Understanding deep image representations by inverting them
Abstract
Image representations, from SIFT and Bag of Visual Words to Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), are a crucial component of almost any image understanding system. Nevertheless, our understanding of them remains limited. In this paper we conduct a direct analysis of the visual information contained in representations by asking the following question: given an encoding of an image, to which extent is it possible to reconstruct the image itself? To answer this question we contribute a general framework to invert representations. We show that this method can invert representations such as HOG more accurately than recent alternatives while being applicable to CNNs too. We then use this technique to study the inverse of recent state-of-the-art CNN image representations for the first time. Among our findings, we show that several layers in CNNs retain photographically accurate information about the image, with different degrees of geometric and photometric invariance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Neural networks and deep neural networks are known to be affected by surprising artifacts.
“As discussed in Section 8.3, NN and DNN are known to be affected by surprising artifacts.”
From A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models (2019) · cites this paper as [63]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 1,827
- Authors
- Mahendran, A., & Vedaldi, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2015-06
- Pages
- 5188-5196
- ISSN
- 1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1915485278
- Semantic Scholar
- 4d790c8fae40357d24813d085fa74a436847fb49
- Cited by
- 1,827
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 116 · 2023: 187 · 2022: 174 · 2021: 255 · 2020: 241 · 2019: 248 · 2018: 201 · 2017: 127 · 2016: 107 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 63.57
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
- Keywords
- image reconstruction, convolutional neural networks, HOG, photometric invariance, geometric invariance, image understanding
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review