Haolin Pan, Yong Guo, Mianjie Yu, Jian Chen
Real-world data often follows a long-tailed distribution, where a few head classes occupy most of the data and a large number of tail classes only contain very limited samples. In practice, deep models often show poor generalization performance on tail classes due to the imbalanced distribution. To tackle this, data augmentation has become an effective way by synthesizing new samples for tail classes. Among them, one popular way is to use CutMix that explicitly mixups the images of tail classes and the others, while constructing the labels according to the ratio of areas cropped from two images. However, the area-based labels entirely ignore the inherent semantic information of the augmented samples, often leading to misleading training signals. To address this issue, we propose a Contrastive CutMix (ConCutMix) that constructs augmented samples with semantically consistent labels to boost the performance of long-tailed recognition. Specifically, we compute the similarities between samples in the semantic space learned by contrastive learning, and use them to rectify the area-based labels. Experiments show that our ConCutMix significantly improves the accuracy on tail classes as well as the overall performance. For example, based on ResNeXt-50, we improve the overall accuracy on ImageNet-LT by 3.0% thanks to the significant improvement of 3.3% on tail classes. We highlight that the improvement also generalizes well to other benchmarks and models. Our code and pretrained models are available at https://github.com/PanHaulin/ConCutMix.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image Classification | CIFAR-100-LT (ρ=50) | Error Rate | 42.6 | ConCutMix |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-10-LT (ρ=50) | Error Rate | 12 | ConCutMix |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-100-LT (ρ=100) | Error Rate | 46.84 | ConCutMix |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-10-LT (ρ=100) | Error Rate | 13.93 | ConCutMix |
| Few-Shot Image Classification | CIFAR-100-LT (ρ=50) | Error Rate | 42.6 | ConCutMix |
| Few-Shot Image Classification | CIFAR-10-LT (ρ=50) | Error Rate | 12 | ConCutMix |
| Few-Shot Image Classification | CIFAR-100-LT (ρ=100) | Error Rate | 46.84 | ConCutMix |
| Few-Shot Image Classification | CIFAR-10-LT (ρ=100) | Error Rate | 13.93 | ConCutMix |
| Generalized Few-Shot Classification | CIFAR-100-LT (ρ=50) | Error Rate | 42.6 | ConCutMix |
| Generalized Few-Shot Classification | CIFAR-10-LT (ρ=50) | Error Rate | 12 | ConCutMix |
| Generalized Few-Shot Classification | CIFAR-100-LT (ρ=100) | Error Rate | 46.84 | ConCutMix |
| Generalized Few-Shot Classification | CIFAR-10-LT (ρ=100) | Error Rate | 13.93 | ConCutMix |
| Long-tail Learning | CIFAR-100-LT (ρ=50) | Error Rate | 42.6 | ConCutMix |
| Long-tail Learning | CIFAR-10-LT (ρ=50) | Error Rate | 12 | ConCutMix |
| Long-tail Learning | CIFAR-100-LT (ρ=100) | Error Rate | 46.84 | ConCutMix |
| Long-tail Learning | CIFAR-10-LT (ρ=100) | Error Rate | 13.93 | ConCutMix |
| Generalized Few-Shot Learning | CIFAR-100-LT (ρ=50) | Error Rate | 42.6 | ConCutMix |
| Generalized Few-Shot Learning | CIFAR-10-LT (ρ=50) | Error Rate | 12 | ConCutMix |
| Generalized Few-Shot Learning | CIFAR-100-LT (ρ=100) | Error Rate | 46.84 | ConCutMix |
| Generalized Few-Shot Learning | CIFAR-10-LT (ρ=100) | Error Rate | 13.93 | ConCutMix |