4.6 Review

Deep multi-view learning methods: A review

Journal

NEUROCOMPUTING
Volume 448, Issue -, Pages 106-129

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.03.090

Keywords

Deep multi-view learning; deep neural networks; representation learning; statistical learning survey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper provides a comprehensive review of deep MVL, covering methods in deep learning scope and extensions of traditional methods. It reviews representative MVL methods in deep learning like multi-view auto-encoder, and investigates advancements when traditional methods meet deep learning models. The paper also summarizes main applications, datasets, performance comparisons, and identifies open challenges for future research.
Multi-view learning (MVL) has attracted increasing attention and achieved great practical success by exploiting complementary information of multiple features or modalities. Recently, due to the remarkable performance of deep models, deep MVL has been adopted in many domains, such as machine learning, artificial intelligence and computer vision. This paper presents a comprehensive review on deep MVL from the following two perspectives: MVL methods in deep learning scope and deep MVL extensions of traditional methods. Specifically, we first review the representative MVL methods in the scope of deep learning, such as multi-view auto-encoder, conventional neural networks and deep brief networks. Then, we investigate the advancements of the MVL mechanism when traditional learning methods meet deep learning models, such as deep multi-view canonical correlation analysis, matrix factorization and information bottleneck. Moreover, we also summarize the main applications, widely-used datasets and performance comparison in the domain of deep MVL. Finally, we attempt to identify some open challenges to inform future research directions. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available