Xception Net or Extreme Inception Net brings a new perception of looking at the Inception Nets. Inception Nets, as was first published (as GoogLeNet) consisted of Network-in-Network modules like this
![Inception Modules](http://i.imgur.com/jwYhi8t.png)

The idea behind Inception modules was to look at cross-channel correlations ( via 1x1 convolutions) and spatial correlations (via 3x3 Convolutions). The main concept being  that cross-channel correlations and spatial correlations are sufficiently decoupled that it is preferable not to map them jointly. This idea is the genesis of Xception Net, using depth-wise separable convolution ( convolution which looks into spatial correlations across all channels independently and then uses pointwise convolutions to project to the requisite channel space leveraging inter-channel correlations). Chollet, does a wonderful job of explaining how regular convolution (looking at both channel & spatial correlations simultaneously) and depthwise separable convolution (looking at channel & spatial correlations independently in successive steps) are end points of spectrum with the original Inception Nets lying in between.

![Extreme version of Inception Net](http://i.imgur.com/kylzfIQ.png)
*Though for Xception Net, Chollet uses, depthwise separable layers which perform 3x3 convolutions for each channel and then 1x1 convolutions on the output from 3x3 convolutions (opposite order of operations depicted in image above)*

##### Input
Input for would be images that are used for classification  along with corresponding labels.

##### Architecture
Architecture of Xception Net uses one for VGG-16 with convolution-maxpool blocks replaced by residual blocks of  depthwise separable convolution layers. The architecture looks like this 

![architecture of Xception Net](http://i.imgur.com/9hfdyNA.png)

##### Results
Xception Net was trained using hyperparameters tuned for best performance of Inception V3 Net. And for both internal dataset and ImageNet dataset, Xception outperformed Inception V3. Points to be noted 
- Both Xception & Inception V3 have roughly similar no of parameters (~24 M), hence any improvement in performance can't be attributed to network size
- Xception normally takes slightly lower training time compared to Inception V3, which can be configured to be lower in future

This paper describes how rank pooling, a very recent approach for pooling representations organized in a sequence $\\{{\bf v}_t\\}_{t=1}^T$, can be used in an end-to-end trained neural network architecture.

Rank pooling is an alternative to average and max pooling for sequences, but with the distinctive advantage of maintaining some order information from the sequence. Rank pooling first solves a regularized (linear) support vector regression (SVR) problem where the inputs are the vector representations ${\bf v}_t$ in the sequence and the target is the corresponding index $t$ of that representation in the sequence (see Equation 5). The output of rank pooling is then simply the linear regression parameters $\bf{u}$ learned for that sequence. Because of the way ${\bf u}$ is trained, we can see that ${\bf u}$ will capture order information, as successful training would imply that ${\bf u}^\top {\bf v}_t < {\bf u}^\top {\bf v}_{t'} $ if $t < t'$. See [this paper](https://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/rg/papers/videoDarwin.pdf) for more on rank pooling.

While previous work has focused on using rank pooling on hand-designed and fixed representations, this paper proposes to use ConvNet features (pre-trained on ImageNet) for the representation and backpropagate through rank pooling to fine-tune the ConvNet features. Since the output of rank pooling corresponds to an argmin operation, passing gradients through this operation is not as straightforward as for average or max pooling. However, it turns out that if the objective being minimized (in our case regularized SVR) is twice differentiable, gradients with respect to its argmin can be computed (see Lemmas 1 and 2). The authors derive the gradient for rank pooling (Equation 21). Finally, since its gradient requires inverting a matrix (corresponding to a hessian), the authors propose to either use an efficient procedure for computing it by exploiting properties of sums of rank-one matrices (see Lemma 3) or to simply use an approximation based on using a diagonal hessian.

In experiments on two small scale video activity recognition datasets (UCF-Sports and Hollywood2), the authors show that fine-tuning the ConvNet features significantly improves the performance of rank pooling and makes it superior to max and average pooling.

**My two cents**

This paper was eye opening for me, first because I did not realize that one could backpropagate through an operation corresponding to an argmin that doesn't have a closed form solution (though apparently this paper isn't the first to make that observation). Moreover, I did not know about rank pooling, which itself is a really thought provoking approach to pooling representations in a way that preserves some organizational information about the original representations.

I wonder how sensitive the results are to the value of the regularization constant of the SVR problem. The authors mention some theoretical guaranties on the stability of the solution found by SVR in general, but intuitively I would expect that the regularization constant would play a large role in the stability.

I'll be looking forward to any future attempts to increase the speed of rank pooling (or any similar method). Indeed, as the authors mention, it is currently too slow to be used on the larger video datasets that are currently available. 

Code for computing rank pooling (though not for computing its gradients) seems to be available [here](https://bitbucket.org/bfernando/videodarwin).

This paper describes using Relation Networks (RN) for reasoning about relations between objects/entities.
RN is a plug-and-play module and although expects object representations as input,
the semantics of what an object is need not be specified, so object representations
can be convolutional layer feature vectors or entity embeddings from text, or something else.
And the feedforward network is free to discover relations between objects (as opposed to being
hand-assigned specific relations).

- At its core, RN has two parts:
	- a feedforward network `g` that operates on pairs of object representations,
	for all possible pairs, all pairwise computations pooled via element-wise addition
	- a feedforward network `f` that operates on pooled features for downstream
	task, everything being trained end-to-end

- When dealing with pixels (as in CLEVR experiment), individual object representations are
spatially distinct convolutional layer features (196 512-d object representations for VGG conv5 say).
The other experiment on CLEVR uses explicit factored object state representations with 3D coordinates,
shape, material, color, size.

- For bAbI, object representations are LSTM encodings of supporting sentences.

- For VQA tasks, `g` conditions its processing on question encoding as well, as relations
that are relevant for figuring out the answer would be question-dependent.


## Strengths

- Very simple idea, clearly explained, performs well. Somewhat shocked that it
hasn't been tried before.

## Weaknesses / Notes

Fairly simple idea — let a feedforward network
operate on all pairs of object representations and figure out relations
necessary for downstream task with end-to-end training. And it is fairly general in its design,
relations aren't hand-designed and neither are object representations — for
RGB images, these are spatially distinct convolutional layer features, for text,
these are LSTM encodings of supporting facts, and so on. This module can be dropped
in and combined with more sophisticated networks to improve performance at VQA.

RNs also offer an alternative design choice to prior works on CLEVR, that have
this explicit notion of programs or modules with specialized roles (that need to be pre-defined),
as opposed to letting these relations emerge, reducing dependency on hand-designing
modules and adding in inductive biases from an architectural point-of-view for
the network to reason about relations (earlier end-to-end VQA models didn't have
the capacity to figure out relations).

This paper describes how to apply the idea of batch normalization (BN) successfully to recurrent neural networks, specifically to LSTM networks. The technique involves the 3 following ideas:

**1) Careful initialization of the BN scaling parameter.** While standard practice is to initialize it to 1 (to have unit variance), they show that this situation creates problems with the gradient flow through time, which vanishes quickly. A value around 0.1 (used in the experiments) preserves gradient flow much better.

**2) Separate BN for the "hiddens to hiddens pre-activation and for the "inputs to hiddens" pre-activation.** In other words, 2 separate BN operators are applied on each contributions to the pre-activation, before summing and passing through the tanh and sigmoid non-linearities.

**3) Use of largest time-step BN statistics for longer test-time sequences.** Indeed, one issue with applying BN to RNNs is that if the input sequences have varying length, and if one uses per-time-step mean/variance statistics in the BN transformation (which is the natural thing to do), it hasn't been clear how do deal with the last time steps of longer sequences seen at test time, for which BN has no statistics from the training set. The paper shows evidence that the pre-activation statistics tend to gradually converge to stationary values over time steps, which supports the idea of simply using the training set's last time step statistics.

Among these ideas, I believe the most impactful idea is 1). The papers mentions towards the end that improper initialization of the BN scaling parameter probably explains previous failed attempts to apply BN to recurrent networks.

Experiments on 4 datasets confirms the method's success.

**My two cents**

This is an excellent development for LSTMs. BN has had an important impact on our success in training deep neural networks, and this approach might very well have a similar impact on the success of LSTMs in practice.

**Object detection** is the task of drawing one bounding box around each instance of the type of object one wants to detect. Typically, image classification is done before object detection. With neural networks, the usual procedure for object detection is to train a classification network, replace the last layer with a regression layer which essentially predicts pixel-wise if the object is there or not. An bounding box inference algorithm is added at last to make a consistent prediction (see [Deep Neural Networks for Object Detection](http://papers.nips.cc/paper/5207-deep-neural-networks-for-object-detection.pdf)).

The paper introduces RPNs (Region Proposal Networks). They are end-to-end trained to generate region proposals.They simoultaneously regress region bounds and bjectness scores at each location on a regular grid.

RPNs are one type of fully convolutional networks. They take an image of any size as input and output a set of rectangular object proposals, each with an objectness score.

## See also
* [R-CNN](http://www.shortscience.org/paper?bibtexKey=conf/iccv/Girshick15#joecohen)
* [Fast R-CNN](http://www.shortscience.org/paper?bibtexKey=conf/iccv/Girshick15#joecohen)
* [Faster R-CNN](http://www.shortscience.org/paper?bibtexKey=conf/nips/RenHGS15#martinthoma)
* [Mask R-CNN](http://www.shortscience.org/paper?bibtexKey=journals/corr/HeGDG17)