ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
An implicit but pervasive hypothesis of modern computer vision research is that convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures that perform better on ImageNet will also perform better on other vision datasets. We challenge this hypothesis through an extensive empirical study for which we train 500 sampled CNN architectures on ImageNet as well as 8 other image classification datasets from a wide array of application domains. The relationship between architecture and performance varies wildly, depending on the datasets. For some of them, the performance correlation with ImageNet is even negative. Clearly, it is not enough to optimize architectures solely for ImageNet when aiming for progress that is relevant for all applications. Therefore, we identify two dataset-specific performance indicators: the cumulative width across layers as well as the total depth of the network. Lastly, we show that the range of dataset variability covered by ImageNet can be significantly extended by adding ImageNet subsets restricted to few classes.
We build new test sets for the CIFAR-10 and ImageNet datasets. Both benchmarks have been the focus of intense research for almost a decade, raising the danger of overfitting to excessively re-used test sets. By closely following the original dataset
In deep learning era, pretrained models play an important role in medical image analysis, in which ImageNet pretraining has been widely adopted as the best way. However, it is undeniable that there exists an obvious domain gap between natural images
Being complex-valued and low in signal-to-noise ratios, magnitude-based diffusion MRI is confounded by the noise-floor that falsely elevates signal magnitude and incurs bias to the commonly used diffusion indices, such as fractional anisotropy (FA).
There are two canonical approaches to treating the Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory (EFT): Standard Model EFT (SMEFT), expressed in the electroweak symmetric phase utilizing the Higgs doublet, and Higgs EFT (HEFT), expressed in the broken
Yes, and no. We ask whether recent progress on the ImageNet classification benchmark continues to represent meaningful generalization, or whether the community has started to overfit to the idiosyncrasies of its labeling procedure. We therefore devel