Cited by 3,094Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesMachine Learning and Data Classification

Class-Balanced Loss Based on Effective Number of Samples

Open access
Cui, Yin, Jia, Menglin, Lin, Tsung-Yi, Song, Yang, Belongie, Serge·2019·2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

With the rapid increase of large-scale, real-world datasets, it becomes critical to address the problem of long-tailed data distribution (i.e., a few classes account for most of the data, while most classes are under-represented). Existing solutions typically adopt class re-balancing strategies such as re-sampling and re-weighting based on the number of observations for each class. In this work, we argue that as the number of samples increases, the additional benefit of a newly added data point will diminish. We introduce a novel theoretical framework to measure data overlap by associating with each sample a small neighboring region rather than a single point. The effective number of samples is defined as the volume of samples and can be calculated by a simple-formula (1-βn)/(1-β), where n is the number of samples and β ∈ [0, 1) is a hyperparameter. We design a re-weighting scheme that uses the effective number of samples for each class to re-balance the loss, thereby yielding a class-balanced loss. Comprehensive experiments are conducted on artificially induced long-tailed CIFAR datasets and large-scale datasets including ImageNet and iNaturalist. Our results show that when trained with the proposed class-balanced loss, the network is able to achieve significant performance gains on long-tailed datasets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2019.00949

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cui, Y., Jia, M., Lin, T.-Y., Song, Y., & Belongie, S.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
Venue
2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2019-06
Pages
9260-9269
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2963691377
Cited by
3,094
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 550 · 2025: 549 · 2024: 510 · 2023: 513 · 2022: 414 · 2021: 381 · 2020: 146 · 2019: 31
FWCI
78.33
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
class-balanced loss, class imbalance, data overlap, underrepresented classes, CIFAR, ImageNet, iNaturalist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review