Welcome to ShortScience.org! |

- ShortScience.org is a platform for post-publication discussion aiming to improve accessibility and reproducibility of research ideas.
- The website has 1547 public summaries, mostly in machine learning, written by the community and organized by paper, conference, and year.
- Reading summaries of papers is useful to obtain the perspective and insight of another reader, why they liked or disliked it, and their attempt to demystify complicated sections.
- Also, writing summaries is a good exercise to understand the content of a paper because you are forced to challenge your assumptions when explaining it.
- Finally, you can keep up to date with the flood of research by reading the latest summaries on our Twitter and Facebook pages.

Exploiting local features from deep networks for image retrieval

Ng, Joe Yue-Hei and Yang, Fan and Davis, Larry S.

Conference and Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - 2015 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

Ng, Joe Yue-Hei and Yang, Fan and Davis, Larry S.

Conference and Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - 2015 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

[link]
In this paper, the authors raise a very important point for instance based image retrieval. For a task like an image recognition features extracted from higher layer of deep networks works really well in general, but for task like instance based image retrieval features extracted from higher layers don't prove to be that useful, so the authors suggest that we take features from lower layer and on those features, apply [VLAD encoding](https://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/publications/2013/arandjelovic13/arandjelovic13.pdf). On top of the VLAD encoding as part of post processing, we perform steps like intra-normalisation and then apply PCA and reduce the encoding to a size of 128 Dimension. The authors have performed their experiments using [Googlenet](https://www.cs.unc.edu/~wliu/papers/GoogLeNet.pdf) and [VGG-16](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1556v6.pdf), and they tried Inception 3a, Inception 4a and Inception 4e on GoogleNet and conv4_2, conv5_1 and conv5_2 on VGG-16. The above mentioned layers has almost similar performance on the dataset they have used. The performance metric used by the authors is Mean Average Precision(MAP). |

Learning semantic representations using convolutional neural networks for web search

Shen, Yelong and He, Xiaodong and Gao, Jianfeng and Deng, Li and Mesnil, Grégoire

ACM WWW (Companion Volume) - 2014 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

Shen, Yelong and He, Xiaodong and Gao, Jianfeng and Deng, Li and Mesnil, Grégoire

ACM WWW (Companion Volume) - 2014 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

[link]
Here the authors present a model which projects queries and documents into a low dimensional space, where you can fetch relevant documents by computing distance, *here cosine is used*, between the query vector and the document vectors. ### Model Description #### Word Hashing Layer They have used bag of tri-grams for representing words(office -> #office# -> {#of, off, ffi, fic, ice, ce#}). This is able to generalize unseen words and maps morphological variation of same words to points which are close in n-gram space. #### Context Window Vector Then for representing a sentence they are taking a `Window Size` around a word and appending them to form a context window vector. If we take `Window Size` = 3: (He is going to Office -> { [vec of 'he', vec of 'is', vec of 'going'], [vec of 'is', vec of 'going', vec of 'to'], [vec of 'going', vec of 'to', vec of 'Office'] } #### Convolutional Layer and Max-Pool layer Run a convolutional layer over each of the context window vector (for an intuition these are local features). Max pool over the resulting features to get global features. The output dimension is taken here to be 300. #### Semantic Layer Use a fully connected layer and project the 300-D vector to a 128-D vector. They have used two different networks, one for queries and other for documents. Now for each query and document (we are given labeled documents, one of them is positive and rest are negative) they compute the cosine similarity of the 128-D output vector. And then they learn the weights of convolutional filters and the fully connected layer by maximizing conditional likelihood of positive documents. My thinking is that they have used two different networks as their is significant difference between Query length and Document Length. |

Unpaired Image-to-Image Translation using Cycle-Consistent Adversarial Networks

Zhu, Jun-Yan and Park, Taesung and Isola, Phillip and Efros, Alexei A.

arXiv e-Print archive - 2017 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

Zhu, Jun-Yan and Park, Taesung and Isola, Phillip and Efros, Alexei A.

arXiv e-Print archive - 2017 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

[link]
_Objective:_ Image-to-image translation to perform visual attribute transfer using unpaired images. _Dataset:_ [Cityscapes](https://www.cityscapes-dataset.com/), [CMP Facade](http://cmp.felk.cvut.cz/%7Etylecr1/facade/), [UT Zappos50k](http://vision.cs.utexas.edu/projects/finegrained/utzap50k/) and [ImageNet](http://www.image-net.org/). _Code:_ [CycleGAN](https://github.com/junyanz/CycleGAN) ## Inner-workings: Basically two GANs for each domain with their respective Generator and Discriminator plus two additional losses (called consistency losses) to make sure that translating to the other domain then back yields an image that is still realistic. [![screen shot 2017-06-02 at 10 24 45 am](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/17261080/26717449/bcd8a9cc-477d-11e7-9137-fd277a0ec04f.png)](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/17261080/26717449/bcd8a9cc-477d-11e7-9137-fd277a0ec04f.png) For the consistency los they use a pixel-wise L1 norm: [![screen shot 2017-06-02 at 10 31 22 am](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/17261080/26717733/bc088cdc-477e-11e7-96af-2defa06a1660.png)](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/17261080/26717733/bc088cdc-477e-11e7-96af-2defa06a1660.png) ## Architecture: Based on [Perceptual losses for real-time style transfer and super-resolution](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.08155.pdf), code available [here](https://github.com/jcjohnson/fast-neural-style). Training seems to employ several tricks and then even use a batch of 1. ## Results: Very impressive and the really key point is that you don't need paired images which makes this trainable on any domain with the same representation behind. [![screen shot 2017-06-02 at 10 26 29 am](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/17261080/26717502/f6d1fb7e-477d-11e7-8174-7bdd621cf1b6.png)](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/17261080/26717502/f6d1fb7e-477d-11e7-8174-7bdd621cf1b6.png) |

Rethinking Pre-training and Self-training

Zoph, Barret and Ghiasi, Golnaz and Lin, Tsung-Yi and Cui, Yin and Liu, Hanxiao and Cubuk, Ekin D. and Le, Quoc V.

arXiv e-Print archive - 2020 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

Zoph, Barret and Ghiasi, Golnaz and Lin, Tsung-Yi and Cui, Yin and Liu, Hanxiao and Cubuk, Ekin D. and Le, Quoc V.

arXiv e-Print archive - 2020 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

[link]
Occasionally, I come across results in machine learning that I'm glad exist, even if I don't fully understand them, precisely because they remind me how little we know about the complicated information architectures we're building, and what kinds of signal they can productively use. This is one such result. The paper tests a method called self-training, and compares it against the more common standard of pre-training. Pre-training works by first training your model on a different dataset, in a supervised way, with the labels attached to that dataset, and then transferring the learned weights on that model model (except for the final prediction head) and using that as initialization for training on your downstream task. Self-training also uses an external dataset, but doesn't use that external data's labels. It works by 1) Training a model on the labeled data from your downstream task, the one you ultimately care about final performance on 2) Using that model to make label predictions (for the label set of your downstream task), for the external dataset 3) Retraining a model from scratch with the combined set of human labels and predicted labels from step (2) https://i.imgur.com/HaJTuyo.png This intuitively feels like cheating; something that shouldn't quite work, and yet the authors find that it equals or outperforms pretraining and self-supervised learning in the setting they examined (transferring from ImageNet as an external dataset to CoCo as a downstream task, and using data augmentations on CoCo). They particularly find this to be the case when they're using stronger data augmentations, and when they have more labeled CoCo data to train with from the pretrained starting point. They also find that self-training outperforms self-supervised (e.g. contrastive) learning in similar settings. They further demonstrate that self-training and pre-training can stack; you can get marginal value from one, even if you're already using the other. They do acknowledge that - because it requires training a model on your dataset twice, rather than reusing an existing model directly - their approach is more computationally costly than the pretrained-Imagenet alternative. This work is, I believe, rooted in the literature on model distillation and student/teacher learning regimes, which I believe has found that you can sometimes outperform a model by training on its outputs, though I can't fully remember the setups used in those works. The authors don't try too hard to give a rigorous theoretical account of why this approach works, which I actually appreciate. I think we need to have space in ML for people to publish what (at least to some) might be unintuitive empirical results, without necessarily feeling pressure to articulate a theory that may just be a half-baked after-the-fact justification. One criticism or caveat I have about this paper is that I wish they'd evaluated what happened if they didn't use any augmentation. Does pre-training do better in that case? Does the training process they're using just break down? Only testing on settings with augmentations made me a little less confident in the generality of their result. Their best guess is that it demonstrates the value of task-specificity in your training. I think there's a bit of that, but also feel like this ties in with other papers I've read recently on the surprising efficacy of training with purely random labels. I think there's, in general, a lot we don't know about what ostensibly supervised networks learn in the face of noisy or even completely permuted labels. |

Scheduled Sampling for Sequence Prediction with Recurrent Neural Networks

Bengio, Samy and Vinyals, Oriol and Jaitly, Navdeep and Shazeer, Noam

Neural Information Processing Systems Conference - 2015 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

Bengio, Samy and Vinyals, Oriol and Jaitly, Navdeep and Shazeer, Noam

Neural Information Processing Systems Conference - 2015 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

[link]
This paper considers the problem of structured output prediction, in the specific case where the output is a sequence and we represent the sequence as a (conditional) directed graphical model that generates from the first token to the last. The paper starts from the observation that training such models by maximum likelihood (ML) does not reflect well how the model is actually used at test time. Indeed, ML training implies that the model is effectively trained to predict each token conditioned on the previous tokens *from the ground truth* sequence (this is known as "teacher forcing"). Yet, when making a prediction for a new input, the model will actually generate a sequence by generating tokens one after another and conditioning on *its own predicted tokens* instead. So the authors propose a different training procedure, where at training time each *conditioning* ground truth token is sometimes replaced by the model's previous prediction. The choice of replacing the ground truth by the model's prediction is made by "flipping a coin" with some probability, independently for each token. Importantly, the authors propose to start with a high probability of using the ground truth (i.e. start close to ML) and anneal that probability closer to 0, according to some schedule (thus the name Schedule Sampling). Experiments on 3 tasks (image caption generation, constituency parsing and speech recognition) based on neural networks with LSTM units, demonstrate that this approach indeed improves over ML training in terms of the various performance metrics appropriate for each problem, and yields better sequence prediction models. #### My two cents Big fan of this paper. It both identifies an important flaw in how sequential prediction models are currently trained and, most importantly, suggests a solution that is simple yet effective. I also believe that this approach played a non-negligible role in Google's winner system for image caption generation, in the Microsoft COCO competition. My alternative interpretation of why Scheduled Sampling helps is that ML training does not inform the model about the relative quality of the errors it can make. In terms of ML, it is as bad to put high probability on an output sequence that has just 1 token that's wrong, than it is to put the same amount of probability on a sequence that has all tokens wrong. Yet, say for image caption generation, outputting a sentence that is one word away from the ground truth is clearly preferable from making a mistake on a words (something that is also reflected in the performance metrics, such as BLEU). By training the model to be robust to its own mistakes, Scheduled Sampling ensures that errors won't accumulate and makes predictions that are entirely off much less likely. An alternative to Scheduled Sampling is DAgger (Dataset Aggregation: \cite{journals/jmlr/RossGB11}), which briefly put alternates between training the model and adding to the training set examples that mix model predictions and the ground truth. However, Scheduled Sampling has the advantage that there is no need to explicitly create and store that increasingly large dataset of sampled examples, something that isn't appealing for online learning or learning on large datasets. I'm also very curious and interested by one of the direction of future work mentioned in the conclusion: figuring out a way to backprop through the stochastic predictions made by the model. Indeed, as the authors point out, the current algorithm ignores the fact that, by sometimes taking as input its previous prediction, this induces an additional relationship between the model's parameters and its ultimate prediction, a relationship that isn't taken into account during training. To take it into account, you'd need to somehow backpropagate through the stochastic process that generated the previous token prediction. While the work on variational autoencoders has shown that we can backprop through gaussian samples, backpropagating through the sampling of a discrete multinomial distribution is essentially an open problem. I do believe that there is work that tried to tackle propagating through stochastic binary units however, so perhaps that's a start. Anyways, if the authors could make progress on that specific issue, it could be quite useful not just in the context of Schedule Sampling, but possibly in the context of training networks with discrete stochastic units in general! |

Efficient Neural Network Robustness Certification with General Activation Functions

Zhang, Huan and Weng, Tsui-Wei and Chen, Pin-Yu and Hsieh, Cho-Jui and Daniel, Luca

Neural Information Processing Systems Conference - 2018 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

Zhang, Huan and Weng, Tsui-Wei and Chen, Pin-Yu and Hsieh, Cho-Jui and Daniel, Luca

Neural Information Processing Systems Conference - 2018 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

[link]
Zhang et al. propose CROWN, a method for certifying adversarial robustness based on bounding activations functions using linear functions. Informally, the main result can be stated as follows: if the activation functions used in a deep neural network can be bounded above and below by linear functions (the activation function may also be segmented first), the network output can also be bounded by linear functions. These linear functions can be computed explicitly, as stated in the paper. Then, given an input example $x$ and a set of allowed perturbations, usually constrained to a $L_p$ norm, these bounds can be used to obtain a lower bound on the robustness of networks. Also find this summary at [davidstutz.de](https://davidstutz.de/category/reading/). |

DeepFace: Closing the Gap to Human-Level Performance in Face Verification

Taigman, Yaniv and Yang, Ming and Ranzato, Marc'Aurelio and Wolf, Lior

Conference and Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - 2014 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

Taigman, Yaniv and Yang, Ming and Ranzato, Marc'Aurelio and Wolf, Lior

Conference and Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - 2014 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

[link]
## General stuff about face recognition Face recognition has 4 main tasks: * **Face detection**: Given an image, draw a rectangle around every face * **Face alignment**: Transform a face to be in a canonical pose * **Face representation**: Find a representation of a face which is suitable for follow-up tasks (small size, computationally cheap to compare, invariant to irrelevant changes) * **Face verification**: Images of two faces are given. Decide if it is the same person or not. The face verification task is sometimes (more simply) a face classification task (given a face, decide which of a fixed set of people it is). Datasets being used are: * **LFW** (Labeled Faces in the Wild): 97.35% accuracy; 13 323 web photos of 5 749 celebrities * **YTF** (YouTube Faces): 3425 YouTube videos of 1 595 subjects * **SFC** (Social Face Classification): 4.4 million labeled faces from 4030 people, each 800 to 1200 faces * **USF** (Human-ID database): 3D scans of faces ## Ideas in this paper This paper deals with face alignment and face representation. **Face Alignment** They made an average face with the USF dataset. Then, for each new face, they apply the following procedure: * Find 6 points in a face (2 eyes, 1 nose tip, 2 corners of the lip, 1 middle point of the bottom lip) * Crop according to those * Find 67 points in the face / apply them to a normalized 3D model of a face * Transform (=align) face to a normalized position **Representation** Train a neural network on 152x152 images of faces to classify 4030 celebrities. Remove the softmax output layer and use the output of the second-last layer as the transformed representation. The network is: * C1 (convolution): 32 filters of size $11 \times 11 \times 3$ (RGB-channels) (returns $142\times 142$ "images") * M2 (max pooling): $3 \times 3$, stride of 2 (returns $71\times 71$ "images") * C3 (convolution): 16 filters of size $9 \times 9 \times 16$ (returns $63\times 63$ "images") * L4 (locally connected): $16\times9\times9\times16$ (returns $55\times 55$ "images") * L5 (locally connected): $16\times7\times7\times16$ (returns $25\times 25$ "images") * L6 (locally connected): $16\times5\times5\times16$ (returns $21\times 21$ "images") * F7 (fully connected): ReLU, 4096 units * F8 (fully connected): softmax layer with 4030 output neurons The training was done with: * Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) * Momentum of 0.9 * Performance scheduling (LR starting at 0.01, ending at 0.0001) * Weight initialization: $w \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu=0, \sigma=0.01)$, $b = 0.5$ * ~15 epochs ($\approx$ 3 days) of training ## Evaluation results * **Quality**: * 97.35% accuracy (or mean accuracy?) with an Ensemble of DNNs for LFW * 91.4% accuracy with a single network on YTF * **Speed**: DeepFace runs in 0.33 seconds per image (I'm not sure which size). This includes image decoding, face detection and alignment, **the** feed forward network (why only one? wasn't this the best performing Ensemble?) and final classification output ## See also * Andrew Ng: [C4W4L03 Siamese Network](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jfw8MuKwpI) |

Pixel Recurrent Neural Networks

Oord, Aäron Van Den and Kalchbrenner, Nal and Kavukcuoglu, Koray

arXiv e-Print archive - 2016 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

Oord, Aäron Van Den and Kalchbrenner, Nal and Kavukcuoglu, Koray

arXiv e-Print archive - 2016 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

[link]
This paper explores the use of convolutional (PixelCNN) and recurrent units (PixelRNN) for modeling the distribution of images, in the framework of autoregression distribution estimation. In this framework, the input distribution $p(x)$ is factorized into a product of conditionals $\Pi p(x_i | x_i-1)$. Previous work has shown that very good models can be obtained by using a neural network parametrization of the conditionals (e.g. see our work on NADE \cite{journals/jmlr/LarochelleM11}). Moreover, unlike other approaches based on latent stochastic units that are directed or undirected, the autoregressive approach is able to compute log-probabilities tractably. So in this paper, by considering the specific case of x being an image, they exploit the topology of pixels and investigate appropriate architectures for this. Among the paper's contributions are: 1. They propose Diagonal BiLSTM units for the PixelRNN, which are efficient (thanks to the use of convolutions) while making it possible to, in effect, condition a pixel's distribution on all the pixels above it (see Figure 2 for an illustration). 2. They demonstrate that the use of residual connections (a form of skip connections, from hidden layer i-1 to layer $i+1$) are very effective at learning very deep distribution estimators (they go as deep as 12 layers). 3. They show that it is possible to successfully model the distribution over the pixel intensities (effectively an integer between 0 and 255) using a softmax of 256 units. 4. They propose a multi-scale extension of their model, that they apply to larger 64x64 images. The experiments show that the PixelRNN model based on Diagonal BiLSTM units achieves state-of-the-art performance on the binarized MNIST benchmark, in terms of log-likelihood. They also report excellent log-likelihood on the CIFAR-10 dataset, comparing to previous work based on real-valued density models. Finally, they show that their model is able to generate high quality image samples. |

The Robustness of the p-Norm Algorithms

Gentile, Claudio

Machine Learning Journal - 2003 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

Gentile, Claudio

Machine Learning Journal - 2003 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: dblp

[link]
This paper describes a class of algorithms for classification or regression in the on-line setting. That is, the data is a bunch of pairs $(X_t,Y_t)$ (where X may be a vector), and these data items arrive in some order: the algorithm must predict each $\hat{Y}_t$ using only the $X_t$ and previously seen pairs. In the regression setting, each mis-prediction has a loss that is like $(Y_t - \hat{Y}_t)^2$, and in the classification setting $Y_t$ is always 0 or 1 and the loss is $| Y_t - \hat{Y}_t |$. Roughly, the algorithm makes linear predictions using some internal weight vector $(\hat{y} = w * X)$, and does a gradient-descent like weight update. However, it tries to keep the q-norm (q can be any number) of the weight vector "small", preventing the weights themselves from becoming too large. The algorithm is actually simple, and the weight update takes advantage of link functions, which the author defines. The majority of the paper is focused on deriving loss bounds, showing that the loss incurred by this algorithm isn't much worse than that incurred by the best weight vector, chosen in hindsight. Typical readers will be interested in the first few pages, as the latter part of the paper is mainly technical proofs. |

Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks

Krizhevsky, Alex and Sutskever, Ilya and Hinton, Geoffrey E

Neural Information Processing Systems Conference - 2012 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: image, imagenet, thema:deepwalk, classification

Krizhevsky, Alex and Sutskever, Ilya and Hinton, Geoffrey E

Neural Information Processing Systems Conference - 2012 via Local Bibsonomy

Keywords: image, imagenet, thema:deepwalk, classification

[link]
This paper is about Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer Vision. It was the first break-through in the ImageNet classification challenge (LSVRC-2010, 1000 classes). ReLU was a key aspect which was not so often used before. The paper also used Dropout in the last two layers. ## Training details * Momentum of 0.9 * Learning rate of $\varepsilon$ (initialized at 0.01) * Weight decay of $0.0005 \cdot \varepsilon$. * Batch size of 128 * The training took 5 to 6 days on two NVIDIA GTX 580 3GB GPUs. ## See also * [Stanford presentation](http://vision.stanford.edu/teaching/cs231b_spring1415/slides/alexnet_tugce_kyunghee.pdf) |

About