Joint Training of Generic CNN-CRF Models with Stochastic Optimization
Open accessAbstract
We propose a new CNN-CRF end-to-end learning framework, which is based on joint stochastic optimization with respect to both Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and Conditional Random Field (CRF) parameters. While stochastic gradient descent is a standard technique for CNN training, it was not used for joint models so far. We show that our learning method is (i) general, i.e. it applies to arbitrary CNN and CRF architectures and potential functions; (ii) scalable, i.e. it has a low memory footprint and straightforwardly parallelizes on GPUs; (iii) easy in implementation. Additionally, the unified CNN-CRF optimization approach simplifies a potential hardware implementation. We empirically evaluate our method on the task of semantic labeling of body parts in depth images and show that it compares favorably to competing techniques.
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?
In [54], a generic CNN-CRF model was proposed to handle arbitrary potentials for labeling body parts in depth images, but it has not yet been validated with other segmentation applications.
“In [54], a generic CNN-CRF model was proposed to handle arbitrary potentials for labeling body parts in depth images. However, it has not yet been validated with other segmentation applications.”
From DeepIGeoS: A Deep Interactive Geodesic Framework for Medical Image Segmentation (2019) · cites this paper as [54]
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
Cited by 6
- Authors
- Kirillov, A., Schlesinger, D., Zheng, S., Savchynskyy, B., Torr, P. H. S., & Rother, C.
- Affiliations
- Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2015
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1511.05067
- OpenAlex
- W2951275347
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- European Commission
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01IS14014A, 01IS14014A-D)
- Technische Universität Dresden
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (ERC-2012-AdG 321162-HELIOS, EP/I001107/2)
- Topics
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Human Pose and Action Recognition
- Keywords
- conditional random fields, convolutional neural networks, end-to-end learning, semantic annotation, body part segmentation, depth images, GPU parallelization, hardware implementation
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
