How Re-sampling Helps for Long-Tail Learning?

Long-tail learning has received significant attention in recent years due to the challenge it poses with extremely imbalanced datasets. In these datasets, only a few classes (known as the head classes) have an adequate number of training samples, while the rest of the classes (known as the tail classes) are infrequent in the training data. Re-sampling is a classical and widely used approach for addressing class imbalance issues. Unfortunately, recent studies claim that re-sampling brings negligible performance improvements in modern long-tail learning tasks. This paper aims to investigate this phenomenon systematically. Our research shows that re-sampling can considerably improve generalization when the training images do not contain semantically irrelevant contexts. In other scenarios, however, it can learn unexpected spurious correlations between irrelevant contexts and target labels. We design experiments on two homogeneous datasets, one containing irrelevant context and the other not, to confirm our findings. To prevent the learning of spurious correlations, we propose a new context shift augmentation module that generates diverse training images for the tail class by maintaining a context bank extracted from the head-class images. Experiments demonstrate that our proposed module can boost the generalization and outperform other approaches, including class-balanced re-sampling, decoupled classifier re-training, and data augmentation methods. The source code is available at https://www.lamda.nju.edu.cn/code_CSA.ashx.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer J7TL5/10 · confidence 4/52023-06-21

Summary

The authors suggest looking closer at the resampling strategy for long-tail recognition. The motivation comes from the observation that in recent works resampling brings rather negative than positive effects. Based on MNIST experiments, the authors demonstrate that context (background) imposes spurious correlations during training that prevents generalization on tail classes. To deal with such correlations, the authors suggest a context shift augmentation module to generate diverse training images for the tail classes. Experimental results show improvement over listed by the authors baselines.

Strengths

S1: The authors suggest an interesting direction of analysis, namely why re-sampling fails to help generalization of the tail classes. The study is performed on the toy dataset with the aim to demonstrate that spurious correlations change drastically the predictions. S2: The overall structure and the storyline are nice; it is easy to follow the method section

Weaknesses

W1: The synthetic experiment does not support the statements of the authors. The claim that spurious correlations hinder tail class accuracy is not presented in Fig.4 (a) on CMNIST-LT. Namely, starting from class 3, all the accuracies are jumping around independently of the number of samples in the class and the sampling strategy. “Overfit to the irrelevant context from the over-sampled tail data” is also not observed. Moreover, the generated dataset is not visualized. Further, the statement on L162-L165 sounds reasonable; however, I find the provided arguments not convincing and rather unrelated. W2: the authors claim to improve generalization on the tail classes; however, based on Table 3 the improvement comes mostly from “many” and “med” classes. W3: the tables overall are misleading. The authors simply do not include multiple baselines that outperform their method such as - Long-Tail Learning via Logit Adjustment - Parametric Contrastive Learning - Balanced Contrastive Learning for Long-Tailed Visual Recognition W4: The authors briefly discuss differences to [28], but it looks like the novelty is rather limited wrt this method. W5: the presentation of the paper can be improved. Some sentences are hard to parse and connect to the previous context without reading further, e.g. L10, L44, L51-52. The caption of Fig.1 does not help to understand Fig.1, related text in the intro also is not helpful.

Questions

Q1: Would it be possible to conduct a similar experiment on more complex data with a more in-depth analysis of the correlations? It would significantly help to improve the paper. Q2: Is there any adaptation/analysis of the spatial structure of the images, e.g. if the object is not in the center of the image or there are multiple objects of interest? Q3: in Eq. (7), the mask M relates to image x_double_hat but is unrelated to x_tilde. In this case not only background is affected by the augmentation. I didn’t find the discussion in this regard. Q4: Could the authors discuss more in detail the difference to [28] and provide quantitative confirmation of the improvements based purely on the proposed novelty?

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

1 poor

Presentation

2 fair

Contribution

1 poor

Limitations

The authors mention that their method does not achieve comparable performance to papers presented at CVPR/ICCV21. No further discussion is added. Other limitation in regard medical images and autonomous driving is rather general than specific to the method.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-18

Dear Reviewer J7TL: Thank you again for your time and thoughtful comments! We hope our additional results and responses could address your concerns. Since the discussion period is about to close, we would appreciate it if you would kindly let us know of any further questions. We would be always available to clarify any of your questions. Best regards, Yours sincerely authors

Reviewer qgru5/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-02

Summary

In this paper, the authors rethink the effect of re-sampling on long-tailed learning. Specifically, this paper leverages a synthetic experiment to claim that re-sampling is sensitive to irrelevant contexts. To address this problem, this paper proposes a context-shift augmentation strategy to alleviate the overfitting to the irrelevant contexts in the tail classes. In the empirical part, this paper conducts performance comparisons on CIFAR-LT and ImageNet-LT to validate the proposed method.

Strengths

- The paper is generally well-written and easy to follow. - The exploration on the intrinsic mechanism of re-sampling on long-tailed data is important and not addressed. - This paper claims that re-sampling is sensitive to the irrelevant context and presents a toy example to support the claim.

Weaknesses

- The construction of CMNIST-LT seems an extreme case, which may not exhibit in real-world scenarios. - The proposed method still follows the multi-branch architecture. However, the computational cost of the proposed method is not discussed. - The experiments are not adequate. Some important long-tailed benchmarks or baselines are missing. - This paper lacks more ablation studies or further analysis to provide more insight of the proposed baseline.

Questions

- The construction of CMNIST-LT seems unreasonable. The color injection introduces severe spurious correlations to the tail classes as each tail class is assigned with single color and each head class is assigned with multiple colors. It is not surprising that the class-balanced re-sampling will deteriorate the performance at this case as only the spurious feature (single color) is enough to perform the classification on the tail class. Furthermore, this hand-crafted distribution on the irrelevant contexts may not exhibit on CIFAR-10/100-LT, ImageNet-LT as the diversity of the tail-class irrelevant contexts is mainly proportional to their class cardinality, but rather than collapse to the single point in the distribution. - The author raises the question “Can re-sampling benefit long-tail learning in the single-stage framework” in line 41. However, the proposed method still requires multi-branch learning (even multi-stage learning) to perform the resampling. It is critical to compare the computational cost of the proposed method with baseline methods. - This paper mainly investigates the class-balanced re-sampling. Is this re-sampling strategy optimal at the case of irrelevant contexts? More discussions or empirical comparisons are recommended. - Intuitively, the Grad-CAM is not reliable at the early stages of the training. It seems multiple stages (warmup) are required to ensure the training stability. - The experiments are only conducted on CIFAR-LT and ImageNet-LT. It would be better to conduct experiments on more real-world long-tailed benchmark Places-LT and iNaturalist. - In the main text of this paper, only the empirical comparison results are presented. It would benefit a lot to provide more ablation studies or further analysis of the proposed method. - Some supervised long-tailed learning SOTA baselines are missing in this paper: [1] Menon, A. K., Jayasumana, S., Jain, H., Veit, A., Kumar, S., & Rawat, A. S. Long-tail learning via logit adjustment. ICLR 2020. [2] Cui, J., Zhong, Z., Liu, S., Yu, B., & Jia, J. (2021). Parametric contrastive learning. ICCV 2021. - Some related data augmentation baselines are missing in this paper: [3] Chu, P., Bian, X., Liu, S., & Ling, H. (2020). Feature space augmentation for long-tailed data. ECCV 2020. [4] Li, S., Gong, K., Liu, C. H., Wang, Y., Qiao, F., & Cheng, X. (2021). Metasaug: Meta semantic augmentation for long-tailed visual recognition. CVPR 2021. [5] Zang, Y., Huang, C., & Loy, C. C. (2021). Fasa: Feature augmentation and sampling adaptation for long-tailed instance segmentation. ICCV 2021. [6] Zhou, Z., Yao, J., Wang, Y. F., Han, B., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Contrastive learning with boosted memorization. ICML 2022. [7] Ahn, S., Ko, J., & Yun, S. Y. (2023). CUDA: Curriculum of Data Augmentation for Long-tailed Recognition. ICLR 2023.

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

2 fair

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

Yes.

Reviewer gDP87/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-05

Summary

This article systematically investigates the effectiveness of resampling methods in long-tailed image classification problems. Resampling is a classical and important approach to addressing class imbalance, but it may not always be effective when applied to long-tailed datasets. The paper shed light on this phenomenon and provides a systematical analysis. It discovers that re-sampling the tail data can improve the performance, but may lead to overfitting on the irrelevant contexts. To address this issue, they propose a context-shift data augmentation method. The proposed method achieves superior performance on long-tailed datasets such as CIFAR10-LT, CIFAR100-LT, and ImageNet-LT.

Strengths

1. This paper provides a well-defined and reasonable motivation. The authors show both success and failure cases of re-sampling on long-tailed datasets, which highlights the significance of addressing this problem. 2. This paper extensively conducts experiments and ablation studies on widely-used datasets, which demonstrates the effectiveness of their method. 3. This paper is well-writing and easy to follow. The source code is provided in a proper way, facilitating the reproducibility of their work.

Weaknesses

1. A comparison with some data augmentation methods should be included. For example, Randaugment is a widely used method, which can improve the performance on long-tailed datasets. 2. The name of the proposed method (context-shift augmentation) should be unified, as some parts include hyphens "-" while others do not. Also, some parts use italics while others do not.

Questions

1. Does the data augmentation method of enhancing the background also applied to samples of the head class? 2. Does the proposed context-shift augmentation require additional computational cost?

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

The authors have addressed the limitations.

Reviewer gT6X6/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-17

Summary

Long-tailed Learning has drawn great attention in recent development of deep learning due to the non-negligible challenges on tail classes during learning. The re-sampling method that should make an effect to improve the training usually fails in a lot of practices. The authors dive into the phenomenon and finds some new insights towards this problem, and then design a new method to alleviate the negative impact of re-sampling on some datasets, which shows the final promise compared with the recent SOTAs.

Strengths

The strengths of this submission can be summarized as follows, 1) The authors rethinks an interesting problem about the re-sampling method, which are under-estimated or mistaken in previous studies. That is, re-sampling mainly works in the classifier layer through a two-state decoupling way. How to make the re-sampling works in a single-stage framework is an unexplored yet important challenge. 2) The observation and interpretation are insightful, as two different types of datasets contracts on the final performance for re-sampling. It means actually re-sampling can help to extract the discriminative representation but just sensitive to the irrelevant contexts, i.e., overfitting to the spurious correlations in some cases. 3) Based on the conjecture, the authors design a context-shift augmentation method along with re-sampling to alleviate the negative impact. Specially, they construct a context memory bank to boost the augmentation of samples in diversity and avoid overfitting the spurious correlation from backgrounds. The experimental results demonstrate the promise of the proposed method. 4) The whole paper is well written, in which the motivation parts are well justified with a range of experiments to show the intuition, making the whole parts clearly understood.

Weaknesses

Although the submission are well organized and presented, there are still some points that can be improved by following the below advices. 1) In Figure 2, although it is hard to visual the representation distribution on CIFAR100-LT and ImageNet-LT, it is still possible to randomly select some sub-classes, e.g., downsample 10 classes from the super classes of CIFAR100-LT, to visualize the representation. This can shows whether on some datasets that contains many class-irrelevant contexts, the representation are not well learnt, i.e., not so discriminative, compared with that on datasets that contains few class-irrelevant contexts. 2) Similarly, on basis of Figure 3, it is helpful to show with the context-shift augmentation, the method can efficiently avoid overfitting the background spurious correlations, by tracing the Grad-CAM map of some same examples. 3) It will be more solid to give some interpretation from the theoretical analysis: why the re-sampling encourages the method to learn more spurious correlations compared the method without re-sampling, or why the two-stage methods reduce the overfitting of spurious correlation in re-sampling. What the benefits or lessons we get in re-sampling from some theoretical perspectives. 4) It lacks of more experiments about some hyperparameters like \lambda of Eq.(7). Especially, the hyperparameter can be tuned based on different datasets and even different classes. The authors can strengthen this parts to avoid the concerns about the hyperparameter selection or heuristics.

Questions

1) How is the visualization of representation on datasets that contains more class-irrelevant contexts with or without resampling? And how is the visualization of Grad-CAM for examples with or without context-shift augmentation? 2) How is the sensitivity of the hyparameter lambda in Eq. (7)? How is the performance of the proposed method applied to some recent SOTAs, i.e., their compatibility with recent SOTAs? 3) Why do not consider the SOTAs like LA or BCL, PaCo in the experimental parts? The authors can have some more explanations in choosing the baselines.

Rating

6: Weak Accept: Technically solid, moderate-to-high impact paper, with no major concerns with respect to evaluation, resources, reproducibility, ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer jD4D5/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-24

Summary

This paper studies the effect of re-sampling for long-tail learning. It finds that re-sampling is highly related with the contexts of images. And it does not necessarily work of fail in long-tail learning. Based on these findings, a context-shift augmentation module is proposed. Experiments verify the effectiveness of the proposed module.

Strengths

The paper studies an important task and proposes a unique solution for the found issues of re-sampling. The paper is well-written and easy to follow. The paper comprehensively introduces the preliminary of the proposed method.

Weaknesses

The concept of context and content appear a lot in the paper, but there is no formal introduction or definition for these two concepts. The paper illustrates that the irrelevant context issue occurs for MNIST and Fashion. And for IMAGENET, the issue is not significant. So is the proposed method more suitable for those simple datasets like MNIST and Fashion? If yes, this will highly affect the application of the proposed method for real-world tasks. The paper uses Grad-CAM to determine the foreground and background for training images. However, for tail-class images, since the model may baise to head class, the generated activation map may not be accurate, which will affect the final results.

Questions

More examples are encouraged to be attached in Introduction to better illustrate the found issue and the basic motivation of the paper. The paper illustrates that the irrelevant context issue occurs for MNIST and Fashion. And for IMAGENET, the issue is not significant. So is the proposed method more suitable for those simple datasets like MNIST and Fashion? If yes, this will highly affect the application of the proposed method for real-world tasks.

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

4 excellent

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

Yes

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-18

Dear Reviewer jD4D: Thank you again for your time and thoughtful comments! We hope our additional results and responses could address your concerns. Since the discussion period is about to close, we would appreciate it if you would kindly let us know of any further questions. We would be always available to clarify any of your questions. Best regards, Yours sincerely authors

Reviewer gT6X2023-08-16

Thank you for the authors' detailed response. After reading the rebuttal and the comments of the other reviewers, my concerns have been thoroughly addressed and thus I maintain towards the acceptance of this work. Reviewer gT6X

Reviewer qgru2023-08-16

Thanks for the rebuttal

Dear authors, Thanks for the detailed replies to my concerns. After reading the rebuttal and other reviews, my concerns have been adequately addressed. I would like to raise the score to '5'. Best, Reviewer qgru

Area Chair ah6h2023-08-18

Reviewer-Author Discussion Period

Dear All, Thank you reviewers for your hard work in evaluating this submission, and thank you authors for responding to the reviewers’ questions and concerns. We are now entering the final phase of the discussion period, which will run until 21 Aug, and some of the authors' responses have to been acknowledged by all reviewers. @Reviewers, if you have any follow up questions or comments on the rebuttal or the responses, now is the time to express them. At the very least, please acknowledge that you have read the authors’ response to your review. Thank you everyone for making the review process a fruitful, constructive, and civil process. AC

Reviewer J7TL2023-08-18

Dear authors, thank you for the clarification of my misunderstanding in regard to W1&Q1, visualisation of the dataset and providing additional results. I believe that the topic that the authors cover in the current submission is important and very interesting. However, the paper lack systematic analysis on more complex data. Otherwise, the findings are not applicable to any computer vision benchmark / real world application. After reading thoroughly the author response and other reviews, I incline to keep my rating. 1. The analysis is done on a toy dataset that exhibit only one spurious feature. Based on [1] or [2], the analysis can be done more systematically taking in account more variations in the data. 2. The proposed method lacks novelty wrt [28] as the authors do not disagree in the rebuttal and rather state their main novelty in the analysis; however, see 1. 3. The method do not achieve sota numbers, which in combination with 1. and 2. does not strengthen the submission. [1] “Can contrastive learning avoid shortcut solutions?” Robinson, Joshua, et al. NeurIPS 2021 [2] “Towards Better Understanding Attribution Methods” Rao S., et al, CVPR 2022

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-20

Dear Reviewer J7TL, We greatly appreciate you for your additional comments. We would like to further explain the concerns below. **Concern #1: The analysis is done on a toy dataset that exhibits only one spurious feature.** **Response:** We conduct experiments on MNIST-LT, Fashion-LT, CIFAR-LT, and ImageNet-LT, and a manually designed benchmark CMNIST-LT. As we also replied to Reviewer qgru, we design CMNIST-LT to reveal the insights from a simple case. Moreover, **the other four are real-world datasets**, and we conduct multiple empirical studies on these four datasets in Table 1 and Figure 3 in the main paper. The results demonstrate the negative effects of spurious features on long-tailed datasets. **Concern #2: The proposed method lacks novelty wrt [28].** **Response:** Sorry for the incomplete previous response. We would like to explain that our method is different from FSA[28]. **FSA is a two-stage method**, which applies the augmentation only to finetune the model in phase 2 (The training epochs of phase 2 are much less than phase 1). In phase 1, FSA learns the feature representation in a conventional manner. However, we find that re-sampling can benefit long-tail representation learning in the **single-stage** framework if the spurious correlation is avoided, and conduct empirical studies to demonstrate our findings. Moreover, our augmentation method is also different from FSA, and our method outperforms FSA by a large margin, as is discussed in the previous response. **Concern #3: The method does not achieve SOTA numbers.** **Response:** As is discussed in Section "Broader Impact and Limitations" in the main paper, our proposed module can not achieve comparable performance with the well-designed models, since our intention is not to achieve performance that is on par with state-of-the-art methods. Instead, we hope that our findings will inspire future research regarding re-sampling methods. Moreover, our method can achieve high performance by combining SOTA losses such as BCL loss, which is reported in the previous response.

Reviewer J7TL2023-08-21

Dear authors, thank you for the additional comments. My concerns are addressed, I've updated my rating. However, the authors should update tables with the most recent methods in the field and combine their method with BCL (at least) for all the dataset to achieve close to sota numbers. As the current implementation lags far behind especially for ImageNet-LT.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-21

Dear Reviewer J7TL, Thank you a lot for your time and effort in the reviews, and following your kind suggestions, we will update the results in the next version. Best Regards, Authors

Reviewer gDP82023-08-20

Thanks for the author's response. I would also maintain my initial score of accept.

Program Chairsdecision2023-09-21

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC