You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi, I have recently read your MLCR paper and am very interested in your ideas. But I'm a little confused about the mv-loss.
Why don't you just constrain the features of different views to be mutually orthogonal, but go for the classifier's weights of different views instead?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sorry for the late reply, and thank you for your interests in our work. There are two reasons for using the weights instead of the features: 1) the features are shared and used for multilabel classification, e.g., 12 AU classification tasks, and 2) the weights for each AU can be regarded as a representation of the features for this specific AU because the weights vector can be seen as the base vector for projection, and the projection results are the final prediction.
Hi, I have recently read your MLCR paper and am very interested in your ideas. But I'm a little confused about the mv-loss.
Why don't you just constrain the features of different views to be mutually orthogonal, but go for the classifier's weights of different views instead?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: