Cited by 301Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques

Factors of Transferability for a Generic ConvNet Representation

Azizpour, Hossein, Razavian, Ali Sharif, Sullivan, Josephine, Maki, Atsuto, Carlsson, Stefan·2016·IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

Abstract

Evidence is mounting that Convolutional Networks (ConvNets) are the most effective representation learning method for visual recognition tasks. In the common scenario, a ConvNet is trained on a large labeled dataset (source) and the feed-forward units activation of the trained network, at a certain layer of the network, is used as a generic representation of an input image for a task with relatively smaller training set (target). Recent studies have shown this form of representation transfer to be suitable for a wide range of target visual recognition tasks. This paper introduces and investigates several factors affecting the transferability of such representations. It includes parameters for training of the source ConvNet such as its architecture, distribution of the training data, etc. and also the parameters of feature extraction such as layer of the trained ConvNet, dimensionality reduction, etc. Then, by optimizing these factors, we show that significant improvements can be achieved on various (17) visual recognition tasks. We further show that these visual recognition tasks can be categorically ordered based on their similarity to the source task such that a correlation between the performance of tasks and their similarity to the source task w.r.t. the proposed factors is observed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tpami.2015.2500224

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • ImageNet based CNN features show better performance for object detection than for human action.

    “ImageNet based CNN features show better performance for object detection than for human action (Zhou et al. 2015;Azizpour et al. 2016).”

    From Deep Learning for Generic Object Detection: A Survey (2020) · cites this paper as Azizpour et al. 2016

  • A pretrained CNN can be applied to a small dataset directly as a generic feature extractor, supporting a wider range of visual recognition tasks.

    “A common scenario is for a CNN to be pretrained on a large dataset (usually with a large number of visual categories) with image-level labels; the pretrained CNN can then be applied to a small dataset, directly, as a generic feature extractor (Razavian et al. 2014;Azizpour et al. 2016;Donahue et al. 2014;Yosinski et al. 2014), which can support a wider range of visual recognition tasks.”

    From Deep Learning for Generic Object Detection: A Survey (2020) · cites this paper as Azizpour et al. 2016

  • The relationship between the source and target datasets plays a critical role in transfer learning for detection.

    “Furthermore, the relationship between the source and target datasets plays a critical role, for example that ImageNet based CNN features show better performance for object detection than for human action (Zhou et al. 2015;Azizpour et al. 2016).”

    From Deep Learning for Generic Object Detection: A Survey (2020) · cites this paper as Azizpour et al. 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Azizpour, H., Razavian, A. S., Sullivan, J., Maki, A., & Carlsson, S.
Affiliations
KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
Published
2016-09-01
Volume
38
Issue
9
Pages
1790-1802
ISSN
  • 0162-8828 (ISSN-L)
  • 2160-9292
  • 1939-3539
OpenAlex
W2203224402
Cited by
301
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
25.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  • VINST
  • CVPR
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • 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
Keywords
transfer learning, convolutional neural networks, representation learning, visual recognition, feature extraction, layer selection, dimensionality reduction, network architecture, training data distribution

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