2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2020
DOI: 10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.01331
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Generalized Zero-Shot Learning via Over-Complete Distribution

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
60
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 104 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
60
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The proposed two HarS based inductive methods, HarS-WGAN and HarS-VAEGAN are compared with 18 stateof-the-art inductive methods: DEVISE [4], LATEM [17], SAE [49], DEM [22], LiGAN [28], ABP [30], TCN [24], OCD-GZSL [50], APNet [51], DE-VAE [52], LsrGAN [53], f-CSLWGAN [11], DASCN [27], DVBE [9], DAZLE [54], TF-VAEGAN [13], CF-GZSL [19], GCM-CF [37]. The proposed two HarST based transductive methods, HarST-DEM and HarST-WGAN are compared with 14 state-ofthe-art transductive methods: ALE-tran [16], GFZSL [55], DSRL [56], QFSL [40], GMN [57], f-VAEGAN-D2 [44], GXE [42], SABR-T [29], PREN [41], VSC [58], DTN [59], ADA [60], SDGN [45], TF-VAEGAN [13].…”
Section: Datasets and Comparative Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proposed two HarS based inductive methods, HarS-WGAN and HarS-VAEGAN are compared with 18 stateof-the-art inductive methods: DEVISE [4], LATEM [17], SAE [49], DEM [22], LiGAN [28], ABP [30], TCN [24], OCD-GZSL [50], APNet [51], DE-VAE [52], LsrGAN [53], f-CSLWGAN [11], DASCN [27], DVBE [9], DAZLE [54], TF-VAEGAN [13], CF-GZSL [19], GCM-CF [37]. The proposed two HarST based transductive methods, HarST-DEM and HarST-WGAN are compared with 14 state-ofthe-art transductive methods: ALE-tran [16], GFZSL [55], DSRL [56], QFSL [40], GMN [57], f-VAEGAN-D2 [44], GXE [42], SABR-T [29], PREN [41], VSC [58], DTN [59], ADA [60], SDGN [45], TF-VAEGAN [13].…”
Section: Datasets and Comparative Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We selected recent state-of-the-art ZSL methods for comparison, which include methods without endto-end training such as PSR [4], RN [48], SP-AEN [9], IIR [7], TCN [24], E-PGN [62], DA-ZLE [22], f-CLSWGAN [56], cycle-CLSWGAN [12], CADA-VAE [45], OCD-CVAE [27], RFF-GZSL [17], IZF [46], and LsrGAN [51], where the last seven methods are feature generation based models, and end-to-end methods QFSL [47], LDF [33], SGMA [67], AREN [58], LF-GAA [35], DVBE [38], RGEN [59], and APN [60].…”
Section: Comparison With the State-of-the-artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the above methods often conduct mapping in a unidirectional manner, which tend to easily cause the domain shift problem. Therefore, the common-space based methods try to map different features into common spaces for connecting visual features with semantic features (Akata et al 2015b,a;Sung et al 2018;Keshari, Singh, and Vatsa 2020). CVAE (Mishra et al 2018) utilizes conditional VAE to encode the concatenation feature of visual and semantic embedding vectors.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CVAE (Mishra et al 2018) utilizes conditional VAE to encode the concatenation feature of visual and semantic embedding vectors. OCD (Keshari, Singh, and Vatsa 2020) designs an over-complete distribution of seen and unseen classes to enhance class separability. Although these methods extract the effective features on the common space, they often neglect explicitly aligning different modalities.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation