summaries: This paper addresses an interesting problem in retrieval system - compatible features learning. Given the old feature extractor and a new dataset, the objective is to learn a new feature extractor, so that the features extracted by two (old and new) feature extractors are comparable to each other. In the proposed setting, the old dataset (including its statistics), old classifier, and the parameters of the old model are not available. This paper deals with an interesting problem of feature compatible learning that the features produced by new model should be compatible with old features. The proposed method uses nearest class–mean classifier instead of linear classifier. Random walk is applied to refine the class means. The proposed method is compared with several baseline methods and shows good performance. This work proposes a new problem setting by adding extra constraints to the Feature Compatible Learning problem. The new constraints avoid using old training data and the old model’s parameter when learning a new model. The paper gives a baseline method and its variants for the problem by generating pseudo classifiers to regularize a new model’s learning. The experiments show that the proposed method can satisfy the empirical criterion about success.
abstractText: The need of Feature Compatible Learning (FCL) arises from many large scale retrieval-based applications, where updating the entire library of embedding vectors is expensive. When an upgraded embedding model shows potential, it is desired to transform the benefit of the new model without refreshing the library. While progresses have been made along this new direction, existing approaches for feature compatible learning mostly rely on old training data and classifiers, which are not available in many industry settings. In this work, we introduce an approach for feature compatible learning without inheriting old classifier and training data, i.e., Non-Inherent Feature Compatible Learning. Our approach requires only features extracted by old model’s backbone and new training data, and makes no assumption about the overlap between old and new training data. We propose a unified framework for FCL, and extend it to handle the case where the old model is a black-box. Specifically, we learn a simple pseudo classifier in lieu of the old model, and further enhance it with a random walk algorithm. As a result, the embedding features produced by the new model can be matched with those from the old model without sacrificing performance. Experiments on ImageNet ILSVRC 2012 and Places365 data proved the efficacy of the proposed approach.
references.authors: David J Aldous
references.title: Lower bounds for covering times for reversible markov chains and random walks on graphs
references.venue: Journal of Theoretical Probability,
references.authors: Gedas Bertasius Lorenzo Torresani Stella X Yu Jianbo Shi
references.title: Convolutional random walk networks for semantic image segmentation
references.venue: In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
references.authors: Mateusz Budnik Yannis Avrithis
references.title: Asymmetric metric learning for knowledge transfer
references.venue: arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16331,
references.authors: Jia Deng Wei Dong Richard Socher Li-Jia Li Kai Li Li Fei-Fei
references.title: Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database
references.venue: IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition,
references.authors: Jiankang Deng Jia Guo Niannan Xue Stefanos Zafeiriou
references.title: Arcface: Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition
references.venue: In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
references.authors: Kaiming He Xiangyu Zhang Shaoqing Ren Jian Sun
references.title: Deep residual learning for image recognition
references.venue: In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
references.authors: Geoffrey Hinton Oriol Vinyals Jeff Dean
references.title: Distilling the knowledge in a neural network
references.venue: arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531,
references.authors: Diederik P Kingma Jimmy Lei Ba
references.title: Adam: A method for stochastic gradient descent
references.venue: In ICLR: International Conference on Learning Representations,
references.authors: Yixuan Li Jason Yosinski Jeff Clune Hod Lipson John E Hopcroft
references.title: Convergent learning: Do different neural networks learn the same representations
references.venue: In NIPS,
references.authors: Zhizhong Li Derek Hoiem
references.title: Learning without forgetting
references.venue: IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence,
references.authors: Chen Change Loy Chunxiao Liu Shaogang Gong
references.title: Person re-identification by manifold ranking
references.venue: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing,
references.authors: Lawrence Page Sergey Brin Rajeev Motwani Terry Winograd
references.title: The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web
references.venue: Technical report, Stanford InfoLab,
references.authors: Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi Alexander Kolesnikov Georg Sperl Christoph H Lampert
references.title: icarl: Incremental classifier and representation learning
references.venue: In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
references.authors: Yantao Shen Yuanjun Xiong Wei Xia Stefano Soatto
references.title: Towards backward-compatible representation learning
references.venue: In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR),
references.authors: Karen Simonyan Andrew Zisserman
references.title: Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition
references.venue: arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556,
references.authors: Christian Szegedy Wei Liu Yangqing Jia Pierre Sermanet Scott Reed Dragomir Anguelov Dumitru Erhan Vincent Vanhoucke Andrew Rabinovich
references.title: Going deeper with convolutions
references.venue: In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition,
references.authors: Chien-Yi Wang Ya-Liang Chang Shang-Ta Yang Dong Chen Shang-Hong Lai
references.title: Unified representation learning for cross model compatibility
references.venue: arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.04821,
references.authors: Hao Wang Yitong Wang Zheng Zhou Xing Ji Dihong Gong Jingchao Zhou Zhifeng Li Wei Liu
references.title: Cosface: Large margin cosine loss for deep face recognition
references.venue: In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
references.authors: Zhirong Wu Yuanjun Xiong Stella X. Yu Dahua Lin
references.title: Unsupervised feature learning via nonparametric instance discrimination
references.venue: In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR),
references.authors: Tong Xiao Shuang Li Bochao Wang Liang Lin Xiaogang Wang
references.title: Joint detection and identification feature learning for person search
references.venue: In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
references.authors: Jiahui Yu Linjie Yang Ning Xu Jianchao Yang Thomas Huang
references.title: Slimmable neural networks
references.venue: In International Conference on Learning Representations,
references.authors: Bolei Zhou Agata Lapedriza Aditya Khosla Aude Oliva Antonio Torralba
references.title: Places: A 10 million image database for scene recognition
references.venue: IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,
sections.text: The need of Feature Compatible Learning (FCL) arises from many large scale retrieval-based applications, where updating the entire library of embedding vectors is expensive. When an upgraded embedding model shows potential, it is desired to transform the benefit of the new model without refreshing the library. While progresses have been made along this new direction, existing approaches for feature compatible learning mostly rely on old training data and classifiers, which are not available in many industry settings. In this work, we introduce an approach for feature compatible learning without inheriting old classifier and training data, i.e., Non-Inherent Feature Compatible Learning. Our approach requires only features extracted by old model’s backbone and new training data, and makes no assumption about the overlap between old and new training data. We propose a unified framework for FCL, and extend it to handle the case where the old model is a black-box. Specifically, we learn a simple pseudo classifier in lieu of the old model, and further enhance it with a random walk algorithm. As a result, the embedding features produced by the new model can be matched with those from the old model without sacrificing performance. Experiments on ImageNet ILSVRC 2012 and Places365 data proved the efficacy of the proposed approach.
sections.heading: 1 INTRODUCTION
sections.text: In recent years, deep learning based methods achieved huge success in various of computer vision tasks, especially for visual searching since they could provide powerful feature representations. In a typical visual search system, the deployed deep learning model extracts the features of both gallery and query images as discriminate representations. During the retrieval stage, gallery images will be ranked based on their feature distances (e.g. Euclidean distance) to query images. In conventional approaches, the query and gallery features are generated by the same model. Once the deployed model of retrieval system is updated, the entire set of gallery features need to be ‘backfilled’ or ‘reindexed’ (Shen et al., 2020). As time goes by, the gallery becomes extremely large and ‘backfilling’ could be a painful process since millions even billions of images need to be re-processed by the new model, which is computationally expensive. There has to be a new mechanism that processes gallery images and the query image with two different models, while still maintaining the retrieval accuracy. In other words, the new deployed model extracted features should be ‘compatible’ to the existing ones without sacrificing accuracy. Such feature compatible learning problem is also named as ‘Backward-Compatible Training’ (Shen et al., 2020), or ‘Asymmetric Metric Learning’ (Budnik & Avrithis, 2020).
  Existing approaches for feature compatible learning assumed significant overlap between new and old training sets. In Shen et al. (2020), the training set for new embedding model is a superset of the old set. In Budnik & Avrithis (2020), the training set for large and small models is the same, which means obtaining new model in an incremental way is not possible. Besides, in Shen et al. (2020), the classifier for old model is also needed for computing the influence loss, which is a strong requirement in real applications. As an example, a model deployed in a recommendation system as a black-box API takes images as input and returns the processed features, but the parameters of the model are not accessible. In addition, its classifier and training details are not available, neither does the formula of the loss function. This kind of setting is quite common for various practical reasons in search, recommendation, content understanding and review applications.
  To address the limitation, we propose an approach for non-inherent feature compatible learning, which only exploits the old model backbone and new training data. Despite the lack of old training data or old classifier, the new model extracts compatible features without sacrificing accuracy. The proposed approach has three contributions including:
  • Study and formulate the non-inherent setting of the FCL problem for the first time
  • Establish a baseline with a data-incremental approach, where performance degradation is prevented by regularizing the training process of the new model
  • Extend the baseline with a random walk algorithm that further improves accuracy
  The experiments conducted on several standard data sets validated the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
sections.heading: 2 RELATED WORK
sections.text: Our approach is most relevant to feature compatible learning (Shen et al., 2020; Budnik & Avrithis, 2020; Wang et al., 2020), which has drawn attention from the research community due to the increasing size of gallery sets, and the heavy workload of re-generating gallery features.
sections.heading: 2.1 FEATURE COMPATIBLE LEARNING
sections.text: Shen et al. (2020) first formulated the ‘backward-compatible’ problem by deriving influence loss from an empirical criterion, and solved it by utilizing the old model to regularize the optimization process.
  In Budnik & Avrithis (2020), authors investigated the problem of asymmetric test, where the gallery images are represented by a teacher model and query images are represented by a student model. A pair-based metric for instance-level image retrieval was proposed to achieve the goal. In Wang et al. (2020), authors proposed Residual Bottleneck Transformation (RBT) blocks for feature embedding transferring. Some previous works (Li et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2018) discussed the connection between features that learned by different models. However, all methods mentioned above either can not achieve the model compatibility in a data-incremental way or need to exploit old classifier for training. Our proposed method could achieve compatibility without old training data or utilizing any old classifier.
sections.heading: 2.2 INCREMENTAL LEARNING
sections.text: Incremental learning and Life-long learning (Rebuffi et al., 2017; Li & Hoiem, 2017) approaches aimed to stabilize model predictions when updating with new training data. Different from feature compatible problem, incremental learning focuses on maintaining performance on ‘old’ classes after introducing ‘new’ ones. In Li & Hoiem (2017), authors utilized knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) and teacher-student models for regularizing features on new data, where model distillation was used as a form of regularization when introducing new classes. In Rebuffi et al. (2017), authors proposed to use old class centers to regularize the model learning when new classes were introduced. Most approaches of incremental learning focus on the stability of classifier output, while feature compatible learning try to solve the feature compatibility problem among different models.
sections.heading: 2.3 EMBEDDING LEARNING
sections.text: Our approach is also relevant to the embedding learning problem that optimizes a distance metric to improve discriminative power and robustness of embedded features. There were efforts on designing powerful network architectures (He et al., 2016; Simonyan & Zisserman, 2014; Szegedy et al., 2015), discriminative loss functions (Deng et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2018), and model optimizers (Kingma & Ba, 2015), but few of them set FCL as a part of their objectives.
sections.heading: 3 APPROACH
sections.text: This section re-visits the basic criterion for feature compatible learning, and presents the formulation and solutions to the Non-Inherent Feature Compatible Learning problem.
sections.heading: 3.1 FORMULATION AND CRITERION FOR FEATURE COMPATIBLE LEARNING
sections.text: Following the FCL formulation in learning (Shen et al., 2020; Budnik & Avrithis, 2020), an old embedding model φold trained on old training set Dold maps an image x to a feature vector f = φold(x), f ∈ RKold , where Kold is the feature vector dimension of f . After a period of time, a new embedding model φnew trained on Dnew is obtained. The new embedding model φnew maps the image x into a feature vector f with dimension of Knew, where Kold and Knew are not necessarily equal. In our setting, as explained in Sec.1 , the old training setDold is disjoint with the new training set Dnew (Dold ∩Dnew = ø). In addition the old classifier, training details, and the loss function are not available.
  The gallery set is defined as G. Since the amount of images in G could be extremely large, the images in G are usually presented as extracted feature vectors by an old embedding model, φold, to save the test time and a query image will be presented as a feature vector with the same embedding model. However, once the embedding model is updated, all the images in G must be presented by the new embedding model φnew, leading to an expensive refresh of the index. To avoid such computation, we need to make it feasible to directly compare G’s embeddings produced by φold with the query embedding by φnew.
  In Shen et al. (2020), a strict criterion for feature backward compatible is defined as,
  d(φnew(xi), φold(xj)) ≥ d(φold(xi), φold(xj)), ∀(i, j) ∈ {(i, j)|yi 6= yj}.
  and,
  d(φnew(xi), φold(xj)) ≤ d(φold(xi), φold(xj)), ∀(i, j) ∈ {(i, j)|yi = yj}, (1)
  where the d(·, ·) is the Euclidean distance metric, xi and xj are the ith query image and jth gallery image respectively, yi and yj are their labels. Such a strict criterion needs every query-gallery pair fulfills the distance requirement, which is not feasible. Alternatively, authors in Shen et al. (2020) proposed a empirical criterion as the following:
  M(φnew, φold) > M(φold, φold). (2)
  where M is a evaluation metric for the corresponding retrieval test set, consisting of gallery set G and query set. M(φnew, φold) means to extract query features with new model φnew and gallery features with old model φold, which is defined as cross test. Such a criterion requires the cross test performance between the new and the old model must be better than the test using only the old model, which is defined as self test.
  To achieve the backward compatibility defined by Eq. 2, authors in Shen et al. (2020) proposed as below an influence loss term to add into the loss function for regularizing the new embedding model training: LBCT(wc, wφ;Dnew) = L(wc, wφ;Dnew) + λL(wc old, wφ;Dold), (3) where L is the loss function (normally a softmax-like loss), wc, wc old, and wφ denote the classifier weights of the new embedding model, the classifier weights of the old embedding model, and the weights of the new embedding model’s backbone, respectively. The influence loss is the second term in Eq. 3, which fixes wc old and regularizes the feature output of φnew to be compatible with φold, generating relatively small loss on the old classifier. Meanwhile, the new training set Dnew is a superset of Dold. Different from the setting in Shen et al. (2020), we do not assume there is overlap between the old and new embedding training set Dold and Dnew. Moreover, the parameters of old classifier wc old are not available, which means we need to make the feature compatibility happen in a incremental way, without knowing the old classifier.
sections.heading: 3.2 ACHIEVING NON-INHERENT FEATURE COMPATIBLE LEARNING
sections.text: In this section, we will introduce our proposed feature backward training scheme without using old model’s classifier wc old or old training data Dold. Although we could not obtain the ‘old’ classifier on old training data, which is essential for influence loss in Eq. 3, we can still try to generate a ‘pseudo’ old classifier. Inspired by Rebuffi et al. (2017), Wu et al. (2018) and Xiao et al. (2017), we found that the classifier weights actually act as feature embedding centers so that they can generate large score with positive images’ features, which suggests that even simply averaging images features processed by φold in each class, we could still obtain a reasonable classifier weight for that class, which could be denoted as,
  wa−psec old (n) = 1
  m ∑ i∈Dnew(n) φold(xni), (4)
  wherem is the image amount in n−th class, i is the i-th image in that class, φold is the old embedding model. wa−psec old (n) could be served as n−th column in the pseudo classifier. In practice, we found that using averaged feature vectors as classifier may not converge, classifier consisted of normed feature vector could lead to a much better result,
  wan−psec old (n) = wa−psec old (n)
  ‖wa−psec old (n)‖ . (5)
  Another advantage of the proposed approach is that the old training set is not compulsory to use. The ‘pseudo’ classifier for Dnew could be generated with the old embedding model easily, no data in Dold is required, then the loss function in Eq. 3 becomes to
  LBCT(wc, wφ;Dnew) = L(wc, wφ;Dnew) + λL(wan−psec old , wφ;Dnew). (6)
sections.heading: 3.3 RANDOM WALK REFINEMENT FOR PSEUDO CLASSIFIER GENERATION
sections.heading: 3.3.1 LIMITATION OF BASELINE APPROACH
sections.text: The baseline method proposed in Section 3.2 exploits the old embedding model and new training set for ‘pseudo’ classifier generation and it can provide us a reasonable result for non-inherent feature compatible learning without ‘old’ classifier. However, due to mis-labeling or low quality, there are some outlier images in each class, simply averaging the feature vectors extracted by old embedding could not eliminate their negative effects. In this section, we will present our random walk approach for refined pseudo classifier generation.
sections.heading: 3.3.2 RANDOM WALK FOR CLASSIFIER GENERATION REFINEMENT
sections.text: Random walk algorithm (Aldous, 1989) has been widely used for ranking system (Page et al., 1999) or retrieval results refinement (Loy et al., 2013; Bertasius et al., 2017). Random walk is operated on a fully connected undirected graph G = (V,E), where V is the vertice and E is the edge. The similarities between different vertices could be defined as a symmetric matrix S. Each element on the matrix, S(i, j), represents the similarity between vertices i and j (e.g. normalized cosine similarity).
  In our context, in n-th class, i-th image’s feature fni ∈ RK could be represented as a vertice V . All of the images’ features in one class can be concatenated as a matrix Fn ∈ RK×m, where m is the image amount of n-th class. The edges, E, among vertices are the similarity scores between different vertices. With notations mentioned above, random walk operation could be denoted as,
  F tn = F t−1 n S, (7)
  where t is the iteration times, S ∈ Rm×m is the normalized similarity matrix between different images, which is denoted as,
  S′(i, j) = { exp(S(i,j)/T )∑ j 6=i exp(S(i,j)/T )
  , i 6= j 0, i = j , (8)
  where lower temperature T leads to a more concentrate probability distribution.
  In practice, the refinement by random walk also needs to be weighted with the initial feature matrix F 0n , which is computed as,
  F tn = λF t−1 n S ′ + (1− λ)F 0n , (9) where λ ∈ [0, 1] is the weight parameter. If t tends to infinity, the Eq. 9 has a converaged close form, which is,
  F∞n = (1− λ)F 0n(I − λS′)−1, (10) where I is the identity matrix and ( )−1 denotes matrix inverse operation.
  Once the F∞n is obtained, the w rw−pse c old (n) could be computed with column-wised average pooling
  wrw−psec old (n) = 1
  m m∑ i=1 F∞n (:, i). (11)
  The refined classifier is also column-wised normalized like Eq. (5), which is denoted as wrwn−psec old and the influence loss changes to,
  LBCT(wc, wφ;Dnew) = L(wc, wφ;Dnew) + λL(wrwn−psec old , wφ;Dnew). (12)
  Compared with baseline method introduced in Section 3.1, our proposed random walk refinement approach incorperates more information among images’ feature within one class to conduct the pseudo classifier generation, which could largely eliminate the outlier effects. In the experiments, we further show the effectiveness of the proposed method.
sections.heading: 4 EXPERIMENTS
sections.text: We validate the effectiveness of the proposed Non-Inherent Feature Compatible Learning approach on two large public datasets. In this section, We firstly demonstrate the datasets we use and then illustrate the baseline method performance and the effectiveness of the proposed random walk based method. Finally, we analysis the influence of hyperparameter choosing.
sections.heading: 4.1 DATASETS AND METRIC
sections.text: We utilize ImageNet ILSVRC (Deng et al., 2009) and Place365 (Zhou et al., 2017) datasets for training and evaluation. ImageNet dataset contains more than 1.2 million of images with 1,000 classes, Place365 contains about 1.8 million images with 365 classes. We conduct the retrieval process on these two datasets’ validation sets, which means each image will be considered as a query image and all other images will be considered as gallery images. The Euclidean distance is used for ranking. The evaluation metric is Top-1 and Top-5 accuracies. We use the final global averaged pooled feature (before feed into classifier) for the feature distance computing. When conducting the cross test, both old and new model will be utilized for extracting features and distance metric will be computed with old and new feature. If dimensions of old and new features are different, zero padding will be used for dimension alignment. Following the backward-compatibility measuring setting in Shen et al. (2020), we consider backward compatibility achieved when the cross test accuracy using new model for queries and old model for galleries surpasses the self test result of only using old model.
sections.heading: 4.2 TRAINING DETAILS
sections.text: We use 4 NVIDIA P40 GPUs for training. For each class on the training set, 30% of training data will be used for old model training and 70% data will be used for new model training. We adopt two widely used backbones, ResNet-18 and ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016), to serve as old model and new model, the output feature dimensions of them are 512 and 2048 respectively. The image input size is set to 224 × 224. Only random crop and random flip are used for data augmentation. We adopt standard stochastic gradient descent (SGD) to optimize the model parameters. The learning rate is set to 0.1 and decreases 10 times every 30 epochs and the training stops after 90 epochs. The weight decay is set to 10−4 and momentum is 0.9. The weights of two terms in Eq. 3 are equal. The batch size is set to 1024. Both old and new model are random initialized (from scratch). For random walk based refinement, we set λ to 0.9.
sections.heading: 4.3 BASELINE AND PROPOSED APPROACHES ANALYSIS
sections.text: In this section, we conduct several naive baseline approaches for feature compatible learning without old classifier and old training data. The cross test between old model and these approaches trained new models verified the effectiveness of the method. Besides, surprisingly, the self test of these proposed method even outperform the new model trained without any regularization.
  No regularization between φnew and φold We firstly test a simple case which was verified in Shen et al. (2020), directly comparing the isolatedly trained new model (denoted as φnew 70%) and old model (denoted as φold 30%). As illustrated in Section 4.2, we use 30% of training data in each class to train φold 30% and 70% of data is used for training φnew 70%. For aligning their output feature dimensionality, we directly use zero-padding for φold 30%’s feature output to pad it from 512 to 2048. The results on ImageNet and Places365 are shown in Table 1, such directly comparison is an epic failure, which has already been verified in Shen et al. (2020).
  L2 regression between φnew and φold output feature A simple baseline that could be proposed is using L2 loss to minimize the output features’ Euclidean distance between ‘old’ and ‘new’ model, which is denoted as φL2new 70% in Table 1. Such simple baseline could not meet the requirement of the feature compatible learning. The possible reason for L2 loss failure is that L2 loss only focuses on decreasing distance between feature pairs from the same image, however, it ignores the distance restriction between negative pairs.
  Trained pseudo classifier with new data and φold output feature Another baseline we compared is using old model backbone to process new training data for obtaining the corresponding features, then these features will be fed into a linear layer. The output of this linear layer will be sent into a softmax layer and optimized with cross-entropy loss and new training data label. The loss function could be denoted as,
  L = − 1N ∑ i∈Dnew log( exp(wT fi[Li])∑ j exp(w T fi[j]) ), (13)
  where fi is the i-th image’s feature processed by φold 30%, Li is the corresponding label, N is the new training data amount, w is the linear classifier weight.
  With minimizing the loss denoted in Eq. 13, we can obtain a linear classifier w which produces relatively small loss with fixed old backbone φold 30% on new training data, which could be used in influence loss (Eq. 3) to serve as wold. The ‘new’ model trained with such regularization is denoted as φt−psenew 70%, the cross test result in Table 1 shows that although it is not a total failure, but they can not beat the self test result of φold 30%, which is the basic requirement for feature compatible learning.
  Feature averaging pseudo classifier As illustrated in Section 3.2, we could make a pseudo classifier with averaged feature representation of all images in each class on new training dataset. Then we utilize such pseudo classifier to regularize the new model training as shown in Eq. 6. The model is denoted as φan−psenew 70%. As illustrated in Table 1, such simple approach could actually satisfy the feature compatible learning requirement, which surpasses the self test performance of using φold 30% by 15.4% in terms of top-1 accuracy on ImageNet dataset and 8.7 % on Places365 dataset.
  Feature averaging pseudo classifier with random walk refinement Following the algorithm introduced in Section 3.3, we conduct random walk refinement for generating classifier, we set temperature parameter T in Eq. 8 to 0.05 and the λ in Eq. 7 to 0.9. Then the refined classifier wrwn−psec old will be served as old classifier in Eq. 12. The trained new model with such regularization is denoted as φrwn−psenew 70%. As illustrated in Table 1, the proposed random walk refinement approach not only fulfill the requirement of feature compatible training, but also outperforms all compared methods.
  Better self test performance In Table 1, we show that with our proposed method, the self test results of φan−psenew 70% and φ rwn−pse new 70% even surpass the performance of φnew 70%, which means with the proposed approach, the feature could be improved with the information that provided by old model.
sections.heading: 4.4 HYPERPARAMETERS ANALYSIS FOR RANDOM WALK
sections.text: Temperature T setting for softmax normalization We firstly investigate the influence of softmax normalization temperature in Eq. 8. High temperature in softmax function leads to a softer distribution, while based on our analysis in Section 3.3, there are some noisy images in each class. We need to make the averaged feature more concentrate on the non-noisy images, so the temperature of the softmax should be low. As illustrated in Table 2, such assumption is verified. Lower temperature provides better results.
  Effect of choosing different λ Another investigation is about the choice of λ in Eq. 10, larger λ means the larger weight for random walk refined feature and less for original feature. As shown in Table 2, larger λ will provide slightly better performance.
sections.heading: 5 CONCLUSION
sections.text: In this paper, we investigate several approaches to achieve non-inherent feature compatibility, which aims at achieving feature compatibility without utilizing old training data and old classifier. We conduct comparison experiments on two large public datasets. Compared with other simple baselines, our approach achieved better performance with limited offline computing cost increasing. Furthermore, the proposed method could even improve the feature learning and achieves better self test result compared with model trained without any feature compatible regularization. In the future, we would like to investigate more about the regularization scheme for filling up the accuracy gap between cross test and self test.
title: NON-INHERENT FEATURE COMPATIBLE LEARNING