reduced by a factor of 5. We ﬁnd that this improves the
accuracyontheheld-outvalidationdata.
Accelerate the learning rate decay. In training Inception, learning rate was decayed exponentially. Because
our network trains faster than Inception, we lower the
learningrate 6timesfaster.
Remove Local Response Normalization While Inception and other networks (Srivastavaet al., 2014) beneﬁt
from it, we found that with Batch Normalization it is not
necessary.
Shufﬂetrainingexamplesmorethoroughly. Weenabled
within-shardshufﬂingofthetrainingdata,whichprevents
thesameexamplesfromalwaysappearinginamini-batch
together. This led to about 1% improvements in the validation accuracy, which is consistent with the view of
Batch Normalization as a regularizer (Sec. 3.4): the randomization inherent in our method should be most beneﬁcialwhenitaffectsanexampledifferentlyeachtimeitis
seen.
Reduce the photometric distortions. Because batchnormalized networks train faster and observe each trainingexamplefewertimes,weletthetrainerfocusonmore
“real”imagesbydistortingthemless.
6
Training Deep Neural Networks is complicated by the fact that the
distribution of each layer's inputs changes during training, as the parameters
of the previous layers change. This slows down the training by requiring lower
learning rates and careful parameter initialization, and makes it notoriously
hard to train models with saturating nonlinearities. We refer to this
phenomenon as internal covariate shift, and address the problem by normalizing
layer inputs. Our method draws its strength from making normalization a part of
the model architecture and performing the normalization for each training
mini-batch. Batch Normalization allows us to use much higher learning rates and
be less careful about initialization. It also acts as a regularizer, in some
cases eliminating the need for Dropout. Applied to a state-of-the-art image
classification model, Batch Normalization achieves the same accuracy with 14
times fewer training steps, and beats the original model by a significant
margin. Using an ensemble of batch-normalized networks, we improve upon the
best published result on ImageNet classification: reaching 4.9% top-5
validation error (and 4.8% test error), exceeding the accuracy of human raters.
Sergey Ioffe Christian Szegedy