Context Encoders: Feature Learning by Inpainting
Open accessAbstract
We present an unsupervised visual feature learning algorithm driven by context-based pixel prediction. By analogy with auto-encoders, we propose Context Encoders - a convolutional neural network trained to generate the contents of an arbitrary image region conditioned on its surroundings. In order to succeed at this task, context encoders need to both understand the content of the entire image, as well as produce a plausible hypothesis for the missing part(s). When training context encoders, we have experimented with both a standard pixel-wise reconstruction loss, as well as a reconstruction plus an adversarial loss. The latter produces much sharper results because it can better handle multiple modes in the output. We found that a context encoder learns a representation that captures not just appearance but also the semantics of visual structures. We quantitatively demonstrate the effectiveness of our learned features for CNN pre-training on classification, detection, and segmentation tasks. Furthermore, context encoders can be used for semantic inpainting tasks, either stand-alone or as initialization for non-parametric methods.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Auxiliary pretext tasks are primarily used to fill in missing image parts, convert images to grayscale, and predict hidden parts.
“The auxiliary pretext is primarily used to fill in missing parts of an image [6], convert it to gray scale [7], predict hidden parts, and many other tasks.”
From Self-supervised learning: A succinct review (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 5,691
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- C. Barnes, E. Shechtman, A. Finkelstein, and D. Goldman. Patchmatch: A randomized correspondence algorithm for structural image editing. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2009. 3, 6
- C. Doersch, A. Gupta, and A. A. Efros. Context as supervi- sory signal: Discovering objects with predictable context. In ECCV, 2014. 2
- A. Efros and T. K. Leung. Texture synthesis by non- parametric sampling. In ICCV, 1999. 3, 6
- R. Girshick. Fast r-cnn. ICCV, 2015. 7
- I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio. Gen- erative adversarial nets. In NIPS, 2014. 2, 3, 4
- D. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization. ICLR, 2015. 6
- D. P. Kingma and M. Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. ICLR, 2014. 3
- A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In NIPS, 2012. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10
- T. Malisiewicz and A. Efros. Beyond categories: The visual memex model for reasoning about object relationships. In NIPS, 2009. 2
- T. Mikolov, I. Sutskever, K. Chen, G. S. Corrado, and J. Dean. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In NIPS, 2013. 2, 3
- A. Radford, L. Metz, and S. Chintala. Unsupervised repre- sentation learning with deep convolutional generative adver- sarial networks. ICLR, 2016. 3, 5, 6, 10
- S. Rifai, Y. Bengio, A. Courville, P. Vincent, and M. Mirza. Disentangling factors of variation for facial expression recognition. In ECCV, 2012. 3
- M. D. Zeiler and R. Fergus. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In ECCV, 2014. 4
- Authors
- Pathak, D., Krahenbuhl, P., Donahue, J., Darrell, T., & Efros, A. A.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Venue
- 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2016-06
- Pages
- 2536-2544
- ISSN
- 1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2342877626
- Cited by
- 5,691
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 210 · 2025: 438 · 2024: 624 · 2023: 730 · 2022: 806 · 2021: 908 · 2020: 731 · 2019: 631 · 2018: 417 · 2017: 172 · 2016: 24
- FWCI
- 143.82
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1427425, 1212798, 1536003, N000141110688)
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
- Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (N000141110688)
- Air Force Research Laboratory
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- context encoder, unsupervised feature learning, convolutional neural networks, adversarial loss, image reconstruction, semantic segmentation, object detection, image classification
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