atlas

Research map / Label-efficient and robust learning / Semi-supervised learning

CGMatch: A Different Perspective of Semi-supervised Learning

CVPR 2025 · Label-efficient and robust learning › Semi-supervised learning · approach: Confidence-based pseudo-label selection · 10 citations (OpenAlex)

Read the paperCheck your idea against 108,967 papers

AI-extracted summary. Written by AI from the paper's full text. Numbers and claims can be wrong or missing context, so check the paper before you cite or build on it.

Proposes CGMatch, a semi-supervised learning method that uses a new Count-Gap metric (gap between top two pseudo-label prediction counts) with confidence to split unlabeled data into easy, ambiguous, and hard subsets, applying CE and GCE losses respectively.

Problem

Semi-supervised image classification with very scarce labels, where confidence-based pseudo-label selection (as in FixMatch-style X-Match methods) struggles to identify useful unlabeled examples and filter noisy ones early in training.

Approach

Introduces Count-Gap (CG), the difference between the counts of the most and second-most frequently predicted pseudo-labels for each unlabeled sample over training, as a label-free analogue of data-map variability. Combined with confidence in a fine-grained dynamic selection (FDS) scheme, unlabeled data is split into easy-to-learn (CE loss), ambiguous (GCE loss), and hard-to-learn (discarded) subs

Key results

Measured effects reported in the paper

What was changedWhereMeasuredEffect
Use CGMatch instead of FlexMatchsemi-supervised image classification · CIFAR100-4top-1 error rate (%): 50.15±1.51 -> 47.55±2.48Helped
Use CGMatch instead of SoftMatchsemi-supervised image classification · STL10-10 and STL10-25top-1 error rate (%): 11.59±2.60 -> 16.23±2.39; 8.01±0.32 -> 9.48±0.60Hurt
Replace Self-Adaptive Thresholding with Global Thresholding (ablation)CGMatch · CIFAR10, CIFAR100, SVHN, and STL10top-1 error rate (%): CIFAR10-4: 5.19±0.22 -> 4.87±0.18; SVHN-25: 5.57±1.72 -> 2.13±0.05; STL10-10: 16.38±2.19 -> 16.23±2.39; CIFAR10-25: 4.83Mixed
Include ambiguous samples with FDS and train them using GCE lossCGMatch · STL10-4iterations to reach evaluation accuracy 0.7: 135k iterationsHelped

Surprising findings

Limitations

Experimental setup

Datasets: CIFAR10 CIFAR100 SVHN STL10

Benchmarks: CIFAR10 CIFAR100 SVHN STL10

Metrics: top-1 error rate expected calibration error utilization ratio

Baselines: PseudoLabel MeanTeacher MixMatch ReMixMatch FixMatch FlexMatch SoftMatch FreeMatch FullFlex

Builds on: FixMatch FreeMatch SoftMatch FlexMatch data maps

Closest papers by meaning

Writing a paper in this area? scime draft is a free LaTeX editor with AI included, real-time co-authors and a check of your references and venue rules before you submit. It also imports OpenAI Prism projects.

Open scime draft

Get the next scime Dispatch and a monthly field update

Free. We send a confirmation link first; every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Privacy