PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 1, 201631,496 citations

Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision

View Full Paper
CSChristian SzegedyGoogle (United States)VVVincent VanhouckeKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologySISergey IoffeGoogle (United States)

Key Points

  • This research aims to enhance the efficiency of convolutional networks in computer vision by optimizing their architectures.
  • Explored factorized convolutions and aggressive regularization techniques
  • Benchmarked methods on ILSVRC 2012 classification challenge validation set
  • Evaluated single models and ensembles for error rates
  • Achieved 21.2% top-1 and 5.6% top-5 error for single frame evaluation
  • Reported 17.3% top-1 error and 3.5% top-5 error with an ensemble of 4 models
  • Attained 3.6% top-5 error on the official test set

Abstract

Convolutional networks are at the core of most state of-the-art computer vision solutions for a wide variety of tasks. Since 2014 very deep convolutional networks started to become mainstream, yielding substantial gains in various benchmarks. Although increased model size and computational cost tend to translate to immediate quality gains for most tasks (as long as enough labeled data is provided for training), computational efficiency and low parameter count are still enabling factors for various use cases such as mobile vision and big-data scenarios. Here we are exploring ways to scale up networks in ways that aim at utilizing the added computation as efficiently as possible by suitably factorized convolutions and aggressive regularization. We benchmark our methods on the ILSVRC 2012 classification challenge validation set demonstrate substantial gains over the state of the art: 21:2% top-1 and 5:6% top-5 error for single frame evaluation using a network with a computational cost of 5 billion multiply-adds per inference and with using less than 25 million parameters. With an ensemble of 4 models and multi-crop evaluation, we report 3:5% top-5 error and 17:3% top-1 error on the validation set and 3:6% top-5 error on the official test set.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Szegedy et al. (2016) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/695ea56496c8d1e9bb631931https://doi.org/10.1109/cvpr.2016.308
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper