[256;512] 256,384,512 26.3 8.2
D256 224,256,288 26.6 8.6
384 352,384,416 26.5 8.6
[256;512] 256,384,512 24.8 7.5
E256 224,256,288 26.9 8.7
384 352,384,416 26.7 8.6
[256;512] 256,384,512 24.8 7.5
4.3 M ULTI-CROP EVALUATION
In Table 5 we compare dense ConvNet evaluation with mult-cro p evaluation (see Sect. 3.2 for details). We also assess the complementarityof thetwo evalua tiontechniquesbyaveragingtheirsoftmax outputs. As can be seen, using multiple crops performs sl ightly better than dense evaluation,
andthe two approachesareindeedcomplementary,astheir co mbinationoutperformseach ofthem.
As noted above, we hypothesize that this is due to a different treatment of convolution boundary
conditions.
Table 5:ConvNetevaluationtechniques comparison. Inall experimentsthe trainingscale Swas
sampledfrom [256;512] ,andthreetest scales Qwereconsidered: {256,384,512}.
In this work we investigate the effect of the convolutional network depth on
its accuracy in the large-scale image recognition setting. Our main
contribution is a thorough evaluation of networks of increasing depth using an
architecture with very small (3x3) convolution filters, which shows that a
significant improvement on the prior-art configurations can be achieved by
pushing the depth to 16-19 weight layers. These findings were the basis of our
ImageNet Challenge 2014 submission, where our team secured the first and the
second places in the localisation and classification tracks respectively. We
also show that our representations generalise well to other datasets, where
they achieve state-of-the-art results. We have made our two best-performing
ConvNet models publicly available to facilitate further research on the use of
deep visual representations in computer vision.
Karen Simonyan Andrew Zisserman