In this work we investigate the effect of the convolutional network depth on
its accuracy in the large-scale image recognition setting. Our main
contribution is a thorough evaluation of networks of increasing depth using an
architecture with very small (3x3) convolution filters, which shows that a
significant improvement on the prior-art configurations can be achieved by
pushing the depth to 16-19 weight layers. These findings were the basis of our
ImageNet Challenge 2014 submission, where our team secured the first and the
second places in the localisation and classification tracks respectively. We
also show that our representations generalise well to other datasets, where
they achieve state-of-the-art results. We have made our two best-performing
ConvNet models publicly available to facilitate further research on the use of
deep visual representations in computer vision.
Karen Simonyan Andrew Zisserman
arXiv:1409.1556v6  [cs.CV]  10 Apr 2015Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
VERYDEEPCONVOLUTIONAL NETWORKS
FORLARGE-SCALEIMAGERECOGNITION
KarenSimonyan∗& AndrewZisserman+
VisualGeometryGroup,DepartmentofEngineeringScience, UniversityofOxford
{karen,az }@robots.ox.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
In this work we investigate the effect of the convolutional n etwork depth on its
accuracy in the large-scale image recognition setting. Our main contribution is
a thorough evaluation of networks of increasing depth using an architecture with
verysmall( 3×3)convolutionﬁlters,whichshowsthatasigniﬁcantimprove ment
on the prior-art conﬁgurations can be achieved by pushing th e depth to 16–19
weight layers. These ﬁndings were the basis of our ImageNet C hallenge 2014
submission,whereourteamsecuredtheﬁrstandthesecondpl acesinthelocalisa-
tion and classiﬁcation tracks respectively. We also show th at our representations
generalise well to other datasets, where they achieve state -of-the-art results. We
have made our two best-performingConvNet models publicly a vailable to facili-
tate furtherresearchontheuse ofdeepvisualrepresentati onsincomputervision.
1 INTRODUCTION
Convolutional networks (ConvNets) have recently enjoyed a great success in large-scale im-
age and video recognition (Krizhevskyetal., 2012; Zeiler& Fergus, 2013; Sermanetet al., 2014;
Simonyan& Zisserman, 2014) which has become possible due to the large public image reposito-
ries,suchasImageNet(Denget al.,2009),andhigh-perform ancecomputingsystems,suchasGPUs
orlarge-scaledistributedclusters(Deanet al., 2012). In particular,animportantroleintheadvance
ofdeepvisualrecognitionarchitectureshasbeenplayedby theImageNetLarge-ScaleVisualRecog-
nition Challenge (ILSVRC) (Russakovskyet al., 2014), whic h has served as a testbed for a few
generationsof large-scale image classiﬁcation systems, f rom high-dimensionalshallow feature en-
codings(Perronninetal.,2010)(thewinnerofILSVRC-2011 )todeepConvNets(Krizhevskyet al.,
2012)(thewinnerofILSVRC-2012).
With ConvNets becoming more of a commodity in the computer vi sion ﬁeld, a number of at-
tempts have been made to improve the original architecture o f Krizhevskyet al. (2012) in a
bid to achieve better accuracy. For instance, the best-perf orming submissions to the ILSVRC-
2013 (Zeiler&Fergus, 2013; Sermanetetal., 2014) utilised smaller receptive window size and
smaller stride of the ﬁrst convolutional layer. Another lin e of improvements dealt with training
and testing the networks densely over the whole image and ove r multiple scales (Sermanetet al.,
2014; Howard, 2014). In this paper, we address another impor tant aspect of ConvNet architecture
design–itsdepth. Tothisend,we ﬁxotherparametersofthea rchitecture,andsteadilyincreasethe
depth of the network by adding more convolutionallayers, wh ich is feasible due to the use of very
small (3×3)convolutionﬁltersinall layers.
As a result, we come up with signiﬁcantly more accurate ConvN et architectures, which not only
achieve the state-of-the-art accuracy on ILSVRC classiﬁca tion and localisation tasks, but are also
applicabletootherimagerecognitiondatasets,wherethey achieveexcellentperformanceevenwhen
usedasa partofa relativelysimple pipelines(e.g.deepfea turesclassiﬁed byalinearSVM without
ﬁne-tuning). We havereleasedourtwobest-performingmode ls1tofacilitatefurtherresearch.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Sect. 2, we de scribe our ConvNet conﬁgurations.
The details of the image classiﬁcation trainingand evaluat ionare then presented in Sect. 3, and the
∗current afﬁliation: Google DeepMind+current afﬁliation: Universityof Oxfordand Google DeepMi nd
1http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/ ˜vgg/research/very_deep/
1
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
conﬁgurations are compared on the ILSVRC classiﬁcation tas k in Sect. 4. Sect. 5 concludes the
paper. For completeness,we also describeand assess our ILS VRC-2014object localisationsystem
inAppendixA,anddiscussthegeneralisationofverydeepfe aturestootherdatasetsinAppendixB.
Finally,AppendixCcontainsthelist ofmajorpaperrevisio ns.
2 CONVNETCONFIGURATIONS
To measure the improvement brought by the increased ConvNet depth in a fair setting, all our
ConvNet layer conﬁgurations are designed using the same pri nciples, inspired by Ciresan etal.
(2011); Krizhevskyet al. (2012). In this section, we ﬁrst de scribe a generic layout of our ConvNet
conﬁgurations(Sect.2.1)andthendetailthespeciﬁcconﬁg urationsusedintheevaluation(Sect.2.2).
Ourdesignchoicesarethendiscussedandcomparedtothepri orart inSect. 2.3.
2.1 A RCHITECTURE
During training, the input to our ConvNets is a ﬁxed-size 224×224RGB image. The only pre-
processingwedoissubtractingthemeanRGBvalue,computed onthetrainingset,fromeachpixel.
Theimageispassedthroughastackofconvolutional(conv.) layers,whereweuseﬁlterswithavery
small receptive ﬁeld: 3×3(which is the smallest size to capture the notion of left/rig ht, up/down,
center). In one of the conﬁgurationswe also utilise 1×1convolutionﬁlters, which can be seen as
a linear transformationof the input channels (followed by n on-linearity). The convolutionstride is
ﬁxedto1pixel;thespatialpaddingofconv.layerinputissuchthatt hespatialresolutionispreserved
afterconvolution,i.e. the paddingis 1pixel for3×3conv.layers. Spatial poolingis carriedoutby
ﬁvemax-poolinglayers,whichfollowsomeoftheconv.layer s(notalltheconv.layersarefollowed
bymax-pooling). Max-poolingisperformedovera 2×2pixelwindow,withstride 2.
Astackofconvolutionallayers(whichhasadifferentdepth indifferentarchitectures)isfollowedby
three Fully-Connected(FC) layers: the ﬁrst two have4096ch annelseach,the thirdperforms1000-
way ILSVRC classiﬁcation and thus contains1000channels(o ne foreach class). The ﬁnal layer is
thesoft-maxlayer. Theconﬁgurationofthefullyconnected layersis thesameinall networks.
Allhiddenlayersareequippedwiththerectiﬁcation(ReLU( Krizhevskyetal.,2012))non-linearity.
We note that none of our networks (except for one) contain Loc al Response Normalisation
(LRN) normalisation (Krizhevskyet al., 2012): as will be sh own in Sect. 4, such normalisation
does not improve the performance on the ILSVRC dataset, but l eads to increased memory con-
sumption and computation time. Where applicable, the param eters for the LRN layer are those
of(Krizhevskyetal., 2012).
2.2 C ONFIGURATIONS
The ConvNet conﬁgurations, evaluated in this paper, are out lined in Table 1, one per column. In
the following we will refer to the nets by their names (A–E). A ll conﬁgurationsfollow the generic
design presented in Sect. 2.1, and differ only in the depth: f rom 11 weight layers in the network A
(8conv.and3FClayers)to19weightlayersinthenetworkE(1 6conv.and3FClayers). Thewidth
of conv.layers (the number of channels) is rather small, sta rting from 64in the ﬁrst layer and then
increasingbyafactorof 2aftereachmax-poolinglayer,untilit reaches 512.
In Table 2 we reportthe numberof parametersfor each conﬁgur ation. In spite of a large depth, the
numberof weights in our netsis not greater thanthe numberof weightsin a moreshallow net with
largerconv.layerwidthsandreceptiveﬁelds(144Mweights in(Sermanetet al., 2014)).
2.3 D ISCUSSION
Our ConvNet conﬁgurations are quite different from the ones used in the top-performing entries
of the ILSVRC-2012 (Krizhevskyetal., 2012) and ILSVRC-201 3 competitions (Zeiler& Fergus,
2013;Sermanetet al.,2014). Ratherthanusingrelativelyl argereceptiveﬁeldsintheﬁrstconv.lay-
ers(e.g.11×11withstride 4in(Krizhevskyet al.,2012),or 7×7withstride 2in(Zeiler& Fergus,
2013; Sermanetet al., 2014)), we use very small 3×3receptive ﬁelds throughout the whole net,
whichareconvolvedwiththeinputateverypixel(withstrid e1). Itiseasytoseethatastackoftwo
3×3conv.layers(withoutspatialpoolinginbetween)hasaneff ectivereceptiveﬁeldof 5×5;three
2
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
Table 1:ConvNet conﬁgurations (shown in columns). The depth of the conﬁgurations increase s
fromtheleft(A)totheright(E),asmorelayersareadded(th eaddedlayersareshowninbold). The
convolutional layer parameters are denoted as “conv /an}bracketle{treceptive ﬁeld size /an}bracketri}ht-/an}bracketle{tnumber of channels /an}bracketri}ht”.
TheReLU activationfunctionisnotshownforbrevity.
ConvNet Conﬁguration
A A-LRN B C D E
11weight 11weight 13 weight 16weight 16weight 19 weight
layers layers layers layers layers layers
input (224×224RGBimage)
conv3-64 conv3-64 conv3-64 conv3-64 conv3-64 conv3-64
LRN conv3-64 conv3-64 conv3-64 conv3-64
maxpool
conv3-128 conv3-128 conv3-128 conv3-128 conv3-128 conv3-128
conv3-128 conv3-128 conv3-128 conv3-128
maxpool
conv3-256 conv3-256 conv3-256 conv3-256 conv3-256 conv3-256
conv3-256 conv3-256 conv3-256 conv3-256 conv3-256 conv3-256
conv1-256 conv3-256 conv3-256
conv3-256
maxpool
conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512
conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512
conv1-512 conv3-512 conv3-512
conv3-512
maxpool
conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512
conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512 conv3-512
conv1-512 conv3-512 conv3-512
conv3-512
maxpool
FC-4096
FC-4096
FC-1000
soft-max
Table2:Number ofparameters (inmillions).
Network A,A-LRN BCDE
Number of parameters 133 133134138144
such layers have a 7×7effectivereceptive ﬁeld. So what have we gainedby using, fo r instance, a
stackofthree 3×3conv.layersinsteadofasingle 7×7layer? First,weincorporatethreenon-linear
rectiﬁcation layers instead of a single one, which makes the decision functionmore discriminative.
Second, we decrease the number of parameters: assuming that both the input and the output of a
three-layer 3×3convolutionstack has Cchannels,the stack is parametrisedby 3/parenleftbig
32C2/parenrightbig
= 27C2
weights; at the same time, a single 7×7conv. layer would require 72C2= 49C2parameters, i.e.
81%more. Thiscan be seen as imposinga regularisationon the 7×7conv.ﬁlters, forcingthemto
haveadecompositionthroughthe 3×3ﬁlters(withnon-linearityinjectedin between).
The incorporation of 1×1conv. layers (conﬁguration C, Table 1) is a way to increase th e non-
linearity of the decision function without affecting the re ceptive ﬁelds of the conv. layers. Even
thoughinourcasethe 1×1convolutionisessentiallyalinearprojectionontothespa ceofthesame
dimensionality(thenumberofinputandoutputchannelsist hesame),anadditionalnon-linearityis
introducedbytherectiﬁcationfunction. Itshouldbenoted that1×1conv.layershaverecentlybeen
utilisedin the“NetworkinNetwork”architectureofLinet a l.(2014).
Small-size convolution ﬁlters have been previously used by Ciresan etal. (2011), but their nets
are signiﬁcantly less deep than ours, and they did not evalua te on the large-scale ILSVRC
dataset. Goodfellowet al. (2014) applied deep ConvNets ( 11weight layers) to the task of
street number recognition, and showed that the increased de pth led to better performance.
GoogLeNet(Szegedyet al., 2014), a top-performingentryof the ILSVRC-2014classiﬁcation task,
was developed independentlyof our work, but is similar in th at it is based on very deep ConvNets
3
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
(22 weight layers) and small convolution ﬁlters (apart from 3×3, they also use 1×1and5×5
convolutions). Their network topology is, however, more co mplex than ours, and the spatial reso-
lution of the feature maps is reduced more aggressively in th e ﬁrst layers to decrease the amount
of computation. As will be shown in Sect. 4.5, our model is out performing that of Szegedyetal.
(2014)intermsofthesingle-networkclassiﬁcationaccura cy.
3 CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK
In the previous section we presented the details of our netwo rk conﬁgurations. In this section, we
describethe detailsofclassiﬁcationConvNettrainingand evaluation.
3.1 T RAINING
The ConvNet training procedure generally follows Krizhevs kyetal. (2012) (except for sampling
theinputcropsfrommulti-scaletrainingimages,asexplai nedlater). Namely,thetrainingiscarried
out by optimising the multinomial logistic regression obje ctive using mini-batch gradient descent
(based on back-propagation(LeCunet al., 1989)) with momen tum. The batch size was set to 256,
momentum to 0.9. The training was regularised by weight decay (the L2penalty multiplier set to
5·10−4)anddropoutregularisationfortheﬁrsttwofully-connect edlayers(dropoutratiosetto 0.5).
Thelearningrate wasinitially setto 10−2,andthendecreasedbyafactorof 10whenthevalidation
set accuracy stopped improving. In total, the learning rate was decreased 3 times, and the learning
was stopped after 370K iterations (74 epochs). We conjecture that in spite of the l arger number of
parametersandthegreaterdepthofournetscomparedto(Kri zhevskyetal.,2012),thenetsrequired
lessepochstoconvergedueto(a)implicitregularisationi mposedbygreaterdepthandsmallerconv.
ﬁlter sizes; (b)pre-initialisationofcertainlayers.
The initialisation of the networkweightsis important,sin ce bad initialisation can stall learningdue
to the instability of gradient in deep nets. To circumvent th is problem, we began with training
the conﬁgurationA (Table 1), shallow enoughto be trained wi th randominitialisation. Then,when
trainingdeeperarchitectures,weinitialisedtheﬁrstfou rconvolutionallayersandthelastthreefully-
connectedlayerswiththelayersofnetA(theintermediatel ayerswereinitialisedrandomly). Wedid
notdecreasethelearningrateforthepre-initialisedlaye rs,allowingthemtochangeduringlearning.
For random initialisation (where applicable), we sampled t he weights from a normal distribution
with thezeromeanand 10−2variance. The biaseswere initialisedwith zero. It isworth notingthat
after the paper submission we found that it is possible to ini tialise the weights without pre-training
byusingthe randominitialisationprocedureofGlorot&Ben gio(2010).
Toobtaintheﬁxed-size 224×224ConvNetinputimages,theywererandomlycroppedfromresca led
training images (one crop per image per SGD iteration). To fu rther augment the training set, the
cropsunderwentrandomhorizontalﬂippingandrandomRGBco lourshift(Krizhevskyet al.,2012).
Trainingimagerescalingisexplainedbelow.
Training image size. LetSbe the smallest side of an isotropically-rescaledtraining image, from
which the ConvNet input is cropped (we also refer to Sas the training scale). While the crop size
is ﬁxed to 224×224, in principle Scan take on any value not less than 224: forS= 224the crop
will capture whole-image statistics, completely spanning the smallest side of a training image; for
S≫224thecropwillcorrespondtoasmallpartoftheimage,contain ingasmallobjectoranobject
part.
We considertwoapproachesforsettingthetrainingscale S. Theﬁrst istoﬁx S,whichcorresponds
to single-scale training (note that image content within th e sampled crops can still represent multi-
scale image statistics). In our experiments, we evaluated m odels trained at two ﬁxed scales: S=
256(which has been widely used in the prior art (Krizhevskyet al ., 2012; Zeiler&Fergus, 2013;
Sermanetet al., 2014)) and S= 384. Given a ConvNet conﬁguration,we ﬁrst trained the network
usingS= 256. To speed-up training of the S= 384network, it was initialised with the weights
pre-trainedwith S= 256,andwe useda smallerinitiallearningrateof 10−3.
The second approachto setting Sis multi-scale training, where each training image is indiv idually
rescaled by randomly sampling Sfrom a certain range [Smin,Smax](we used Smin= 256and
Smax= 512). Sinceobjectsinimagescanbeofdifferentsize,itisbene ﬁcialtotakethisintoaccount
duringtraining. Thiscanalso beseen astrainingset augmen tationbyscale jittering,wherea single
4
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
model is trained to recognise objects over a wide range of sca les. For speed reasons, we trained
multi-scale models by ﬁne-tuning all layers of a single-sca le model with the same conﬁguration,
pre-trainedwithﬁxed S= 384.
3.2 T ESTING
Attest time,givena trainedConvNetandaninputimage,itis classiﬁed inthefollowingway. First,
it is isotropically rescaled to a pre-deﬁned smallest image side, denoted as Q(we also refer to it
as the test scale). We note that Qis not necessarily equal to the training scale S(as we will show
in Sect. 4, usingseveralvaluesof QforeachSleadsto improvedperformance). Then,the network
is applied densely overthe rescaled test image in a way simil ar to (Sermanetet al., 2014). Namely,
the fully-connected layers are ﬁrst converted to convoluti onal layers (the ﬁrst FC layer to a 7×7
conv. layer, the last two FC layers to 1×1conv. layers). The resulting fully-convolutional net is
then applied to the whole (uncropped) image. The result is a c lass score map with the number of
channels equal to the number of classes, and a variable spati al resolution, dependent on the input
imagesize. Finally,toobtainaﬁxed-sizevectorofclasssc oresfortheimage,theclassscoremapis
spatially averaged(sum-pooled). We also augmentthe test s et by horizontalﬂippingof the images;
thesoft-maxclassposteriorsoftheoriginalandﬂippedima gesareaveragedtoobtaintheﬁnalscores
fortheimage.
Since the fully-convolutionalnetwork is applied over the w hole image, there is no need to sample
multiple crops at test time (Krizhevskyetal., 2012), which is less efﬁcient as it requires network
re-computationforeachcrop. Atthesametime,usingalarge setofcrops,asdonebySzegedyetal.
(2014),canleadtoimprovedaccuracy,asit resultsin aﬁner samplingoftheinputimagecompared
tothefully-convolutionalnet. Also,multi-cropevaluati oniscomplementarytodenseevaluationdue
to different convolution boundary conditions: when applyi ng a ConvNet to a crop, the convolved
feature mapsare paddedwith zeros, while in the case of dense evaluationthe paddingfor the same
crop naturally comes from the neighbouring parts of an image (due to both the convolutions and
spatial pooling), which substantially increases the overa ll network receptive ﬁeld, so more context
iscaptured. Whilewebelievethatinpracticetheincreased computationtimeofmultiplecropsdoes
notjustifythepotentialgainsinaccuracy,forreferencew ealsoevaluateournetworksusing 50crops
perscale( 5×5regulargridwith 2ﬂips),foratotalof 150cropsover 3scales,whichiscomparable
to144cropsover 4scalesusedbySzegedyetal. (2014).
3.3 IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS
OurimplementationisderivedfromthepubliclyavailableC ++ Caffetoolbox(Jia,2013)(branched
out in December 2013), but contains a number of signiﬁcant mo diﬁcations, allowing us to perform
trainingandevaluationonmultipleGPUsinstalledinasing lesystem,aswellastrainandevaluateon
full-size (uncropped) images at multiple scales (as descri bed above). Multi-GPU training exploits
data parallelism, and is carried out by splitting each batch of training images into several GPU
batches, processed in parallel on each GPU. After the GPU bat ch gradientsare computed, they are
averaged to obtain the gradient of the full batch. Gradient c omputation is synchronous across the
GPUs, sothe resultisexactlythesame aswhentrainingona si ngleGPU.
While more sophisticated methods of speeding up ConvNet tra ining have been recently pro-
posed (Krizhevsky, 2014), which employmodeland data paral lelism for differentlayersof the net,
wehavefoundthatourconceptuallymuchsimplerschemealre adyprovidesaspeedupof 3.75times
on an off-the-shelf4-GPU system, as comparedto using a sing le GPU. On a system equippedwith
fourNVIDIATitanBlackGPUs,trainingasinglenettook2–3w eeksdependingonthearchitecture.
4 CLASSIFICATION EXPERIMENTS
Dataset. In this section, we present the image classiﬁcation results achieved by the described
ConvNetarchitecturesontheILSVRC-2012dataset(whichwa susedforILSVRC2012–2014chal-
lenges). The dataset includes images of 1000 classes, and is split into three sets: training ( 1.3M
images), validation ( 50K images), and testing ( 100K images with held-out class labels). The clas-
siﬁcation performanceis evaluated using two measures: the top-1 and top-5 error. The former is a
multi-class classiﬁcation error, i.e. the proportion of in correctly classiﬁed images; the latter is the
5
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
main evaluation criterion used in ILSVRC, and is computed as the proportion of images such that
theground-truthcategoryisoutsidethetop-5predictedca tegories.
Forthemajorityofexperiments,weusedthevalidationseta sthetestset. Certainexperimentswere
also carried out on the test set and submitted to the ofﬁcial I LSVRC server as a “VGG” team entry
tothe ILSVRC-2014competition(Russakovskyet al., 2014).
4.1 SINGLESCALEEVALUATION
We begin with evaluating the performanceof individual Conv Net models at a single scale with the
layerconﬁgurationsdescribedin Sect. 2.2. The test images ize was set as follows: Q=Sforﬁxed
S,andQ= 0.5(Smin+Smax)forjittered S∈[Smin,Smax]. Theresultsofareshownin Table3.
First, we note that using local response normalisation (A-L RN network) does not improve on the
model A without any normalisation layers. We thus do not empl oy normalisation in the deeper
architectures(B–E).
Second, we observe that the classiﬁcation error decreases w ith the increased ConvNet depth: from
11 layers in A to 19 layers in E. Notably, in spite of the same de pth, the conﬁguration C (which
containsthree 1×1conv.layers),performsworsethantheconﬁgurationD,whic huses3×3conv.
layersthroughoutthenetwork. Thisindicatesthatwhileth e additionalnon-linearitydoeshelp(Cis
better than B), it is also important to capture spatial conte xt by using conv. ﬁlters with non-trivial
receptive ﬁelds (D is better than C). The error rate of our arc hitecture saturates when the depth
reaches19layers,butevendeepermodelsmightbebeneﬁcialforlarger datasets. Wealsocompared
the net B with a shallow net with ﬁve 5×5conv. layers, which was derived from B by replacing
eachpairof 3×3conv. layerswithasingle 5×5conv. layer(whichhasthesamereceptiveﬁeldas
explained in Sect. 2.3). The top-1 error of the shallow net wa s measured to be 7%higher than that
of B (on a center crop),which conﬁrmsthat a deepnet with smal l ﬁlters outperformsa shallow net
withlargerﬁlters.
Finally, scale jittering at training time ( S∈[256;512] ) leads to signiﬁcantly better results than
training on images with ﬁxed smallest side ( S= 256orS= 384), even though a single scale is
usedattesttime. Thisconﬁrmsthattrainingsetaugmentati onbyscalejitteringisindeedhelpfulfor
capturingmulti-scaleimagestatistics.
Table3:ConvNetperformanceatasingle testscale.
ConvNet conﬁg. (Table 1) smallest image side top-1 val.error (%) top-5 val.error (%)
train(S)test (Q)
A 256 256 29.6 10.4
A-LRN 256 256 29.7 10.5
B 256 256 28.7 9.9
C256 256 28.1 9.4
384 384 28.1 9.3
[256;512] 384 27.3 8.8
D256 256 27.0 8.8
384 384 26.8 8.7
[256;512] 384 25.6 8.1
E256 256 27.3 9.0
384 384 26.9 8.7
[256;512] 384 25.5 8.0
4.2 M ULTI-SCALEEVALUATION
HavingevaluatedtheConvNetmodelsatasinglescale,wenow assesstheeffectofscalejitteringat
testtime. Itconsistsofrunningamodeloverseveralrescal edversionsofatestimage(corresponding
to different values of Q), followed by averaging the resulting class posteriors. Co nsidering that a
large discrepancy between training and testing scales lead s to a drop in performance, the models
trained with ﬁxed Swere evaluated over three test image sizes, close to the trai ning one: Q=
{S−32,S,S+ 32}. At the same time, scale jittering at training time allows th e network to be
appliedto a widerrangeofscales at test time,so the modeltr ainedwithvariable S∈[Smin;Smax]
wasevaluatedoveralargerrangeofsizes Q={Smin,0.5(Smin+Smax),Smax}.
6
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
Theresults,presentedinTable4,indicatethatscalejitte ringattest timeleadstobetterperformance
(as compared to evaluating the same model at a single scale, s hown in Table 3). As before, the
deepest conﬁgurations(D and E) perform the best, and scale j ittering is better than training with a
ﬁxed smallest side S. Our best single-network performance on the validation set is24.8%/7.5%
top-1/top-5error(highlightedinboldinTable4). Onthete stset,theconﬁgurationEachieves 7.3%
top-5error.
Table4:ConvNetperformanceatmultiple test scales.
ConvNet conﬁg. (Table 1) smallest image side top-1val. error (%) top-5val. error (%)
train(S)test(Q)
B 256 224,256,288 28.2 9.6
C256 224,256,288 27.7 9.2
384 352,384,416 27.8 9.2
[256;512] 256,384,512 26.3 8.2
D256 224,256,288 26.6 8.6
384 352,384,416 26.5 8.6
[256;512] 256,384,512 24.8 7.5
E256 224,256,288 26.9 8.7
384 352,384,416 26.7 8.6
[256;512] 256,384,512 24.8 7.5
4.3 M ULTI-CROP EVALUATION
In Table 5 we compare dense ConvNet evaluation with mult-cro p evaluation (see Sect. 3.2 for de-
tails). We also assess the complementarityof thetwo evalua tiontechniquesbyaveragingtheirsoft-
max outputs. As can be seen, using multiple crops performs sl ightly better than dense evaluation,
andthe two approachesareindeedcomplementary,astheir co mbinationoutperformseach ofthem.
As noted above, we hypothesize that this is due to a different treatment of convolution boundary
conditions.
Table 5:ConvNetevaluationtechniques comparison. Inall experimentsthe trainingscale Swas
sampledfrom [256;512] ,andthreetest scales Qwereconsidered: {256,384,512}.
ConvNet conﬁg. (Table 1) Evaluationmethod top-1 val. error(%) top-5 val. error (%)
Ddense 24.8 7.5
multi-crop 24.6 7.5
multi-crop &dense 24.4 7.2
Edense 24.8 7.5
multi-crop 24.6 7.4
multi-crop &dense 24.4 7.1
4.4 C ONVNETFUSION
Upuntilnow,weevaluatedtheperformanceofindividualCon vNetmodels. Inthispartoftheexper-
iments,wecombinetheoutputsofseveralmodelsbyaveragin gtheirsoft-maxclassposteriors. This
improvesthe performancedueto complementarityof the mode ls, andwas used in the top ILSVRC
submissions in 2012 (Krizhevskyet al., 2012) and 2013 (Zeil er&Fergus, 2013; Sermanetet al.,
2014).
The results are shown in Table 6. By the time of ILSVRC submiss ion we had only trained the
single-scale networks, as well as a multi-scale model D (by ﬁ ne-tuning only the fully-connected
layers rather than all layers). The resulting ensemble of 7 n etworks has 7.3%ILSVRC test error.
After the submission, we considered an ensemble of only two b est-performing multi-scale models
(conﬁgurations D and E), which reduced the test error to 7.0%using dense evaluation and 6.8%
using combined dense and multi-crop evaluation. For refere nce, our best-performingsingle model
achieves7.1%error(modelE, Table5).
4.5 C OMPARISON WITH THE STATE OF THE ART
Finally, we compare our results with the state of the art in Ta ble 7. In the classiﬁcation task of
ILSVRC-2014 challenge (Russakovskyet al., 2014), our “VGG ” team secured the 2nd place with
7
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
Table6:Multiple ConvNetfusion results.
Combined ConvNet modelsError
top-1 val top-5val top-5test
ILSVRCsubmission
(D/256/224,256,288), (D/384/352,384,416), (D/[256;512 ]/256,384,512)
(C/256/224,256,288), (C/384/352,384,416)
(E/256/224,256,288), (E/384/352,384,416)24.7 7.5 7.3
post-submission
(D/[256;512]/256,384,512), (E/[256;512]/256,384,512) ,dense eval. 24.0 7.1 7.0
(D/[256;512]/256,384,512), (E/[256;512]/256,384,512) ,multi-crop 23.9 7.2 -
(D/[256;512]/256,384,512), (E/[256;512]/256,384,512) ,multi-crop &dense eval. 23.7 6.8 6.8
7.3%test errorusinganensembleof7 models. Afterthesubmissio n,we decreasedtheerrorrateto
6.8%usinganensembleof2models.
As can be seen from Table 7, our very deep ConvNetssigniﬁcant ly outperformthe previousgener-
ation of models, which achieved the best results in the ILSVR C-2012 and ILSVRC-2013 competi-
tions. Our result is also competitivewith respect to the cla ssiﬁcation task winner(GoogLeNetwith
6.7%error) and substantially outperforms the ILSVRC-2013 winn ing submission Clarifai, which
achieved 11.2%with outside training data and 11.7%without it. This is remarkable, considering
that our best result is achievedby combiningjust two models – signiﬁcantly less than used in most
ILSVRC submissions. In terms of the single-net performance , our architecture achieves the best
result (7.0%test error), outperforming a single GoogLeNet by 0.9%. Notably, we did not depart
from the classical ConvNet architecture of LeCunetal. (198 9), but improved it by substantially
increasingthedepth.
Table 7:Comparison with the state of the art in ILSVRC classiﬁcation . Our methodis denoted
as“VGG”.Onlytheresultsobtainedwithoutoutsidetrainin gdataarereported.
Method top-1 val. error(%) top-5val. error (%) top-5testerror (%)
VGG(2nets, multi-crop& dense eval.) 23.7 6.8 6.8
VGG(1net, multi-crop& dense eval.) 24.4 7.1 7.0
VGG(ILSVRCsubmission, 7nets, dense eval.) 24.7 7.5 7.3
GoogLeNet (Szegedy et al., 2014) (1net) - 7.9
GoogLeNet (Szegedy et al., 2014) (7nets) - 6.7
MSRA(He et al., 2014) (11nets) - - 8.1
MSRA(He et al., 2014) (1net) 27.9 9.1 9.1
Clarifai(Russakovsky et al., 2014) (multiplenets) - - 11.7
Clarifai(Russakovsky et al., 2014) (1net) - - 12.5
Zeiler& Fergus (Zeiler&Fergus, 2013) (6nets) 36.0 14.7 14.8
Zeiler& Fergus (Zeiler&Fergus, 2013) (1net) 37.5 16.0 16.1
OverFeat (Sermanetet al.,2014) (7nets) 34.0 13.2 13.6
OverFeat (Sermanetet al.,2014) (1net) 35.7 14.2 -
Krizhevsky et al.(Krizhevsky et al., 2012) (5nets) 38.1 16.4 16.4
Krizhevsky et al.(Krizhevsky et al., 2012) (1net) 40.7 18.2 -
5 CONCLUSION
In this work we evaluated very deep convolutional networks ( up to 19 weight layers) for large-
scale image classiﬁcation. It was demonstrated that the rep resentation depth is beneﬁcial for the
classiﬁcationaccuracy,andthatstate-of-the-artperfor manceontheImageNetchallengedatasetcan
beachievedusingaconventionalConvNetarchitecture(LeC unet al.,1989;Krizhevskyet al.,2012)
withsubstantiallyincreaseddepth. Intheappendix,weals oshowthatourmodelsgeneralisewellto
a wide range of tasks and datasets, matchingor outperformin gmore complexrecognitionpipelines
builtaroundlessdeepimagerepresentations. Ourresultsy etagainconﬁrmtheimportanceof depth
invisualrepresentations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ThisworkwassupportedbyERCgrantVisRecno.228180. Wegra tefullyacknowledgethesupport
ofNVIDIACorporationwiththedonationoftheGPUsusedfort hisresearch.
8
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
REFERENCES
Bell, S., Upchurch, P.,Snavely, N., and Bala, K. Material re cognition inthe wild withthe materials in context
database. CoRR,abs/1412.0623, 2014.
Chatﬁeld, K., Simonyan, K., Vedaldi, A., and Zisserman, A. R eturn of the devil in the details: Delving deep
intoconvolutional nets. In Proc.BMVC. ,2014.
Cimpoi,M.,Maji,S.,andVedaldi,A. Deepconvolutionalﬁlt erbanksfortexturerecognitionandsegmentation.
CoRR,abs/1411.6836, 2014.
Ciresan, D. C., Meier, U., Masci, J., Gambardella, L. M., and Schmidhuber, J. Flexible, high performance
convolutional neural networks for image classiﬁcation. In IJCAI,pp. 1237–1242, 2011.
Dean, J., Corrado, G., Monga, R., Chen, K., Devin, M., Mao, M. , Ranzato, M., Senior, A., Tucker, P., Yang,
K.,Le,Q. V.,andNg, A.Y. Large scale distributeddeepnetwo rks. InNIPS,pp. 1232–1240, 2012.
Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., and Fei-Fei , L. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image
database. In Proc.CVPR ,2009.
Donahue,J.,Jia,Y.,Vinyals,O.,Hoffman,J.,Zhang,N.,Tz eng,E.,andDarrell,T.Decaf: Adeepconvolutional
activation feature for generic visual recognition. CoRR,abs/1310.1531, 2013.
Everingham, M., Eslami, S.M. A., Van Gool, L., Williams,C., Winn, J., and Zisserman, A. The Pascal visual
object classes challenge: Aretrospective. IJCV,111(1):98–136, 2015.
Fei-Fei, L., Fergus, R., and Perona, P. Learning generative visual models from few training examples: An
incremental bayesian approach tested on 101 object categor ies. InIEEE CVPR Workshop of Generative
Model BasedVision , 2004.
Girshick, R. B., Donahue, J., Darrell, T., and Malik, J. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection
and semantic segmentation. CoRR,abs/1311.2524v5, 2014. PublishedinProc.CVPR,2014.
Gkioxari, G.,Girshick, R.,and Malik, J. Actions and attrib utes from wholes and parts. CoRR,abs/1412.2604,
2014.
Glorot, X. andBengio, Y. Understanding the difﬁcultyof tra iningdeep feedforward neural networks. In Proc.
AISTATS,volume 9, pp. 249–256, 2010.
Goodfellow, I. J., Bulatov, Y., Ibarz, J., Arnoud, S., and Sh et, V. Multi-digit number recognition from street
view imagery usingdeep convolutional neural networks. In Proc.ICLR ,2014.
Grifﬁn, G., Holub, A., and Perona, P. Caltech-256 object cat egory dataset. Technical Report 7694, California
Institute of Technology, 2007.
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., and Sun, J. Spatial pyramid poolin g in deep convolutional networks for visual
recognition. CoRR,abs/1406.4729v2, 2014.
Hoai, M. Regularizedmax pooling forimage categorization. InProc. BMVC. ,2014.
Howard, A.G. Someimprovements ondeepconvolutional neura l networkbasedimageclassiﬁcation. In Proc.
ICLR,2014.
Jia, Y. Caffe: An open source convolutional architecture fo r fast feature embedding.
http://caffe.berkeleyvision.org/ ,2013.
Karpathy, A. and Fei-Fei, L. Deep visual-semantic alignmen ts for generating image descriptions. CoRR,
abs/1412.2306, 2014.
Kiros, R., Salakhutdinov, R., and Zemel, R. S. Unifying visu al-semantic embeddings with multimodal neural
language models. CoRR,abs/1411.2539, 2014.
Krizhevsky, A. One weirdtrickfor parallelizingconvoluti onal neural networks. CoRR,abs/1404.5997, 2014.
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Hinton, G. E. ImageNet cl assiﬁcation with deep convolutional neural net-
works. In NIPS,pp. 1106–1114, 2012.
LeCun,Y.,Boser, B.,Denker, J.S.,Henderson, D.,Howard, R .E.,Hubbard, W.,andJackel, L.D. Backpropa-
gationapplied tohandwrittenzipcode recognition. Neural Computation , 1(4):541–551, 1989.
Lin,M., Chen, Q.,andYan, S. Networkinnetwork. In Proc.ICLR ,2014.
Long, J., Shelhamer, E., and Darrell, T. Fully convolutiona l networks for semantic segmentation. CoRR,
abs/1411.4038, 2014.
Oquab, M., Bottou, L., Laptev, I., and Sivic, J. Learning and Transferring Mid-Level Image Representations
using Convolutional Neural Networks. In Proc.CVPR ,2014.
Perronnin, F.,S´ anchez, J.,andMensink, T. Improving theF isherkernel forlarge-scale image classiﬁcation. In
Proc.ECCV ,2010.
Razavian, A.,Azizpour, H.,Sullivan, J.,andCarlsson,S. C NNFeaturesoff-the-shelf: anAstounding Baseline
for Recognition. CoRR,abs/1403.6382, 2014.
9
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A.,
Bernstein, M., Berg, A. C., and Fei-Fei, L. ImageNet large sc ale visual recognition challenge. CoRR,
abs/1409.0575, 2014.
Sermanet,P.,Eigen, D.,Zhang, X.,Mathieu, M.,Fergus,R., andLeCun,Y. OverFeat: IntegratedRecognition,
Localizationand Detectionusing Convolutional Networks. InProc.ICLR ,2014.
Simonyan, K. and Zisserman, A. Two-stream convolutional ne tworks for action recognition in videos. CoRR,
abs/1406.2199, 2014. Published inProc.NIPS,2014.
Szegedy, C., Liu, W.,Jia, Y., Sermanet, P.,Reed, S.,Anguel ov, D.,Erhan, D., Vanhoucke, V., and Rabinovich,
A. Goingdeeper withconvolutions. CoRR,abs/1409.4842, 2014.
Wei, Y., Xia, W., Huang, J., Ni, B., Dong, J., Zhao, Y., and Yan , S. CNN: Single-label to multi-label. CoRR,
abs/1406.5726, 2014.
Zeiler, M. D. and Fergus, R. Visualizing and understanding c onvolutional networks. CoRR, abs/1311.2901,
2013. PublishedinProc. ECCV,2014.
A LOCALISATION
In the main bodyof the paper we have consideredthe classiﬁca tion task of the ILSVRC challenge,
and performed a thorough evaluation of ConvNet architectur es of different depth. In this section,
we turn to the localisation task of the challenge, which we ha ve won in 2014 with 25.3%error. It
can be seen as a special case of object detection, where a sing le object bounding box should be
predictedforeach ofthe top-5classes, irrespectiveof the actual numberofobjectsof the class. For
thiswe adoptthe approachof Sermanetet al. (2014), the winn ersof the ILSVRC-2013localisation
challenge,withafewmodiﬁcations. Ourmethodisdescribed inSect.A.1andevaluatedinSect.A.2.
A.1 L OCALISATION CONVNET
To perform object localisation, we use a very deep ConvNet, w here the last fully connected layer
predicts the bounding box location instead of the class scor es. A bounding box is represented by
a 4-D vector storing its center coordinates, width, and heig ht. There is a choice of whether the
boundingbox prediction is shared across all classes (singl e-class regression, SCR (Sermanetet al.,
2014))orisclass-speciﬁc(per-classregression,PCR).In theformercase,thelastlayeris4-D,while
in the latter it is 4000-D (since there are 1000 classes in the dataset). Apart from the last bounding
boxpredictionlayer,weuse theConvNetarchitectureD (Tab le1),whichcontains16weightlayers
andwasfoundtobe thebest-performingin theclassiﬁcation task (Sect.4).
Training. Training of localisation ConvNets is similar to that of the c lassiﬁcation ConvNets
(Sect.3.1). Themaindifferenceisthatwereplacethelogis ticregressionobjectivewithaEuclidean
loss,whichpenalisesthedeviationofthepredictedboundi ngboxparametersfromtheground-truth.
We trainedtwo localisation models, each on a single scale: S= 256andS= 384(due to the time
constraints,we didnot use trainingscale jitteringforour ILSVRC-2014submission). Trainingwas
initialised with the correspondingclassiﬁcation models ( trained on the same scales), and the initial
learning rate was set to 10−3. We exploredboth ﬁne-tuningall layers and ﬁne-tuningonly the ﬁrst
two fully-connected layers, as done in (Sermanetetal., 201 4). The last fully-connected layer was
initialisedrandomlyandtrainedfromscratch.
Testing. We consider two testing protocols. The ﬁrst is used for compa ring different network
modiﬁcations on the validation set, and considers only the b oundingbox prediction for the ground
truth class (to factor out the classiﬁcation errors). The bo unding box is obtained by applying the
networkonlyto thecentralcropoftheimage.
The second, fully-ﬂedged, testing procedure is based on the dense application of the localisation
ConvNet to the whole image, similarly to the classiﬁcation t ask (Sect. 3.2). The difference is that
instead of the class score map, the output of the last fully-c onnected layer is a set of bounding
box predictions. To come up with the ﬁnal prediction, we util ise the greedy merging procedure
of Sermanetetal. (2014), which ﬁrst merges spatially close predictions (by averaging their coor-
dinates), and then rates them based on the class scores, obta ined from the classiﬁcation ConvNet.
When several localisation ConvNets are used, we ﬁrst take th e union of their sets of boundingbox
predictions, and then run the mergingprocedureon the union . We did not use the multiple pooling
10
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
offsets technique of Sermanetetal. (2014), which increase s the spatial resolution of the bounding
boxpredictionsandcanfurtherimprovetheresults.
A.2 L OCALISATION EXPERIMENTS
In this section we ﬁrst determine the best-performinglocal isation setting (using the ﬁrst test proto-
col), and then evaluate it in a fully-ﬂedged scenario (the se cond protocol). The localisation error
is measured according to the ILSVRC criterion (Russakovsky et al., 2014), i.e. the bounding box
predictionis deemed correctif its intersectionoverunion ratio with the ground-truthboundingbox
isabove0.5.
Settings comparison. As can be seen from Table 8, per-class regression (PCR) outpe rforms the
class-agnostic single-class regression (SCR), which diff ers from the ﬁndings of Sermanetetal.
(2014), where PCR was outperformed by SCR. We also note that ﬁ ne-tuning all layers for the lo-
calisation task leads to noticeablybetter results than ﬁne -tuningonly the fully-connectedlayers(as
donein(Sermanetet al.,2014)). Intheseexperiments,thes mallestimagessidewassetto S= 384;
theresultswith S= 256exhibitthesamebehaviourandarenotshownforbrevity.
Table 8:Localisation error for different modiﬁcations with the simpliﬁed testing protocol: the
boundingbox is predictedfrom a single central image crop, a nd the ground-truthclass is used. All
ConvNet layers (except for the last one) have the conﬁgurati on D (Table 1), while the last layer
performseithersingle-classregression(SCR) orper-clas sregression(PCR).
Fine-tunedlayers regression type GTclass localisationerror
1st and2nd FCSCR 36.4
PCR 34.3
all PCR 33.1
Fully-ﬂedgedevaluation. Havingdeterminedthebestlocalisationsetting(PCR,ﬁne- tuningofall
layers),we nowapply it in the fully-ﬂedgedscenario,where the top-5class labelsare predictedus-
ing our best-performingclassiﬁcation system (Sect. 4.5), and multiple densely-computedbounding
box predictions are merged using the method of Sermanetetal . (2014). As can be seen from Ta-
ble 9, applicationof the localisationConvNetto the whole i magesubstantiallyimprovesthe results
compared to using a center crop (Table 8), despite using the t op-5 predicted class labels instead of
thegroundtruth. Similarlytotheclassiﬁcationtask(Sect .4),testingatseveralscalesandcombining
thepredictionsofmultiplenetworksfurtherimprovesthep erformance.
Table9:Localisationerror
smallestimage side top-5localisationerror (%)
train(S) test(Q) val. test.
256 256 29.5 -
384 384 28.2 26.7
384 352,384 27.5 -
fusion: 256/256 and 384/352,384 26.9 25.3
Comparison with the state of the art. We compare our best localisation result with the state
of the art in Table 10. With 25.3%test error, our “VGG” team won the localisation challenge of
ILSVRC-2014 (Russakovskyet al., 2014). Notably, our resul ts are considerably better than those
of the ILSVRC-2013winnerOverfeat(Sermanetet al., 2014), even thoughwe used less scales and
did not employ their resolution enhancement technique. We e nvisage that better localisation per-
formance can be achieved if this technique is incorporated i nto our method. This indicates the
performanceadvancementbroughtbyourverydeepConvNets– wegotbetterresultswithasimpler
localisationmethod,buta morepowerfulrepresentation.
B GENERALISATION OF VERYDEEPFEATURES
In the previous sections we have discussed training and eval uation of very deep ConvNets on the
ILSVRC dataset. In this section, we evaluate our ConvNets, p re-trained on ILSVRC, as feature
11
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
Table 10: Comparison with the state of the art in ILSVRC localisation . Our methodis denoted
as“VGG”.
Method top-5val. error (%) top-5 testerror (%)
VGG 26.9 25.3
GoogLeNet (Szegedyet al., 2014) - 26.7
OverFeat (Sermanet etal.,2014) 30.0 29.9
Krizhevsky et al.(Krizhevsky et al.,2012) - 34.2
extractors on other, smaller, datasets, where training lar ge models from scratch is not feasible due
to over-ﬁtting. Recently, there has been a lot of interest in such a use case (Zeiler&Fergus, 2013;
Donahueet al., 2013; Razavianet al., 2014; Chatﬁeldet al., 2014), as it turns out that deep image
representations,learntonILSVRC,generalisewelltoothe rdatasets,wheretheyhaveoutperformed
hand-crafted representations by a large margin. Following that line of work, we investigate if our
modelsleadtobetterperformancethanmoreshallowmodelsu tilisedinthestate-of-the-artmethods.
In this evaluation, we consider two models with the best clas siﬁcation performance on ILSVRC
(Sect.4)–conﬁgurations“Net-D”and“Net-E”(whichwemade publiclyavailable).
To utilise the ConvNets, pre-trained on ILSVRC, for image cl assiﬁcation on other datasets, we
remove the last fully-connected layer (which performs 1000 -way ILSVRC classiﬁcation), and use
4096-Dactivationsofthepenultimatelayerasimagefeatur es,whichareaggregatedacrossmultiple
locations and scales. The resulting image descriptor is L2-normalised and combined with a linear
SVM classiﬁer, trained on the target dataset. For simplicit y, pre-trained ConvNet weights are kept
ﬁxed(noﬁne-tuningisperformed).
Aggregation of features is carried out in a similar manner to our ILSVRC evaluation procedure
(Sect. 3.2). Namely, an image is ﬁrst rescaled so that its sma llest side equals Q, and then the net-
work is densely applied over the image plane (which is possib le when all weight layers are treated
as convolutional). We then perform global average pooling o n the resulting feature map, which
producesa 4096-Dimage descriptor. The descriptor is then a veraged with the descriptor of a hori-
zontally ﬂipped image. As was shown in Sect. 4.2, evaluation over multiple scales is beneﬁcial, so
we extract features over several scales Q. The resulting multi-scale features can be either stacked
or pooled across scales. Stacking allows a subsequent class iﬁer to learn how to optimally combine
image statistics over a range of scales; this, however, come s at the cost of the increased descriptor
dimensionality. We returntothediscussionofthisdesignc hoicein theexperimentsbelow. We also
assess late fusion of features, computed using two networks , which is performed by stacking their
respectiveimagedescriptors.
Table11: Comparisonwiththestateoftheartinimageclassiﬁcationo nVOC-2007,VOC-2012,
Caltech-101, and Caltech-256 . Our models are denoted as “VGG”. Results marked with * were
achievedusingConvNetspre-trainedonthe extended ILSVRCdataset(2000classes).
MethodVOC-2007 VOC-2012 Caltech-101 Caltech-256
(meanAP) (mean AP) (meanclass recall) (mean class recall)
Zeiler& Fergus (Zeiler&Fergus, 2013) - 79.0 86.5±0.5 74.2±0.3
Chatﬁeldetal. (Chatﬁeldet al., 2014) 82.4 83.2 88.4±0.6 77.6±0.1
He etal. (Heet al.,2014) 82.4 - 93.4±0.5 -
Weiet al.(Weiet al., 2014) 81.5(85.2∗)81.7 (90.3∗) - -
VGGNet-D (16layers) 89.3 89.0 91.8±1.0 85.0±0.2
VGGNet-E(19 layers) 89.3 89.0 92.3±0.5 85.1±0.3
VGGNet-D & Net-E 89.7 89.3 92.7±0.5 86.2±0.3
Image Classiﬁcation on VOC-2007and VOC-2012. We beginwith the evaluationon the image
classiﬁcation task of PASCAL VOC-2007 and VOC-2012 benchma rks (Everinghametal., 2015).
These datasets contain 10K and 22.5K images respectively, a nd each image is annotated with one
or several labels, correspondingto 20 object categories. T he VOC organisersprovidea pre-deﬁned
split into training, validation, and test data (the test dat a for VOC-2012 is not publicly available;
instead,anofﬁcialevaluationserverisprovided). Recogn itionperformanceismeasuredusingmean
averageprecision(mAP)acrossclasses.
Notably, by examining the performance on the validation set s of VOC-2007 and VOC-2012, we
foundthat aggregatingimage descriptors,computedat mult iple scales, by averagingperformssim-
12
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
ilarly to the aggregation by stacking. We hypothesize that t his is due to the fact that in the VOC
dataset the objects appear over a variety of scales, so there is no particular scale-speciﬁc seman-
tics which a classiﬁer could exploit. Since averaging has a b eneﬁt of not inﬂating the descrip-
tor dimensionality, we were able to aggregated image descri ptors over a wide range of scales:
Q∈ {256,384,512,640,768}. It is worth noting though that the improvement over a smalle r
rangeof{256,384,512}wasrathermarginal( 0.3%).
Thetestsetperformanceisreportedandcomparedwithother approachesinTable11. Ournetworks
“Net-D”and“Net-E”exhibitidenticalperformanceonVOCda tasets,andtheircombinationslightly
improves the results. Our methods set the new state of the art across image representations, pre-
trained on the ILSVRC dataset, outperformingthe previousb est result of Chatﬁeldet al. (2014) by
more than 6%. It should be noted that the method of Wei et al. (2014), which achieves1%better
mAP on VOC-2012, is pre-trained on an extended 2000-class IL SVRC dataset, which includes
additional 1000 categories, semantically close to those in VOC datasets. It also beneﬁts from the
fusionwith anobjectdetection-assistedclassiﬁcation pi peline.
ImageClassiﬁcationonCaltech-101andCaltech-256. Inthissectionweevaluateverydeepfea-
turesonCaltech-101(Fei-Feiet al.,2004)andCaltech-256 (Grifﬁnet al.,2007)imageclassiﬁcation
benchmarks. Caltech-101contains9Kimageslabelledinto1 02classes(101objectcategoriesanda
backgroundclass), while Caltech-256 is larger with 31K ima ges and 257 classes. A standard eval-
uation protocolon these datasets is to generateseveral ran domsplits into training and test data and
report the average recognition performance across the spli ts, which is measured by the mean class
recall(whichcompensatesforadifferentnumberoftestima gesperclass). FollowingChatﬁeld etal.
(2014); Zeiler&Fergus(2013); He etal. (2014),onCaltech- 101we generated3 randomsplits into
training and test data, so that each split contains 30 traini ng images per class, and up to 50 test
images per class. On Caltech-256 we also generated 3 splits, each of which contains 60 training
images per class (and the rest is used for testing). In each sp lit, 20% of training images were used
asa validationset forhyper-parameterselection.
We found that unlike VOC, on Caltech datasets the stacking of descriptors, computed over multi-
ple scales, performs better than averaging or max-pooling. This can be explained by the fact that
in Caltech images objects typically occupy the whole image, so multi-scale image features are se-
manticallydifferent(capturingthe wholeobject vs. object parts), andstacking allows a classiﬁer to
exploitsuchscale-speciﬁcrepresentations. We usedthree scalesQ∈ {256,384,512}.
Ourmodelsarecomparedtoeachotherandthestateofthearti nTable11. Ascanbeseen,thedeeper
19-layerNet-Eperformsbetterthanthe16-layerNet-D,and theircombinationfurtherimprovesthe
performance. On Caltech-101, our representations are comp etitive with the approach of He etal.
(2014),which,however,performssigniﬁcantlyworsethano urnetsonVOC-2007. OnCaltech-256,
ourfeaturesoutperformthestate oftheart (Chatﬁeldetal. , 2014)byalargemargin( 8.6%).
Action Classiﬁcation on VOC-2012. We also evaluated our best-performing image representa-
tion (the stacking of Net-D and Net-E features) on the PASCAL VOC-2012 action classiﬁcation
task (Everinghamet al., 2015), which consists in predictin g an action class from a single image,
given a bounding box of the person performing the action. The dataset contains 4.6K training im-
ages,labelledinto11classes. SimilarlytotheVOC-2012ob jectclassiﬁcationtask,theperformance
is measured using the mAP. We considered two training settin gs: (i) computing the ConvNet fea-
turesonthewholeimageandignoringtheprovidedboundingb ox;(ii)computingthefeaturesonthe
wholeimageandontheprovidedboundingbox,andstackingth emtoobtaintheﬁnalrepresentation.
TheresultsarecomparedtootherapproachesinTable12.
OurrepresentationachievesthestateofartontheVOCactio nclassiﬁcationtaskevenwithoutusing
the provided bounding boxes, and the results are further imp roved when using both images and
bounding boxes. Unlike other approaches, we did not incorpo rate any task-speciﬁc heuristics, but
reliedontherepresentationpowerofverydeepconvolution alfeatures.
Other Recognition Tasks. Since the public release of our models, they have been active ly used
by the research community for a wide range of image recogniti on tasks, consistently outperform-
ing more shallow representations. For instance, Girshicke t al. (2014) achieve the state of the
object detection results by replacing the ConvNet of Krizhe vskyet al. (2012) with our 16-layer
model. Similar gains over a more shallow architecture of Kri zhevskyet al. (2012) have been ob-
13
Publishedasa conferencepaperat ICLR2015
Table 12: Comparison with the state of the art in single-image action c lassiﬁcation on VOC-
2012. Our models are denoted as “VGG”. Results marked with * were a chieved using ConvNets
pre-trainedonthe extended ILSVRCdataset (1512classes).
Method VOC-2012 (meanAP)
(Oquab et al., 2014) 70.2∗
(Gkioxari etal.,2014) 73.6
(Hoai,2014) 76.3
VGG Net-D& Net-E,image-only 79.2
VGG Net-D& Net-E,image and bounding box 84.0
served in semantic segmentation (Longet al., 2014), image c aption generation (Kirosetal., 2014;
Karpathy& Fei-Fei, 2014),textureandmaterialrecognitio n(Cimpoiet al., 2014; Bell etal., 2014).
C PAPERREVISIONS
Here we present the list of major paper revisions, outlining the substantial changes for the conve-
nienceofthe reader.
v1Initialversion. Presentstheexperimentscarriedoutbefo rethe ILSVRCsubmission.
v2Addspost-submissionILSVRCexperimentswithtrainingset augmentationusingscalejittering,
whichimprovestheperformance.
v3Addsgeneralisationexperiments(AppendixB) on PASCAL VOC andCaltech image classiﬁca-
tiondatasets. Themodelsusedforthese experimentsarepub liclyavailable.
v4The paper is converted to ICLR-2015 submission format. Also adds experiments with multiple
cropsforclassiﬁcation.
v6Camera-readyICLR-2015conferencepaper. Addsa compariso nof the net B with a shallow net
andtheresultsonPASCAL VOCactionclassiﬁcationbenchmar k.
14