels | Accuracy | 96.79 | EnAET |
| Semi-Supervised Image Classification | CIFAR-10, 4000 Labels | Percentage error | 4.18 | EnAET |
| Semi-Supervised Image Classification | CIFAR-100, 1000 Labels | Percentage correct | 41.27 | EnAET |
| Semi-Supervised Image Classification | STL-10, 1000 Labels | Accuracy | 91.96 | EnAET |
| Semi-Supervised Image Classification | cifar-100, 10000 Labels | Percentage error | 22.92 | EnAET (WRN-28-2-Large) |
| Semi-Supervised Image Classification | STL-10 | Accuracy | 95.48 | EnAET |
| Semi-Supervised Image Classification | SVHN, 1000 labels | Accuracy | 97.58 | EnAET |
| Semi-Supervised Image Classification | CIFAR-100, 5000Labels | Percentage correct | 68.17 | EnAET |
| Semi-Supervised Image Classification | cifar10, 250 Labels | Percentage correct | 92.4 | EnAET |
| Semi-Supervised Image Classification | SVHN, 250 Labels | Accuracy | 96.79 | EnAET |