DUET: Cross-modal Semantic Grounding for Contrastive Zero-shot Learning
Zhuo Chen, Yufeng Huang, Jiaoyan Chen, Yuxia Geng, Wen Zhang, Yin Fang, Jeff Z. Pan, Huajun Chen
Code Available — Be the first to reproduce this paper.
ReproduceCode
- github.com/zjukg/DUETOfficialIn paperpytorch★ 54
- github.com/zjukg/structure-clippytorch★ 153
Abstract
Zero-shot learning (ZSL) aims to predict unseen classes whose samples have never appeared during training. One of the most effective and widely used semantic information for zero-shot image classification are attributes which are annotations for class-level visual characteristics. However, the current methods often fail to discriminate those subtle visual distinctions between images due to not only the shortage of fine-grained annotations, but also the attribute imbalance and co-occurrence. In this paper, we present a transformer-based end-to-end ZSL method named DUET, which integrates latent semantic knowledge from the pre-trained language models (PLMs) via a self-supervised multi-modal learning paradigm. Specifically, we (1) developed a cross-modal semantic grounding network to investigate the model's capability of disentangling semantic attributes from the images; (2) applied an attribute-level contrastive learning strategy to further enhance the model's discrimination on fine-grained visual characteristics against the attribute co-occurrence and imbalance; (3) proposed a multi-task learning policy for considering multi-model objectives. We find that our DUET can achieve state-of-the-art performance on three standard ZSL benchmarks and a knowledge graph equipped ZSL benchmark. Its components are effective and its predictions are interpretable.
Tasks
Benchmark Results
| Dataset | Model | Metric | Claimed | Verified | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AwA2 | DUET (Ours) | average top-1 classification accuracy | 69.9 | — | Unverified |
| CUB-200-2011 | DUET | average top-1 classification accuracy | 72.3 | — | Unverified |
| SUN Attribute | DUET (Ours) | average top-1 classification accuracy | 64.4 | — | Unverified |