thanthebestknownsystemonImageNet,byasigniﬁcant
margin.
Interestingly, our method bears similarity to the standardization layer of (G¨ ulc ¸ehre& Bengio, 2013), though
the two methodsstem from very differentgoals, and perform different tasks. The goal of Batch Normalization
is to achieve a stable distribution of activation values
throughout training, and in our experiments we apply it
before the nonlinearity since that is where matching the
ﬁrst and second moments is more likely to result in a
stable distribution. On the contrary,(G¨ ulc ¸ehre&Bengio ,
2013) apply the standardizationlayer to the outputof the
nonlinearity, which results in sparser activations. In our
large-scaleimage classiﬁcation experiments,we havenot
observedthenonlinearity inputstobesparse,neitherwith
nor without Batch Normalization. Other notable differ-entiating characteristics of Batch Normalization include
the learned scale and shift that allow the BN transform
to representidentity (the standardizationlayer did not re quirethissinceitwasfollowedbythelearnedlineartransform that, conceptually, absorbs the necessary scale and
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