Organizations: National Engineering Research Center for Big Data Technology and System · School of Computer Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China · MIIT Key Laboratory of Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · College of Computer Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics · State Key Lab. for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University · the Joint Laboratory of Spatial intelligent Perception and Large Model Application · Computer Vision Center, Spain
Real-world datasets often follow a long-tailed distribution, making generalization to tail classes difficult. We revisit this problem through the lens of shortcut learning, where models prefer the easiest predictive cues (e.g., background or textures) over object-centric semantics, especially under scarce and biased supervision. We find that this tendency is amplified for tail classes: limited examples often share similar contexts, making non-semantic signals highly correlated and thus tempting shortcuts, whereas head classes with diverse appearances and environments encourage more stable object-focused representations. Motivated by this observation, we propose Shortcut-Resistant CAM Distillation (SRCD), a plug-and-play framework that transfers object-focused explanations from head to tail classes. SRCD operates in the Class Activation Map (CAM) space, where a CAM provides a class-specific spatial evidence map for a prediction. SRCD aggregates CAMs from a small set of head-class candidates into a shortcut-resistant teacher using an energy-model weighting based on coherence and concentration, and distills it to the tail-class CAM. We provide a theoretical analysis that quantifies shortcut reliance as shortcut-region evidence mass in CAM space and shows that SRCD suppresses tail shortcuts. Extensive experiments on long-tailed benchmarks consistently improve strong baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/Haifeng3/SRCD.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Shortcut learning in long-tailed recognition visualized by CAMs. For a head-class example ( Tench ), the model attends to the object region, while for a tail-class example ( Speedboat ), attention drifts to spurious cues (e.g., ocean background), leading to shortcut-dominated predictions and degraded tail generalization.
Figure 2: CAM similarity analysis. LT–Balanced (GT) denotes the cosine similarity between CAMs produced by the long-tailed model and the balanced model for the same examples under their ground-truth classes. LT–Balanced (Head-Proxy) computes CAMs for tail examples using the most probable head-class predictions from the long-tailed model and compares them to the balanced-model CAMs. Shaded regions indicate standard deviation.
Figure 3: SRCD pipeline. We generate class-conditioned CAMs from feature maps and classifier weights, form a shortcut-resistant teacher CAM by energy-weighting a set of head-proxy CAMs (with stop-gradient used only in this proxy branch), and distill the teacher to the ground-truth class CAM via LSRCD to reduce shortcut/background attention alongside Lcls .
Method
CIFAR100
CIFAR10
IR=100
IR=50
IR=10
IR=100
IR=50
IR=10
BCL ( Zhu et al., 2022 )
51.76
56.51
67.90
83.61
86.13
90.10
+SRCD
53.64 ↑ 1.88
56.81 ↑ 0.30
68.22 ↑ 0.32
82.97 ↓ 0.64
87.87 ↑ 1.74
91.23 ↑ 1.13
GCL ( Li et al., 2022b )
46.50
51.72
61.79
80.56
84.74
89.65
+SRCD
47.07 ↑ 0.57
52.32 ↑ 0.60
60.23 ↓ 1.56
81.11 ↑ 0.55
85.69 ↑ 0.95
88.90 ↓ 0.75
CE+FCC ( Li et al., 2023 )
40.20
45.93
57.80
73.80
79.57
87.75
Table 1: Training-from-scratch results on CIFAR-10-LT and CIFAR-100-LT under imbalance ratios IR ∈{100,50,10} (Top-1 accuracy, %). +SRCD denotes integrating SRCD into each baseline; superscripts show absolute changes ( ↑ / ↓ for gain/drop).
Method
ImageNet-LT
iNaturalist
Head
Med
Tail
All
Head
Med
Tail
All
Training from scratch
BCL
65.83
53.16
36.27
55.67
73.47
71.99
68.82
70.80
+SRCD
66.29 ↑ 0.46
54.47 ↑ 1.31
39.56 ↑ 3.29
57.00 ↑ 1.33
74.26 ↑ 0.79
72.65 ↑ 0.66
70.33 ↑ 1.51
71.89 ↑ 1.09
GCL
65.04
52.77
35.69
55.51
73.75
72.28
68.34
70.76
+SRCD
64.83 ↓ 0.21
53.62 ↑ 0.85
37.10 ↑ 1.41
55.69 ↑ 0.18
74.28 ↑ 0.53
74.02 ↑ 1.74
70.31 ↑ 1.97
72.58 ↑ 1.82
Table 2: Results on ImageNet-LT and iNaturalist, reporting Top-1 accuracy (%) on Head/Med/Tail splits and All. The upper block is training from scratch, and the lower block is fine-tuning foundation models. +SRCD denotes integrating SRCD into each baseline; superscripts show absolute changes ( ↑ / ↓ for gain/drop).
Figure 4: Ablation study of SRCD w.r.t. β .
Figure 5: Ablation study of K and energy-based weighting.
Coherence Eh
Concentration En
Acc.
✓
✗
54.02
✗
✓
53.64
✓
✓
55.95
Table 3: Ablation study on the teacher-weighting cues Eh and En in SRCD, evaluated on ImageNet-LT with the FCC.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Acc.
BCL
67.25
BCL + SRCD
69.88
Appendix
Table 4: Accuracy (%) on the semantically mismatched subset of iNaturalist tail samples, where the selected head proxies are taxonomically unrelated to the target tail classes.
Dataset
# classes
# training data
# test data
imbalance ratio
CIFAR10-LT ( Cao et al., 2019 )
10
50,000
10,000
{100, 50,10}
CIFAR100-LT ( Cao et al., 2019 )
100
50,000
10,000
{100, 50,10}
ImageNet-LT ( Liu et al., 2019 )
1,000
115,846
50,000
256
iNaturalist 2018 ( Van Horn et al., 2018 )
8,142
437,513
24,426
500
Places-LT ( Liu et al., 2019 )
365
62,500
36,500
996
Appendix
Table 5: Statistics of datasets.
Method
Head
Med
Tail
All
GLMC
63.39
60.95
34.63
53.91
+SRCD
63.88 ↑ 0.49
62.37 ↑ 1.42
36.90 ↑ 2.27
55.26 ↑ 1.35
CE+H2T
50.85
48.91
24.53
42.27
+SRCD
51.93 ↑ 1.08
51.17 ↑ 2.26
28.16 ↑ 3.63
44.53 ↑ 2.26
BNS
62.40
59.70
31.90
52.40
+SRCD
62.93 ↑ 0.53
60.56 ↑ 0.86
35.52 ↑ 3.62
53.88 ↑ 1.48
Appendix
Table 6: Split-wise results on CIFAR100-LT under IR=100, reporting Top-1 accuracy (%) on Head/Med/Tail splits and All. +SRCD denotes integrating SRCD into each baseline; superscripts show absolute changes ( ↑ / ↓ for gain/drop).
Method
Head
Med
Tail
All
GLMC
64.73
62.10
38.19
58.87
+SRCD
65.51 ↑ 0.78
63.53 ↑ 1.43
41.86 ↑ 3.67
60.43 ↑ 1.56
CE+H2T
51.42
50.96
29.93
47.58
+SRCD
51.47 ↑ 0.05
49.83 ↓ 1.13
30.21 ↑ 0.28
46.97 ↓ 0.61
BNS
61.30
58.70
37.20
55.90
+SRCD
61.20 ↓ 0.10
58.94 ↑ 0.24
38.17 ↑ 0.97
56.12 ↑ 0.22
Appendix
Table 7: Split-wise results on CIFAR100-LT under IR=50. reporting Top-1 accuracy (%) on Head/Med/Tail splits and All. +SRCD denotes integrating SRCD into each baseline; superscripts show absolute changes ( ↑ / ↓ for gain/drop).
Method
Places-LT
Head
Med
Tail
All
Training from scratch
BCL
41.98
42.36
34.91
40.77
+SRCD
41.85 ↓ 0.13
42.79 ↑ 0.43
36.23 ↑ 1.32
41.18 ↑ 0.41
GLMC
42.09
42.88
35.27
41.12
+SRCD
42.28 ↑ 0.19
43.05 ↑ 0.17
37.11 ↑ 1.84
41.62 ↑ 0.50
Appendix
Table 8: Results on Places-LT, reporting Top-1 accuracy (%) on Head/Med/Tail splits and All. The upper block is training from scratch, and the lower block is fine-tuning foundation models. +SRCD denotes integrating SRCD into each baseline; superscripts show absolute changes ( ↑ / ↓ for gain/drop).
Method
Head
Med
Tail
All
BNS
62.40
59.70
31.90
52.40
BNS + Center Mask
61.76 ↓ 0.64
58.27 ↓ 1.43
28.68 ↓ 3.22
50.61 ↓ 1.79
BNS + SRCD
62.93 ↑ 0.53
60.56 ↑ 0.86
35.52 ↑ 3.62
53.88 ↑ 1.48
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison with a center-mask baseline on CIFAR100-LT under IR=100. The center-mask baseline replaces the adaptive head-proxy teacher with a fixed centered mask.
Method
Time/iter (ms)
Total time (h)
Throughput (img/s)
Δ Time/iter
GLMC
142
19.7
1842
–
GLMC + SRCD
153
22.6
1707
+7.7%
Appendix
Table 10: Training overhead on ImageNet with ResNet-50 (method GLMC). Reported Total time is the amortized wall-clock time over the full training run.
Figure 6: CAM visualizations on multiple tail-class examples. For each example (row), the first three columns show head-proxy CAM candidates, and the last column shows the tail ground-truth class CAM. High-quality proxies tend to capture object-centric evidence consistent with the ground truth, while low-quality ones highlight scattered or background-dominated regions.
Figure 7: Effect of SRCD on CAM localization across multiple examples. Left: without SRCD. Right: with SRCD. SRCD promotes more object-centric and spatially coherent activations while reducing background/context responses, indicating stronger shortcut resistance.
Method
FG/BG Ratio ↑
Acc. ↑
LIFT
0.85
78.37
LIFT + SRCD
1.56
83.16
Appendix
Table 11: Mask-based shortcut analysis on the long-tailed VOC 2012 subset. FG/BG Ratio measures the CAM evidence mass inside the foreground mask relative to the background region. A larger ratio indicates weaker shortcut reliance.
Figure 8: CAM visualizations on the long-tailed VOC 2012 subset. Compared with the baseline, SRCD shifts attention from background or shortcut regions toward foreground object regions, which is consistent with the mask-based FG/BG analysis.
Balancing performance trade-offs on long-tailed data distributions remains a long-standing challenge in visual recognition. Existing methods mainly improve tail classes through re-balancing, representation learning, or data augmentation, but the underlying cause of tail class degradation is still insufficiently explored. In this paper, we find that standard long-tailed training induces background-biased representation and optimization: tail classes suffer larger background distribution shifts and become increasingly driven by background gradients. This reveals that tail degradation is not merely caused by insufficient samples, but also by the learning of irrelevant background features. To tackle this issue, we propose Object-Focused Background Debiasing (OFBD), a framework that mitigates background bias from both distribution and optimization perspectives. Specifically, Foreground-guided CutMix preserves target-related foregrounds while diversifying complementary backgrounds, and Background-guided Feature Rectification suppresses background-biased features without learnable parameters or additional training. Extensive experiments show that our method improves overall accuracy, achieves significant tail-class gains, and can serve as a plug-in for mainstream long-tailed methods without external data or pretrained recognition models. The code is available at: https://ofbd-neurips2026-longtail-learning.github.io/
Shenghan Chen, Yiming Liu, Zhipeng Deng +6
Westlake University, Hangzhou, China · Shandong University, Jinan, China · Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan +1
Multi-expert models have become the dominant paradigm for long-tailed learning, largely attributed to their presumed ability to benefit from expert diversity. However, we revisit this central assumption and reveal that diversity induced by logit adjustment or explicit regularizers does not guarantee better ensemble accuracy. Our work suggests that multi-expert models benefit more from variance reduction than diversity maximization. We introduce VICAL, a VIcinal Consistency ALignment framework that improves long-tailed recognition not by enforcing expert diversity, but by reducing prediction variance. Specifically, our approach comprises two key components: Self-Consistency Learning and Deep Ensemble Distillation. Self-Consistency Learning discourages reliance on unstable high-frequency information, smoothing the local loss landscape and mitigating overfitting, especially for tail classes. Deep Ensemble Distillation promotes cross-expert low-frequency semantic agreement using a low-resolution view, thereby sidestepping optimization conflicts with established knowledge. Extensive experiments on CIFAR-LT, ImageNet-LT, and iNaturalist 2018 show that VICAL consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, validating the effectiveness of our consistency-driven design. Our code is available at VICAL.
Jiangang Zhu, Zheng Wang, Bin Zhu +2
Institute of Trustworthy Embodied AI, Fudan University, Shanghai, China · Shanghai Key Laboratory of Multimodal Embodied AI, Shanghai, China · Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China +2
Long-tailed recognition suffers from a persistent head--tail trade-off: improving tail performance often degrades head accuracy and can increase training instability. Despite strong empirical results from re-weighting, decoupled training, and multi-expert methods, key design choices about representation sharing between head and tail classes and supervision weighting across class groups remain largely heuristic. In this work, we propose OSDTW, a principled task-decomposition framework that partitions the original single-label recognition problem into a head task and a tail task, implemented with a shared encoder and task-specific decoders. To handle the mutual exclusivity and statistical dependence between the two label groups, we introduce a factorized model and show that the resulting Kullback--Leibler divergence-based generalization error can be written as the sum of task-wise terms up to an additive constant, yielding a well-defined task-wise objective. We further develop a three-stage training pipeline: independent task training to estimate task-wise optima and the Fisher information matrix, weighted joint training to learn a shared encoder, and branch assembly to construct the final decoupled model. Under a block-diagonal Fisher approximation, we derive a computable second-order expansion of the expected generalization error, decomposing it into encoder variance, encoder bias, and decoder variance. This bias--variance decomposition provides a computable proxy to select the shared depth and task weights, enabling efficient hyper-parameter search. Experiments on standard long-tailed benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach over strong baselines.
Chang Chu, Qingyue Zhang, Shao-Lun Huang +1
Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China · Shenzhen Zkosemi Semiconductor Technology Co., Ltd, Shenzhen, China