Abstract - arXiv · feature space could be improved by scaling it according to various tasks [19]....

Learning to Propagate for Graph Meta-Learning

Lu Liu1, Tianyi Zhou,2 Guodong Long,1 Jing Jiang,1 Chengqi Zhang1

1Center for Artificial Intelligence, University of Technology Sydney2Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

[email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

Meta-learning extracts the common knowledge acquired from learning differenttasks and uses it for unseen tasks. It demonstrates a clear advantage on tasksthat have insufficient training data, e.g., few-shot learning. In most meta-learningmethods, tasks are implicitly related via the shared model or optimizer. In thispaper, we show that a meta-learner that explicitly relates tasks on a graph describingthe relations of their output dimensions (e.g., classes) can significantly improvethe performance of few-shot learning. This type of graph is usually free or cheapto obtain but has rarely been explored in previous works. We study the prototypebased few-shot classification, in which a prototype is generated for each class,such that the nearest neighbor search between the prototypes produces an accurateclassification. We introduce “Gated Propagation Network (GPN)”, which learnsto propagate messages between prototypes of different classes on the graph, sothat learning the prototype of each class benefits from the data of other relatedclasses. In GPN, an attention mechanism is used for the aggregation of messagesfrom neighboring classes, and a gate is deployed to choose between the aggregatedmessages and the message from the class itself. GPN is trained on a sequence oftasks from many-shot to few-shot generated by subgraph sampling. During training,it is able to reuse and update previously achieved prototypes from the memory in alife-long learning cycle. In experiments, we change the training-test discrepancyand test task generation settings for thorough evaluations. GPN outperforms recentmeta-learning methods on two benchmark datasets in all studied cases.

1 Introduction

The success of machine learning (ML) during the past decade has relied heavily on the rapid growthof computational power, new techniques training deeper and more representative neural networks,and critically, the availability of enormous amounts of annotated data. However, new challenges havearisen with the move from cloud computing to edge computing and Internet of Things (IoT), anddemands for customized models and local data privacy are increasing, which raise the question: howcan a powerful model be trained for a specific user using only a limited number of local data? Meta-learning, or “learning to learn”, can address this few-shot challenge by training a shared meta-learnermodel on top of distinct learner models for implicitly related tasks. The meta-learner aims to extractthe common knowledge of learning different tasks and adapt it to unseen tasks in order to acceleratetheir learning process and mitigate their lack of training data. Intuitively, it enables different learningtasks to share “experiences” through the meta-learner without directly transmitting their own data.

Meta-learning methods have demonstrated clear advantages on few-shot learning problems in recentyears. The form of a meta-learner model can be a similarity metric (for K-nearest neighbor (KNN)classification in each task) [23], a shared embedding module [19], an optimization algorithm [14]or its initialization [5], and so on. If a meta-learner is trained on many different learning tasks, it

33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2019), Vancouver, Canada.

arX

iv:1

909.

0502

4v1

[cs

.LG

] 1

1 Se

p 20

19

Figure 1: LEFT: t-SNE [17] visualization of the class prototypes produced by GPN for few-shottasks and the associated graph. RIGHT: GPN’s propagation mechanism for one step: for each node,its neighbors pass messages (their prototypes) to it according to attention weight a, where a gatefurther choose to accept the message from the neighbors g+ or from the class itself g∗.

can be generalized to new and unseen tasks drawn from the same distribution as the training tasks.Hence, different tasks are related via the shared meta-learner model, which implicitly captures theshared knowledge among tasks. However, in a lot of practical applications, the relationships betweentasks are known in the form of a graph of their output dimensions, for instance, species in the biologytaxonomy, diseases in the classification coding system, and merchandise on an e-commerce website.

In this paper, we study the meta-learning for few-shot classification tasks defined on a given graph ofclasses with mixed granularity, that is, the classes in each task could be an arbitrary combination ofclasses with different granularity or levels in a hierarchical taxonomy. The tasks can be classificationof cat vs mastiff (dog) or an m-vs-rest task, e.g. classification that aims to distinguish among cat, dogand others. In particular, we define the graph with each class as a node and each edge connecting aclass to its sub-class (i.e., children class) or parent class. In practice, the graph is known in advanceor can be easily extracted from a pre-defined graph, such as the WordNet hierarchy for classes inImageNet [4]. Given the graph, each task is associated with a subset of nodes on the graph. Hence,tasks can be related through the paths on the graph that links their nodes even when they share fewoutput classes. In this way, different tasks can share knowledge by message passing on the graph.

We develop Gated Propagation Network (GPN) to learn how to pass messages among nodes (i.e.,classes) on the graph for more effective few-shot learning and knowledge sharing. We use the settingfrom [23]: given a task, the meta-learner generates a prototype representing each class using onlythe few-shot data, and then a new sample is classified to the class of its nearest prototype. Eachnode/class on the graph is associated with a prototype, and a class can send its prototype as a messageto its neighbors, while the class received multiple messages needs to combine them with differentweights and update its own prototype accordingly. GPN learns an attention mechanism to computethe weights and a gate to filter the message from different senders, which also includes itself. Boththe attention and gate modules are shared across tasks and trained on various few-shot tasks, so theycan be generalized to the whole graph and unseen tasks. Inspired by the hippocampal memory replaymechanism in [2] and its application in reinforcement learning [18], in order to offset the sparse expe-rience of rewards, we also retain a memory pool of prototypes per training class, which can be reusedin propagation as a backup for the prototype when no data from the class is available on some tasks.

We evaluate GPN under various settings with different distances between training and test classes,different task generation methods, and with or without hierarchy information. To study the effectsof distance (defined as the number of hops between two classes) between training and test classes,we extract two datasets from tieredImageNet [21]: tieredImageNet-Far and tieredImageNet-Close.To evaluate the model generality, inference tasks are generated by two subgraph sampling methods,i.e., random sampling and snowball sampling [8] (snowball sampling can restrict the distance of thetargeted few-shot classes). To study whether/when the graph structure is more helpful, we evaluateGPN with and without using hierarchy information. We show that GPN outperforms four recent

2

baselines for few-shot learning. We also conduct a thorough analysis of different propagation settings.In addition, the “learning to propagate” mechanism can be potentially generalized to other fields.

2 Related Works

Meta-learning has been proved to be effective on few-shot learning tasks. It trains a meta learnerusing augmented memory [22, 11], metric learning [26, 23, 3] or learned optimization [5]. Forexample, prototypical network [23] applied distance-based classifier in a trained feature space. Wecan extend one prototype per class to an adaptive number by infinite mixture modeling [1]. Thefeature space could be improved by scaling it according to various tasks [19]. Our method is built onprototypical network and improves the class representation by propagation between prototypes. Ourwork also relates to memory-based approaches, in which the memory stores feature-label pairs hasdedicated reading and writing mechanisms. In our case, the memory stores prototypes and improvesthe propagation efficiency. Auxiliary information, such as unlabeled data [21] and weakly-labeleddata [15] has been used to embrace the few-shot challenge. In this paper, we find a graph describingthe class relationships can guide the direction of propagation and improve the quality of prototypes.

Our idea of prototype propagation is inspired by belief propagation, message passing and labelpropagation. It is also related to Graph Neural Networks (GNN) [10, 25], which applies convolu-tion/attention iteratively on a graph to achieve node embedding. In contrast, the graph in our paper isa computational graph in which every node is associated with a prototype produced by an CNN ratherthan a non-parameterized initialization in GNN. Our goal is to obtain a better prototype representationfor classes in few-shot classification. Propagation has been applied in few-shot learning for labelpropagation [16] in a transductive setting to infer the entire query set from support set at once.

3 Graph Meta-Learning

3.1 Problem Setup

We study “graph meta-learning” for few-shot learning, in which every learning task’s predictionspace is defined by a subset of nodes from a given graph, e.g., 1) a subset of classes from a hierarchyof classes for classification tasks; 2) a subset of variables from a graphical model as predictiontargets for regression tasks; or 3) a subset of actions (or a sub-sequence of actions) for reinforcementlearning tasks. In real-world problems, the graph is usually free or cheap to achieve and can provideweakly-supervised information for a meta-learner since it relates different tasks’ output spaces viathe edges and paths on the graph. However, it has been rarely considered in previous works, most ofwhich relate tasks via shared representation or metric space.

In this paper, we will focus on graph meta-learning for few-shot classification given an additionalgraph, which connects each class to its parents classes and/or children classes. Comparing to thetraditional setting used for few-shot classification, the main challenge of graph meta-learning comesfrom the mixed granularity of the classes, i.e., a task might need to classify a mixed subset containingboth fine and coarse categories. Formally, given a directed acyclic graph (DAG) G = (Y, E), whereY is the ground set of classes for all possible tasks, each node y ∈ Y denotes a class, and eachdirected edge (or arc) yi → yj ∈ E connects a parent class yi ∈ Y to one of its child classes yj ∈ Yon the graph G. We assume that each learning task T is defined by a subset of classes YT ⊆ Y drawnfrom a certain distribution T (G) defined on the graph, our goal is to learn a meta-learnerM(·; Θ)that is parameterized by Θ and can produce a learner modelM(T ; Θ) for each task T . This problemcan then be formulated by the following risk minimization of “learning to learn”:

minΘ

ET∼T (G)

[E(x,y)∼DT − log Pr(y|x;M(T,Θ)))

], (1)

where DT is the distribution of data-label pair (x, y) for a task T . In few-shot learning, we assumethat each task T is an N -way-K-shot classification over N classes YT ⊆ Y , and we only observe Ktraining samples per class. Due to the data deficiency, conventional supervised learning usually fails.

We further introduce the form of Pr(y|x;M(T ; Θ)) in Eq. (1). Inspired by [23], each classifierM(T ; Θ), as the learner model, is associated with a subset of prototypes PYT where each prototypePy is a representation vector for class y ∈ YT . Given a sample x,M(T ; Θ) applies a soft version ofKNN and outputs the probability of x belonging to each class y ∈ YT , which is computed by RBF

3

Kernel over the Euclidean distances between f(x; Θf ) and the prototype Py , i.e.,

Pr(y|x;M(T ; Θ)) ,exp(−‖f(x; Θf )− Py)‖2)∑

z∈YT exp(−‖f(x; Θf )− Pz)‖2), (2)

where f(·; Θf ) is a learnable representation model for x with Θf as a part of meta-learner parametersΘ. The main idea of graph meta-learning is to improve the prototype of each class in P by assimilatingtheir neighbors’ prototypes on the graph G. Intuitively, two classes should have similar prototypesif they are close to each other on the graph. Meanwhile, they should not have exactly the sameprototype since this leads to large errors on tasks containing both the classes. However, the remainingquestions are 1) how to measure the similarity of classes on graph G? 2) how to relate classes that arenot directly connected? 3) how to send messages between classes and how to aggregate the receivedmessages to update prototypes? 4) how to distinguish classes with similar prototypes?

3.2 Gated Propagation Network

a1 a2 a3

a4 a5

g+ g+

g+g*

a1 a2 a3

a4 a5y

a1 a2 a3

a4 a5

multi-h

ead

prop

agati

on

average

Pt+ 1y [1]

Pt+ 1y [2]

Pt+ 1y [3]

Pt+ 1y

next step propagation

from parents

from childrenself-propagate

a attention score

Pty

g

1-g

1-g

Figure 2: Prototype propagation in GPN:in each step t + 1, each class y aggre-gates prototypes from its neighbors (par-ents and children) by multi-head atten-tion, and chooses between the aggre-gated message or the message from itselfby a gate g.

We propose Gated Propagation Network (GPN) to addressthe graph meta-learning problem. GPN is a meta-learningmodel that learns how to send and aggregate messages onthe graph of classes in order to achieve class prototypesthat result in high KNN prediction accuracy on differentN -way-K-shot classification tasks. Technically, we deploya multi-head dot-product attention mechanism to measurethe similarity between each class and its neighbors onthe graph, and use the obtained similarities as weights toaggregate the messages (prototypes) from its neighbors.In each head, we apply two gates to determine whether toaccept the aggregated messages from the neighbors and themessage from itself. We apply the above propagation onall the classes (together with their neighbors) for multiplesteps, so we can relate the classes not directly connectedin the graph. We can also avoid identical prototypes ofdifferent classes due to the capability of rejecting messagesfrom any other classes except for the class itself.

In particular, given a task T associated with a subset ofclasses YT and an N -way-K-shot training set DT . At thevery beginning, we compute an initial prototype for eachclass y ∈ YT by averaging over all the K-shot samplesbelonging to class y as [23], i.e.,

P 0y ,

1

|{(xi, yi) ∈ DT : yi = y}|∑

(xi,yi)∈DT ,yi=y

f(xi; Θf ). (3)

GPN repeatedly applies the following propagation procedure to update the prototypes in PYT foreach class y ∈ YT . At step-t, for each class y ∈ YT , we firstly compute the aggregated messagesfrom its neighbors Ny by a dot-product attention module a(p, q), i.e.,

P t+1Ny→y ,

∑z∈Ny

a(P ty ,P

tz )× P t

z , a(p, q) =〈g(p), h(q)〉

‖g(p)‖ × ‖h(q)‖. (4)

where g(·) and h(·) are learnable transformations and their parameters Θprop are parts of meta-learnerparameters Θ. To avoid propagation generating identical prototypes, we allow each class y to send itsown last-step prototype P t

y to itself, i.e., P t+1y→y , P t

y . Then we apply a gate g to make decisions ofwhether accepting messages P t+1

Ny→y from its neighbors or message P t+1y→y from itself, i.e.

P t+1y , gP t+1

y→y + (1− g)P t+1Ny→y, g =

exp[γ cos(P 0y ,P

t+1y→y)]

exp[γ cos(P 0y ,P

t+1y→y)] + exp[γ cos(P 0

y ,Pt+1Ny→y)]

, (5)

where cos(p, q) denotes the cosine similarity between two vectors p and q, and γ is a temperaturehyper-parameter that controls the smoothness of the softmax function. To capture different types ofrelation and jointly use them for propagation, we duplicate the above attentive and gated propagation(Eq. (4)-Eq. (5)) for k times with untied parameters (i.e., g(·) and h(·)) as in multi-head attention [24]

4

and average the outputs of the k “heads”, i.e.,

P t+1y =

1

k

∑k

h=1P t+1y [h], (6)

where P t+1y [h] is the output of head-h and computed in the same way as P t+1

y in Eq. (5). In GPN,we apply the above procedure for all y ∈ YT for T steps and the final prototype of class y is given by

Py , λ× P 0y + (1− λ)× P Ty . (7)

GPN can be trained in a life-long learning manner that relates tasks learned at different times bymaintaining a memory of prototypes for all the classes on the graph that have been included inany previous task(s). This is especially important to learning the above propagation mechanism,because in practice it is very possible that many classes y ∈ YT do not have any neighbor in YT , i.e.,Ny ∩ YT = ∅, so Eq. (4) cannot be applied and the propagation mechanism lacks effective training.However, by initializing the prototypes of these classes to be the ones stored in memory, GPN iscapable to apply propagation over all classes in Ny ∪ YT and to relate any two classes on the graph,if there exists a path between them with all the classes on the path have prototypes in the memory.

3.3 Training Strategies

Algorithm 1 GPN Training

Input: G = (Y, E), memory update interval m,propagation steps T , total episodes τtotal;

1: Initialization: Θcnn, Θprop, Θfc, τ ← 0;2: for τ ∈ {1, · · · , τtotal} do3: if τ mod m = 0 then4: Update prototypes in memory by Eq. (3);5: end if6: Draw α ∼Unif[0, 1];7: if α < 0.920τ/τt then8: Train a classifier to update Θcnn with loss∑

(x,y)∼D − log Pr(y|x; Θcnn,Θfc);9: else

10: Sample a few-shot task T as in Sec. 3.3;11: Construct MST YTMST as in Sec. 3.3;12: For y ∈ YTMST , compute P 0

y by Eq. (3) ify ∈ T , otherwise fetch P 0

y from memory;13: for t ∈ {1, · · · , T } do14: For all y ∈ YTMST , concurrently update

their prototypes P ty by Eq. (4)-(6);

15: end for16: Compute Py for y ∈ YTMST by Eq.(7);17: Compute log Pr(y|x; Θcnn,Θprop) by

Eq. (2) for all samples (x, y) in task T ;18: Update Θcnn and Θprop by minimizing∑

(x,y)∼DT

− log Pr(y|x; Θcnn,Θprop);

19: end if20: end for

Generating training tasks by subgraphsampling: Following the framework of meta-learning, we train GPN on a training set oftasks, each with targeted classes YT that canbe generated by two possible methods: ran-dom sampling and snowball sampling [8]. Theformer randomly samples N classes as YT re-gardless of the graph. So the classes in YTare possible to be weakly related if the graphis sparse (which is usually true). The latterselects classes sequentially: in each step, itrandomly selects classes from all the hop-knneighbors of the previously selected classes,where kn is a hyper-parameter controlling thecloseness between selected classes. In prac-tice, we use a mixture of both methods tocover more possible tasks. Note there is atrade-off when choosing kn: when classes inYT are close to each other, it is beneficial totrain the propagation mechanism since classesare strongly related; on the other hand, how-ever, the task is hard because it is easy to con-fuse similar classes.

Building propagation pathways by maxi-mum spanning tree: In the training, givena task T with classes YT , we need to decidethe subgraph we apply the propagation pro-cedure to, which can cover classes z /∈ YTbut connected to classes in YT via some paths.Given that we apply T steps of propagation, itmakes sense to include all the hop-1 to hop-Tneighbors of every y ∈ YT in the subgraph.However, this might result in a large subgraph requiring costly propagation computation. Hence,we further build a maximum spanning tree (MST) [13] (with edge weight defined by cosine simi-larity between prototypes from memory) YTMST for the hop-T subgraph of YT as our “propagationpathways”, so the propagation procedure is only deployed on the MST YTMST . MST preserves thestrongest relations for propagation and can significantly improve the training efficiency.

Curriculum learning: It is easier to train a traditional classifier given sufficient training data thana few-shot classifier task since the former is exposed to more supervised information. Inspired by

5

Table 1: Statistics of tieredImageNet-Close and tieredImageNet-Far for graph meta-learning, where#cls and #img denote the number of classes and images respectively.

tieredImageNet-Close tieredImageNet-Fartraining test

#imgtraining test

#img#cls #img #cls #img #cls #img #cls #img773 100,320 315 45,640 145,960 773 100,320 26 12,700 113,020

auxiliary task co-training [19], in early episodes of training1, with high probability we learn from atraditional supervised learning task by training a linear classifier Θfc with input f(·; Θf ) and updateboth the classifier and Θf . We gradually reduce the probability as training proceeds by using a anannealed probability 0.920τ/τt and turn to focus on few-shot tasks. Another training curriculum wefind helpful is to gradually reduce λ in Eq. (7), since P 0

y works better than P Ty without sufficientupdates in earlier episodes but our final goal is P Ty . In particular, we use λ = 1− τ/τt.The complete training algorithm for GPN is given in Alg. 1. In image classification, we usually useCNNs for f(·,Θf ), i.e., Θf = Θcnn. In GPN, the output of the meta-learnerM(T ; Θ) = {P y}y∈YT ,i.e., the prototypes of class y achieved in Eq. (7), and the meta-learner parameter Θ = {Θcnn,Θprop}.

3.4 Applying a Pre-trained GPN to New Tasks

The outcomes of GPN training are the parameters {Θcnn,Θprop} in GPN model and the prototypesof all the training classes stored in memory. Given a new task T with classes YT , we apply theprocedure in lines 11-17 of Alg.1 to obtain the prototypes for all the classes in YT and the predictionprobability of any possible test samples for the new task. Note that YTMST can include trainingclasses, so the test task can benefit from the prototypes of training classes in memory. However, thiscan directly work only when the graph already contains both the training classes and test classes in T .When test classes YT are not included in the graph, we apply an extra step at beginning that connectstest classes in YT to nodes in the graph by searching for each test class’s kc nearest neighbors amongall the training prototypes in the space of P 0

y , and add arcs from the test class to its nearest neighbors.

4 Experiments

In experiments, we conduct a thorough empirical study of GPN and compare it with several mostrecent methods for few-shot learning in 8 different settings of graph meta-learning on two datasetswe extracted from ImageNet and specifically designed for graph meta-learning. We will brieflyintroduce the 8 settings below. First, the similarity between test tasks and training tasks may influencethe performance of a graph meta-learning method. We can measure the distance/dissimilarity of atest class to a training class by the length (i.e., the number of edges) of the shortest path betweenthem. Intuitively, propagation brings more improvement when the distance is smaller. For example,when test class “laptop” has nearest neighbor “electronic devices” in training classes, the prototypeof electronic devices can provide more related information during propagation when generatingthe prototype for laptop and thus improve the performance. In contrast, if the nearest neighbor is“device”, then the help by doing prototype propagation might be very limited. Hence, we extract twodatasets from ImageNet with different distance between test classes and training classes. Second,as we mentioned in Sec. 3.4, in real-world problems, it is possible that test classes are not includedin the graph during training. Hence, we also test GPN in the two scenarios (denoted by GPN+ andGPN) when the test classes have been included in the graph or not. At last, we also evaluate GPNwith two different sampling methods as discussed in Sec. 3.3. The combination of the above threeoptions finally results in 8 different settings under which we test GPN and/or other baselines.

4.1 Datasets

We built two datasets with different distance/dissimilarity between test classes and training classes,i.e., tieredImageNet-Close and tieredImageNet-Far. To the best of our knowledge, they are the first

1We update GPN in each episode τ on a training task T , and train GPN for τtotal episodes.

6

Table 2: Validation accuracy (mean±CI%95) on 600 test tasks achieved by GPN and baselines ontieredImageNet-Close with few-shot tasks generated by random sampling.

Model 5way1shot 5way5shot 10way1shot 10way5shotPrototypical Net [23] 42.87±1.67% 62.68±0.99% 30.65±1.15% 48.64±0.70%GNN [6] 42.33±0.80% 59.17±0.69% 30.50±0.57% 44.33±0.72%Closer Look [3] 35.07±1.53% 47.48±0.87% 21.58±0.96% 28.01±0.40%PPN [15] 41.60±1.59% 63.04±0.97% 28.48±1.09% 48.66±0.70%

GPN 48.37±1.80% 64.14±1.00% 33.23±1.05% 50.50±0.70%GPN+ 50.54±1.67% 65.74±0.98% 34.74±1.05% 51.50±0.70%

Table 3: Validation accuracy (mean±CI%95) on 600 test tasks achieved by GPN and baselines ontieredImageNet-Close with few-shot tasks generated by snowball sampling.


GPN 39.56±1.70% 54.35±1.11% 27.99±1.09% 42.50±0.76%GPN+ 40.78±1.76% 55.47±1.41% 29.46±1.10% 43.76±0.74%

two benchmark datasets that can be used to evaluate graph meta-learning methods for few-shotlearning. They are built partially based on tieredImageNet [21], which contains sample imageslabeled only by the finest categories, i.e., the leaf node classes on WordNet. In our datasets, we usethe fine classes and their samples from tieredImageNet and build a graph according to the WordNetHierarchy [4] so every sample can be assigned to any class on the path from the root to the leaf nodeit originally belongs to. The images of the non-leaf classes are sampled from its descendant leafclasses. The two datasets share the same training tasks and we make sure that there is no overlapbetween training and test classes. Their difference is at the test classes. In tieredImageNet-Close, theminimal distance between each test class to a training class is 1∼4, while the minimal distance goesup to 5∼10 in tieredImageNet-Far. The statistics for tieredImageNet-Close and tieredImageNet-Farare reported in Table 1.

4.2 Experiment Setup

We used kn = 5 for snowball sampling in Sec. 3.3. The training took τtotal =350k episodes usingAdam [12] with an initial learning rate of 10−3 and weight decay 10−5. We reduced the learningrate by a factor of 0.9× every 10k episodes starting from the 20k-th episode. The batch size for theauxiliary task was 128. For simplicity, the propagation steps T = 2. More steps may result in higherperformance with the price of more computations. The interval for memory update is m = 3 and thethe number of heads is 5 in GPN. For the setting that test class is not included in the original graph,we connect it to the kc = 2 nearest training classes. We use linear transformation for g(·) and h(·).For fair comparison, we used the same backbone ResNet-08 [9] and the same setup of the trainingtasks, i.e., N -way-K-shot, for all methods in our experiments. Our model took approximately 27hours on one TITAN XP for the 5-way-1-shot learning. The computational cost can be reduced byupdating the memory less often and applying fewer steps of propagation.

4.3 Results

The results for all the methods on tieredImageNet-Close are shown in Table 2 for tasks gener-ated by random sampling, and Table 3 for tasks generated by snowball sampling. The results ontieredImageNet-Far is shown in Table 4 and Table 5 with the same format. GPN has compellinggeneralization to new tasks and shows improvements on various datasets with different kinds of tasks.GPN performs better with smaller distance between the training and test classes, and achieves up to∼8% improvement with random sampling and ∼6% improvement with snowball sampling comparedto baselines. Knowing the connections of test classes to training classes in the graph (GPN+) is more

7

Table 4: Validation accuracy (mean±CI%95) on 600 test tasks achieved by GPN and baselines ontieredImageNet-Far with few-shot tasks generated by random sampling.


GPN 47.54±1.68% 64.20±1.01% 31.84±1.10% 48.20±0.69%GPN+ 47.49±1.67% 64.14±1.02% 31.95±1.15% 48.65±0.66%

Table 5: Validation accuracy (mean±CI%95) on 600 test tasks achieved by GPN and baselines ontieredImageNet-Far with few-shot tasks generated by snowball sampling.


GPN 47.74±1.76% 63.53±1.03% 32.94±1.16% 47.43±0.67%GPN+ 47.58±1.70% 63.74±0.95% 32.68±1.17% 47.44±0.71%

helpful on tieredImageNet-Close, which brings 1∼2% improvement on average compared to thesituation without hierarchy information (GPN). The reason is that tieredImageNet-Close containsmore important information about class relations that can be captured by GPN+. In contrast, ontieredImageNet-Far, the graph only provides weak/far relationship information, thus GPN+ is not ashelpful as it shows on tieredImageNet-Close.

4.4 Visualization of Prototypes Achieved by Propagation

We visualize the prototypes before (i.e., the ones achieved by Prototypical Networks) and after (GPN)propagation in Figure. 3. Propagation tends to reduce the intra-class variance by producing similarprototypes for the same class in different tasks. The importance of reducing intra-class variance infew-shot learning has also been mentioned in [3, 7]. This result indicates that GPN is more powerfulto find the relations between different tasks, which is essential for meta-learning.

shed

shed

shed

shed shed

shed

lock

lock

lock

lock

lock

lock

Gila monster

Gila monster

Gila monster

Gila monster

Gila monster

Gila monster

can opener

can opener

can opener

can openercan opener

can opener

Figure 3: Prototypes before (top row) and after GPN propagation (bottom row) on tieredImageNet-Close by random sampling for 5-way-1-shot few-shot learning. The prototypes in top row equal tothe ones achieved by prototypical network. Different tasks are marked by a different shape (◦/×/4),and classes shared by different tasks are highlighted by non-grey colors. It shows that GPN is capableto map the prototypes of the same class in different tasks to the same region. Comparing to the resultof prototypical network, GPN is more powerful in relating different tasks.

8

Table 6: Validation accuracy (mean±CI%95) for possible variants of GPN on tieredImageNet-Closefor 5-way-1-shot tasks. Original GPN’s choices are in bold fonts. Details of the variants are given inSec. 4.5.

Task Generation Propagation Mechanism Training Model ACCURACYSR-S S-S R-S N→C F→C C→C B→P M→P AUX MST M-H M-A A-A

X X X X X X 46.20±1.70%X X X X X X 49.33±1.68%

X X X X X X 42.60±1.61%X X X X X X 37.90±1.50%X X X X X X 47.90±1.72%X X X X X X 46.90±1.78%

X X X X X 41.87±1.72%X X X X X 45.83±1.64%

X X X X X 49.40±1.69%X X X X X X 46.74±1.71%

X X X X X X 50.54±1.67%

4.5 Ablation Study

In Table 6, we report the performance of many possible variants of GPN. In particular, we changethe task generation methods, propagation orders on the graph, training strategies, and attentionmodules, in order to make sure that the choices we made in the paper are the best for GPN. Fortask generation, GPN adopts both random and snowball sampling (SR-S), which performs betterthan snowball sampling only (S-S) or random sampling only (R-S). We also compare differentchoices of propagation directions, i.e., N→C (messages from neighbors, used in the paper), F→C(messages from parents) and C→C (messages from children). B→P follows the ideas of beliefpropagation [20] and applies forward propagation for T steps along the hierarchy and then appliesbackward propagation for T steps. M→P applies one step of forward propagation followed by abackward propagation step and repeat this process for T steps. The propagation order introduced inthe paper, i.e., N→C, shows the best performance. It shows that the auxiliary tasks (AUX), maximumspanning tree (MST) and multi-head (M-H) are important reasons for better performance. Wecompare the multi-head attention (M-H) using multiplicative attention (M-A) and using additiveattention (A-A), and the former has better performance.

References

[1] K. R. Allen, E. Shelhamer, H. Shin, and J. B. Tenenbaum. Infinite mixture prototypes forfew-shot learning. In The International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2019.

[2] D. Bendor and M. A. Wilson. Biasing the content of hippocampal replay during sleep. NatureNeuroscience, 15(10):1439, 2012.

[3] W.-Y. Chen, Y.-C. Liu, Z. Liu, Y.-C. F. Wang, and J.-B. Huang. A closer look at few-shotclassification. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019.

[4] J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet: A large-scalehierarchical image database. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision andPattern Recognition (CVPR), 2009.

[5] C. Finn, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deepnetworks. In The International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2017.

[6] V. Garcia and J. Bruna. Few-shot learning with graph neural networks. In InternationalConference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2018.

[7] S. Gidaris and N. Komodakis. Dynamic few-shot visual learning without forgetting. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR),2018.

9

[8] L. A. Goodman. Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pages 148–170,1961.

[9] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR),2016.

[10] M. Henaff, J. Bruna, and Y. LeCun. Deep convolutional networks on graph-structured data.arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.05163, 2015.

[11] Ł. Kaiser, O. Nachum, A. Roy, and S. Bengio. Learning to remember rare events. In Interna-tional Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017.

[12] D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In InternationalConference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2015.

[13] J. B. Kruskal. On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem.In Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 1956.

[14] K. Li and J. Malik. Learning to optimize. In International Conference on Learning Representa-tions (ICLR), 2017.

[15] L. Liu, T. Zhou, G. Long, J. Jiang, L. Yao, and C. Zhang. Prototype propagation networks (PPN)for weakly-supervised few-shot learning on category graph. In International Joint Conferenceon Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2019.

[16] Y. Liu, J. Lee, M. Park, S. Kim, and Y. Yang. Transductive propagation network for few-shotlearning. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019.

[17] L. v. d. Maaten and G. Hinton. Visualizing data using t-SNE. The Journal of Machine LearningResearch (JMLR), 9(Nov):2579–2605, 2008.

[18] V. Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves,M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski, et al. Human-level control through deep rein-forcement learning. Nature, 518(7540):529, 2015.

[19] B. N. Oreshkin, A. Lacoste, and P. Rodriguez. Tadam: Task dependent adaptive metric forimproved few-shot learning. In The Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems(NeurIPS), 2018.

[20] J. Pearl. Reverend Bayes on inference engines: A distributed hierarchical approach. In AAAIConference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 1982.

[21] M. Ren, E. Triantafillou, S. Ravi, J. Snell, K. Swersky, J. B. Tenenbaum, H. Larochelle, and R. S.Zemel. Meta-learning for semi-supervised few-shot classification. In International Conferenceon Learning Representations (ICLR), 2018.

[22] A. Santoro, S. Bartunov, M. Botvinick, D. Wierstra, and T. Lillicrap. Meta-learning withmemory-augmented neural networks. In The International Conference on Machine Learning(ICML), 2016.

[23] J. Snell, K. Swersky, and R. Zemel. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In TheConference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017.

[24] A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, andI. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In The Conference on Neural Information ProcessingSystems (NeurIPS), 2017.

[25] P. Velickovic, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Lio, and Y. Bengio. Graph attentionnetworks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2018.

[26] O. Vinyals, C. Blundell, T. Lillicrap, D. Wierstra, et al. Matching networks for one shot learning.In The Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2016.

A Visualization Results

A.1 Prototype Hierarchy

We show more visualizations for the hierarchy structure of the training prototypes in Figure. 4.

10

Even-toed ungulate

ruminant

camel

Arabian camel

cattle

bovine

bovid

Old World buffalogoat

antelope

gazelle

hartebeest

protective coveringscreen

mask

armorshield

shade

capsheath

blind

roof

domethatch

window blind

scabbard

lens cap

thimble

lampshade

body armor

armor plate shield

platehelmet

pickelhaubechain mail

Figure 4: Visualization of the hierarchy structure of subgraphs from the training class prototypestransformed by t-SNE.

A.2 Prototypes Before and After Propagation

We show more visualization examples for the comparison of the prototypes learned before (Prototypi-cal Networks) and after propagation (GPN) in Figure. 5.

11

18 19 20 21 22

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

playthingplaythingplaything

Case 1 before propagation

25.0 24.5 24.0 23.5 23.0 22.5 22.0

10

9

8

7

playthingplaything plaything

Case 1 after propagation21 22 23

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0Yorkshire terrier

Yorkshire terrier

Yorkshire terrier


21 20 19 18 17

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

Yorkshire terrier

Yorkshire terrierYorkshire terrier

Case 2 after propagation16 17 18 19

9

10

11

12

13

14pome

pomepome


19 18 17 16 15 14

11

10

9

8

7

pome

pomepome

Case 3 after propagation7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5

19.0

19.5

20.0

20.5

21.0

21.5

establishment

establishment

establishment


13.0 12.5 12.0 11.5 11.025

24

23

22

21

establishment

establishmentestablishment

Case 4 after propagation

22 21 20 19 18

6

5

4

rootroot

root


16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.55.505.756.006.256.506.757.00

rootroot

root

Case 5 after propagation6 5 4 3 2

24

25

26

27

locklock

lock


6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5

26

25

24

23lock

locklock


9

8

7

6brambling

brambling

brambling


23 22 21 20

4

5

6

7

brambling

bramblingbrambling


5

4

3

2

1

powder

powderpowder


19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5

2

3

4

5

6

powderpowder

powder


16 15 14 1319

20

21

22hand tool

hand tool

hand tool


9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5

24

23

22

21

hand tool hand tool

hand tool


10

11

12

13

audio system

audio systemaudio system


12 13 14 15 1611

10

9

8audio system

audio system audio system

Case 10 after propagation13.0 12.5 12.0 11.5 11.0

10

11

12

13

setter

setter

setter


14 15 16 17

15.515.014.514.013.513.012.5

settersetter

setter


3

4

5

6

long-horned beetle

long-horned beetle

long-horned beetle


22.5 22.0 21.5 21.0 20.5

8

7

6

5

long-horned beetlelong-horned beetle

long-horned beetle


17 16 15 1412.0

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.0

9.5

toilet seat

toilet seat

toilet seat


15 16 174.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

toilet seattoilet seat toilet seat


15.5

15.0

14.5

14.0

13.5

13.0


can opener


8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0

14

15

16

17


can opener


19

20

21

cosmeticcosmetic

cosmetic


8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5

20

19

18

17

16

cosmeticcosmeticcosmetic


19

20

21

22plover

ploverplover


6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

19

18

17

16

15

ploverploverplover


16.5 16.0 15.5 15.0 14.5 14.0 13.5

13

14

15

16

diamondbackdiamondback

diamondback


15 16 17 188

7

6

5diamondback

diamondbackdiamondback


14.5

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

digital computerdigital computer

digital computer


14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.519

18

17

16digital computer

digital computerdigital computer


7

8

9 long-horned beetle

long-horned beetle

long-horned beetle


15 14 13 12

15

14

13

12

11

10

long-horned beetlelong-horned beetle

long-horned beetle


23.523.022.522.021.521.020.5

West Highland white terrier

West Highland white terrierWest Highland white terrier


10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5

20

21

22

23

24

West Highland white terrier

West Highland white terrierWest Highland white terrier


Figure 5: Prototypes before and after GPN propagation on tieredImageNet-Close by random samplingfor 5-way-1-shot few-shot learning. The prototypes in top row equal to the ones achieved byprototypical network. Different tasks are marked by a different shape (◦/×/4), and classes shared bydifferent tasks are highlighted by non-grey colors. It shows that GPN is capable to map the prototypesof the same class in different tasks to the same region. Comparing to the result of prototypicalnetwork, GPN is more powerful in relating different tasks.

12

Abstract - arXiv · feature space could be improved by scaling it according to various tasks [19]....

Documents

Transcript of Abstract - arXiv · feature space could be improved by scaling it according to various tasks [19]....