Welcome to ShortScience.org! |
[link]
This paper presents a combination of the inception architecture with residual networks. This is done by adding a shortcut connection to each inception module. This can alternatively be seen as a resnet where the 2 conv layers are replaced by a (slightly modified) inception module. The paper (claims to) provide results against the hypothesis that adding residual connections improves training, rather increasing the model size is what makes the difference. |
[link]
Main purpose: * This work proposes a software-based resolution augmentation method which is more agile and simpler to implement than hardware engineering solutions. * The paper examines three deep learning single image super resolution techniques on pCLE images * A video-registration based method is proposed to estimate ground truth HR pCLE images (this can be assumed as the main objective of the paper) Highlights: * The papers emphasise that this is the first work to address the image resolution problem in pCLE image acquisitions * The paper introduces useful information on how pCLE devices work * Strong related work * Clear story * Comprehensive evaluation Main Idea: * Use video-registration based techniques to estimate the HR images (real ground truth HR image is not available) * Simulate LR images from estimate HR images with help of Voronoi diagram and Delaunay-based linear interpolation. * Train an Exemplar-based SR model (EBSR -- DL-based approach) to learn the mapping between simulated LR and estimate HR images. Methodology Details * To estimate the HR images, a video-registration based mosaicking techniques (by the same authors in MIA 2006) is used which fuses a collection of input images by averaging the temporal information. * Since mosaicking generates single large filed-of-view mosaic image from LR images, the mosaic-to-image diffeomorphic spatial transformation is used which results from the mosaicking process to propagate and crop the fused information from the mosaic back into each input LR image space. * At this point, the authors observe that the misalignment between input LR images (used in the video-registration based mosaicking technique) and estimate HR cause training problem for the EBSR model. So, they treat the HR images as realistic and chose to simulate LR images from them!!!! * Simulated LR images by obtained using the Voronoi diagram (averaging the Voronoi cell on HR image) + additive noise on estimate HR images. * Finally, they build to experimental datasets 1) LR_org and HR and 2) LR_synth and HR and train three CNN SR models on these twor datasets. * They train FSRCNN, EDSR, SRGAN * The networks are trained using L1+SSIM loss functions Experiment Notes: * SSIM and GCF are used to quantitatively assess the performance of the models. * A composite score is also used to take SSIM and GCF into account jointly * In the ideal case, when the models are trained and etsted on simulated LR and HR images, the quantitative results are convincing. * "From this experiment, it is possible to conclude that the proposed solution is capable of performing SR reconstruction when the models are trained on synthetic data with no domain gap at test time" * When models are trained and tested on original LR and estimate HR images, the performance is not reasonable * When the models are trained on simulated LR images and tested on original LR images, the results become better compared to the previous case, * For a solid conclusion, and MOS study was carried out. The models are trained on simulated LR images. |
[link]
This paper synthesizes a high-quality video of Barack Obama given the audio. Practically, it only synthesizes the region around the mouth, while the rest of the elements (i.e. pixels) come from a video in a database. The overall pipeline is the following: - Given a video, an audio and a mouth shape are extracted. Audio is represented as MFCC coefficients; mouth shape - 18 lip markers; - Train audio to mouth shape mapping with time-delayed unidirectional LSTM. - Synthesize mouth texture: retrieve a number of video frames in a database where a mouth shape is similar to the output of LSTM; synthesize median texture by applying weighted median on mouth shapes from retrieved video frames; manually select teeth target frame (selection criteria are purely subjected) and enhance teeth median texture with selected teeth target frame. - Re-timing to avoid situations where Obama is not speaking but his head is moving which looks very unnatural. - Final composition into the target video involves jaw correction to make it more natural. ![Algorithm flow](http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/Obama-lip-Sync-Graphic.jpg) The results look ridiculously natural. Authors suggest that one of the applications of this paper is speech summarization, where you summarize a speech not only with selected parts as text and audio but also synthesize a video for it. Personally, this work inspires me to work on a method that is able to generate natural sign language interpreter that takes sound/text as input and produces sign language moves. |
[link]
This is an interestingly pragmatic paper that makes a super simple observation. Often, we may want a usable network with fewer parameters, to make our network more easily usable on small devices. It's been observed (by these same authors, in fact), that pruned networks can achieve comparable weights to their fully trained counterparts if you rewind and retrain from early in the training process, to compensate for the loss of the (not ultimately important) pruned weights. This observation has been dubbed the "Lottery Ticket Hypothesis", after the idea that there's some small effective subnetwork you can find if you sample enough networks. Given these two facts - the usefulness of pruning, and the success of weight rewinding - the authors explore the effectiveness of various ways to train after pruning. Current standard practice is to prune low-magnitude weights, and then continue training remaining weights from values they had at pruning time, keeping the final learning rate of the network constant. The authors find that: 1. Weight rewinding, where you rewind weights to *near* their starting value, and then retrain using the learning rates of early in training, outperforms fine tuning from the place weights were when you pruned but, also 2. Learning rate rewinding, where you keep weights as they are, but rewind learning rates to what they were early in training, are actually the most effective for a given amount of training time/search cost To me, this feels a little bit like burying the lede: the takeaway seems to be that when you prune, it's beneficial to make your network more "elastic" (in the metaphor-to-neuroscience sense) so it can more effectively learn to compensate for the removed neurons. So, what was really valuable in weight rewinding was the ability to "heat up" learning on a smaller set of weights, so they could adapt more quickly. And the fact that learning rate rewinding works better than weight rewinding suggests that there is value in the learned weights after all, that value is just outstripped by the benefit of rolling back to old learning rates. All in all, not a super radical conclusion, but a useful and practical one to have so clearly laid out in a paper. |
[link]
SSD aims to solve the major problem with most of the current state of the art object detectors namely Faster RCNN and like. All the object detection algortihms have same methodology - Train 2 different nets - Region Proposal Net (RPN) and advanced classifier to detect class of an object and bounding box separately. - During inference, run the test image at different scales to detect object at multiple scales to account for invariance This makes the nets extremely slow. Faster RCNN could operate at **7 FPS with 73.2% mAP** while SSD could achieve **59 FPS with 74.3% mAP ** on VOC 2007 dataset. #### Methodology SSD uses a single net for predict object class and bounding box. However it doesn't do that directly. It uses a mechanism for choosing ROIs, training end-to-end for predicting class and boundary shift for that ROI. ##### ROI selection Borrowing from FasterRCNNs SSD uses the concept of anchor boxes for generating ROIs from the feature maps of last layer of shared conv layer. For each pixel in layer of feature maps, k default boxes with different aspect ratios are chosen around every pixel in the map. So if there are feature maps each of m x n resolutions - that's *mnk* ROIs for a single feature layer. Now SSD uses multiple feature layers (with differing resolutions) for generating such ROIs primarily to capture size invariance of objects. But because earlier layers in deep conv net tends to capture low level features, it uses features after certain levels and layers henceforth. ##### ROI labelling Any ROI that matches to Ground Truth for a class after applying appropriate transforms and having Jaccard overlap greater than 0.5 is positive. Now, given all feature maps are at different resolutions and each boxes are at different aspect ratios, doing that's not simple. SDD uses simple scaling and aspect ratios to get to the appropriate ground truth dimensions for calculating Jaccard overlap for default boxes for each pixel at the given resolution ##### ROI classification SSD uses single convolution kernel of 3*3 receptive fields to predict for each ROI the 4 offsets (centre-x offset, centre-y offset, height offset , width offset) from the Ground Truth box for each RoI, along with class confidence scores for each class. So that is if there are c classes (including background), there are (c+4) filters for each convolution kernels that looks at a ROI. So summarily we have convolution kernels that look at ROIs (which are default boxes around each pixel in feature map layer) to generate (c+4) scores for each RoI. Multiple feature map layers with different resolutions are used for generating such ROIs. Some ROIs are positive and some negative depending on jaccard overlap after ground box has scaled appropriately taking resolution differences in input image and feature map into consideration. Here's how it looks : ![](https://i.imgur.com/HOhsPZh.png) ##### Training For each ROI a combined loss is calculated as a combination of localisation error and classification error. The details are best explained in the figure. ![](https://i.imgur.com/zEDuSgi.png) ##### Inference For each ROI predictions a small threshold is used to first filter out irrelevant predictions, Non Maximum Suppression (nms) with jaccard overlap of 0.45 per class is applied then on the remaining candidate ROIs and the top 200 detections per image are kept. For further understanding of the intuitions regarding the paper and the results obtained please consider giving the full paper a read. The open sourced code is available at this [Github repo](https://github.com/weiliu89/caffe/tree/ssd) |