Meta and transfer learning are two successful families of approaches to few-shot learning. Despite highly related goals, state-of-the-art advances in each family are measured largely in isolation of each other. As a result of diverging evaluation nor
ms, a direct or thorough comparison of different approaches is challenging. To bridge this gap, we perform a cross-family study of the best transfer and meta learners on both a large-scale meta-learning benchmark (Meta-Dataset, MD), and a transfer learning benchmark (Visual Task Adaptation Benchmark, VTAB). We find that, on average, large-scale transfer methods (Big Transfer, BiT) outperform competing approaches on MD, even when trained only on ImageNet. In contrast, meta-learning approaches struggle to compete on VTAB when trained and validated on MD. However, BiT is not without limitations, and pushing for scale does not improve performance on highly out-of-distribution MD tasks. In performing this study, we reveal a number of discrepancies in evaluation norms and study some of these in light of the performance gap. We hope that this work facilitates sharing of insights from each community, and accelerates progress on few-shot learning.
Representation learning promises to unlock deep learning for the long tail of vision tasks without expensive labelled datasets. Yet, the absence of a unified evaluation for general visual representations hinders progress. Popular protocols are often
too constrained (linear classification), limited in diversity (ImageNet, CIFAR, Pascal-VOC), or only weakly related to representation quality (ELBO, reconstruction error). We present the Visual Task Adaptation Benchmark (VTAB), which defines good representations as those that adapt to diverse, unseen tasks with few examples. With VTAB, we conduct a large-scale study of many popular publicly-available representation learning algorithms. We carefully control confounders such as architecture and tuning budget. We address questions like: How effective are ImageNet representations beyond standard natural datasets? How do representations trained via generative and discriminative models compare? To what extent can self-supervision replace labels? And, how close are we to general visual representations?
