Hard negative examples are hard, but useful

By Hong Xuan, Abby Stylianou, Xiaotong Liu, Xiaotong Liu, Robert Pless. 2020

157 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Triplet loss is an extremely common approach to distance metric learning. Representations of images from the same class are optimized to be mapped closer together in an embedding space than representations of images from different classes. Much work on triplet losses focuses on selecting the most useful triplets of images to consider, with strategies that select dissimilar examples from the same class or similar examples from different classes. The consensus of previous research is that optimizing with the \textit{hardest} negative examples leads to bad training behavior. That's a problem -- these hardest negatives are literally the cases where the distance metric fails to capture semantic similarity. In this paper, we characterize the space of triplets and derive why hard negatives make triplet loss training fail. We offer a simple fix to the loss function and show that, with this fix, optimizing with hard negative examples becomes feasible. This leads to more generalizable features, and image retrieval results that outperform state of the art for datasets with high intra-class variance.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Representation & Self-Supervised Learning

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

  1. Mert Bulent Sariyildiz
  2. No'e Pion
  3. Yannis Kalantidis
  4. Diane Larlus
  5. Philippe Weinzaepfel
  6. Cordelia Schmid
  7. Justin Johnson
  8. Karan Desai

In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

  1. Diane Larlus
  2. Luc Van Gool
  3. Yannis Kalantidis
  4. Cordelia Schmid
  5. Andrea Vedaldi
  6. Philippe Weinzaepfel
  7. Mert Bulent Sariyildiz
  8. Dacheng Tao

In Representation & Self-Supervised Learning

  1. Mert Bulent Sariyildiz
  2. No'e Pion
  3. Yannis Kalantidis
  4. Diane Larlus
  5. Philippe Weinzaepfel
  6. Justin Johnson
  7. Karan Desai

Citations in the corpus