CLEAR: Class-wise Expert Aggregation with Structured Sampling for Long-Tailed Classification

Long-tailed recognition methods often modify losses, margins, or representations to reduce the dominance of frequent classes. We ask whether, after Balanced Softmax training, the remaining tail error can be reduced by retraining only the classifier. We evaluate BS-cRT, a two-stage procedure that trains a backbone and cosine classifier with Balanced Softmax, freezes the backbone, and updates only the classifier on balanced episodic batches. The second stage keeps the empirical-prior Balanced Softmax objective and uses raw cosine logits at inference. Across CIFAR-100-LT, CIFAR-10-LT, ImageNet-LT, and Places-LT, this classifier-only step consistently improves Few-shot accuracy over the matched Balanced Softmax checkpoint. At imbalance factor 100, Few-shot gains are +5.15 points on CIFAR-100-LT and +5.83 on CIFAR-10-LT; on ImageNet-LT and Places-LT, gains are +6.92 and +9.78 points, respectively, with a Top-1/Few-shot trade-off on ImageNet-LT. We also analyze Counterfactual Boundary Risk Minimization (CBRM), a boundary-probe extension using prototype-based features near decision boundaries. CBRM identifies two failure modes: scaled-logit cosine margins destabilize training, and corrected hardest-negative probes remain head-class anchored. The results support BS-cRT as a practical classifier-side baseline and indicate that boundary supervision must account for class frequency.

Learning from real-world data is frequently hindered by the compound challenge of long-tailed class distributions and noisy annotations. Existing methods partially address these issues but typically ignore the non-uniform impact of label noise across classes, resulting in ineffective correction for tail classes and over-regularization for head classes. To address this issue, we propose Class-Adaptive Rectification with Experts (CARE), a parameter-efficient framework that leverages three complementary supervision sources from vision-language models (VLM): observed noisy labels, VLM text embeddings, and visual features. CARE introduces a class-adaptive expert consensus mechanism that enforces stricter agreement for tail classes and more permissive agreement for head classes based on class frequency. By aggregating high-confidence predictions across these sources, CARE filters unreliable signals and recalibrates class distributions, yielding more reliable rectification under long-tailed distributions. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world benchmarks demonstrate that CARE consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving up to 3.0% performance gains. The source code is available at https://github.com/qwq123-study/CARE.

Real-world datasets often exhibit long-tailed class distributions, where a few head classes contain a large number of training samples while a large number of tail classes have only a few. The composition of each mini-batch, determined by the sampling strategy, governs which classes contribute to the stochastic gradient estimate, and therefore affects convergence behaviour and generalisation across the whole class spectrum. We provide a systematic theoretical and empirical comparison of four mini-batch sampling strategies for long-tailed image classification: uniform instance sampling, class-balanced sampling, square-root sampling, and progressively balanced sampling. We place all four in a unified bias-variance framework describing their effect on gradient estimation, which exposes the tension between unbiased optimisation of the empirical loss and fair representation of rare classes. We then evaluate them under controlled conditions using ResNet-32 on CIFAR-100-LT at three imbalance ratios (rho = 10, 50, 100), with every strategy sharing the same long-tailed subsets and initialisation within a seed. Progressive sampling improves tail-class accuracy by 25% relative to the uniform baseline at rho = 100 (13.5% versus 10.8%), consistently across all three seeds, while its overall accuracy is not distinguishable from that of uniform sampling given the seed-to-seed variation (40.0% versus 39.7%); the tail-class gain, not the overall gain, is the robust effect. At rho = 100, class-balanced sampling degrades accuracy on every class group, including the tail classes it is designed to help, which we attribute to overfitting caused by extreme oversampling of scarce data; at rho = 50 this failure is confined to head and medium classes. These results indicate that when rebalancing is applied during training matters as much as how much rebalancing is applied.