HackerPapers

arXiv:1512.00567cs.CV

Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision

Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jonathon Shlens, Zbigniew Wojna

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 explore 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 on the validation set (3.6% error on the test set) and 17.3% top-1 error on the validation set.

arXiv comments
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CVComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition

On Hacker News

Linked by 4 identifiable commenters in 4 comments across 4 threads, from Jan 2016 to Apr 2017. Found in 2 HN submissions from Dec 2015 to Dec 2015. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments4 threads

    • The latest deep learning models are indeed quite large. For comparison, Inception clocks in at "only" 5M parameters, itself a 12x reduction over AlexNet (60M) and VGGNet (180M)! (source: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.00567) A further point is that even if the model has relatively…

      vincentchuView on HNParent context

    • > It's 2016 and our best of the best image recognition algorithms can't even tell a zebra and a sofa in a zebra print apart. State of the art offline CNNs have been doing classification quite well recently, arguably better than humans. See the Inception-v3 paper…

      dlubarovView on HNParent context

    • Looking up info on the inception architecture. Here is a paper if others are wondering: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.00567v3 From late 2015, so I guess the most up to date info? It only mentions v2. Is there a paper for v3? Edit: Sure enough v3 is right there. I saw the early focus…

      daveguyView on HNParent context

    • [1] is a Google-authored demo running Inception-v3[2] (about twice as accurate as VGG) on Android phones. I don't know how many parameters Inception v3 has, but I know Google considers it more efficient than VGG ("Although our network is 42 layers deep, our computation cost is…

      nlView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.