Existing deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) require a fixed-size
(e.g., 224x224) input image. This requirement is "artificial" and may reduce
the recognition accuracy for the images or sub-images of an arbitrary
size/scale. In this work, we equip the networks with another pooling strategy,
"spatial pyramid pooling", to eliminate the above requirement. The new network
structure, called SPP-net, can generate a fixed-length representation
regardless of image size/scale. Pyramid pooling is also robust to object
deformations. With these advantages, SPP-net should in general improve all
CNN-based image classification methods. On the ImageNet 2012 dataset, we
demonstrate that SPP-net boosts the accuracy of a variety of CNN architectures
despite their different designs. On the Pascal VOC 2007 and Caltech101
datasets, SPP-net achieves state-of-the-art classification results using a
single full-image representation and no fine-tuning.
  The power of SPP-net is also significant in object detection. Using SPP-net,
we compute the feature maps from the entire image only once, and then pool
features in arbitrary regions (sub-images) to generate fixed-length
representations for training the detectors. This method avoids repeatedly
computing the convolutional features. In processing test images, our method is
24-102x faster than the R-CNN method, while achieving better or comparable
accuracy on Pascal VOC 2007.
  In ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC) 2014, our
methods rank #2 in object detection and #3 in image classification among all 38
teams. This manuscript also introduces the improvement made for this
competition.
Kaiming He Xiangyu Zhang Shaoqing Ren Jian Sun
1
Spatial Pyramid Pooling in Deep Convolutional
Networks for Visual Recognition
Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun
Abstract —Existing deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) require a ﬁxed-size ( e.g., 224224) input image. This require-
ment is “artiﬁcial” and may reduce the recognition accuracy for the images or sub-images of an arbitrary size/scale. In this
work, we equip the networks with another pooling strategy, “spatial pyramid pooling”, to eliminate the above requirement. The
new network structure, called SPP-net, can generate a ﬁxed-length representation regardless of image size/scale. Pyramid
pooling is also robust to object deformations. With these advantages, SPP-net should in general improve all CNN-based image
classiﬁcation methods. On the ImageNet 2012 dataset, we demonstrate that SPP-net boosts the accuracy of a variety of CNN
architectures despite their different designs. On the Pascal VOC 2007 and Caltech101 datasets, SPP-net achieves state-of-the-
art classiﬁcation results using a single full-image representation and no ﬁne-tuning.
The power of SPP-net is also signiﬁcant in object detection. Using SPP-net, we compute the feature maps from the entire
image only once, and then pool features in arbitrary regions (sub-images) to generate ﬁxed-length representations for training
the detectors. This method avoids repeatedly computing the convolutional features. In processing test images, our method is
24-102faster than the R-CNN method, while achieving better or comparable accuracy on Pascal VOC 2007.
In ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC) 2014, our methods rank #2 in object detection and #3 in
image classiﬁcation among all 38 teams. This manuscript also introduces the improvement made for this competition.
Index Terms —Convolutional Neural Networks, Spatial Pyramid Pooling, Image Classiﬁcation, Object Detection
F
1 I NTRODUCTION
We are witnessing a rapid, revolutionary change in
our vision community, mainly caused by deep con-
volutional neural networks (CNNs) [1] and the avail-
ability of large scale training data [2]. Deep-networks-
based approaches have recently been substantially
improving upon the state of the art in image clas-
siﬁcation [3], [4], [5], [6], object detection [7], [8], [5],
many other recognition tasks [9], [10], [11], [12], and
even non-recognition tasks.
However, there is a technical issue in the training
and testing of the CNNs: the prevalent CNNs require
aﬁxed input image size ( e.g., 224224), which limits
both the aspect ratio and the scale of the input image.
When applied to images of arbitrary sizes, current
methods mostly ﬁt the input image to the ﬁxed size,
either via cropping [3], [4] or via warping [13], [7],
as shown in Figure 1 (top). But the cropped region
may not contain the entire object, while the warped
content may result in unwanted geometric distortion.
Recognition accuracy can be compromised due to the
content loss or distortion. Besides, a pre-deﬁned scale
K. He and J. Sun are with Microsoft Research, Beijing, China. E-mail:
fkahe,jiansung@microsoft.com
X. Zhang is with Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China. Email:
xyz.clx@stu.xjtu.edu.cn
S. Ren is with University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei,
China. Email: sqren@mail.ustc.edu.cn
This work was done when X. Zhang and S. Ren were interns at Microsoft
Research.
crop warp
spatial pyramid poolingcrop / warp
conv layers image fc layers outputimage conv layers fc layers outputFigure 1: Top: cropping or warping to ﬁt a ﬁxed
size. Middle: a conventional CNN. Bottom: our spatial
pyramid pooling network structure.
may not be suitable when object scales vary. Fixing
input sizes overlooks the issues involving scales.
So why do CNNs require a ﬁxed input size? A CNN
mainly consists of two parts: convolutional layers,
and fully-connected layers that follow. The convo-
lutional layers operate in a sliding-window manner
and output feature maps which represent the spatial
arrangement of the activations (Figure 2). In fact, con-
volutional layers do not require a ﬁxed image size and
can generate feature maps of any sizes. On the other
hand, the fully-connected layers need to have ﬁxed-
size/length input by their deﬁnition. Hence, the ﬁxed-
size constraint comes only from the fully-connected
layers, which exist at a deeper stage of the network.
In this paper, we introduce a spatial pyramid pool-
ing (SPP) [14], [15] layer to remove the ﬁxed-size
constraint of the network. Speciﬁcally, we add anarXiv:1406.4729v4  [cs.CV]  23 Apr 2015
2
SPP layer on top of the last convolutional layer. The
SPP layer pools the features and generates ﬁxed-
length outputs, which are then fed into the fully-
connected layers (or other classiﬁers). In other words,
we perform some information “aggregation” at a
deeper stage of the network hierarchy (between con-
volutional layers and fully-connected layers) to avoid
the need for cropping or warping at the beginning.
Figure 1 (bottom) shows the change of the network
architecture by introducing the SPP layer. We call the
new network structure SPP-net .
Spatial pyramid pooling [14], [15] (popularly
known as spatial pyramid matching or SPM [15]), as
an extension of the Bag-of-Words (BoW) model [16],
is one of the most successful methods in computer
vision. It partitions the image into divisions from
ﬁner to coarser levels, and aggregates local features
in them. SPP has long been a key component in the
leading and competition-winning systems for classi-
ﬁcation ( e.g., [17], [18], [19]) and detection ( e.g., [20])
before the recent prevalence of CNNs. Nevertheless,
SPP has not been considered in the context of CNNs.
We note that SPP has several remarkable properties
for deep CNNs: 1) SPP is able to generate a ﬁxed-
length output regardless of the input size, while the
sliding window pooling used in the previous deep
networks [3] cannot; 2) SPP uses multi-level spatial
bins, while the sliding window pooling uses only
a single window size. Multi-level pooling has been
shown to be robust to object deformations [15]; 3) SPP
can pool features extracted at variable scales thanks
to the ﬂexibility of input scales. Through experiments
we show that all these factors elevate the recognition
accuracy of deep networks.
SPP-net not only makes it possible to generate rep-
resentations from arbitrarily sized images/windows
for testing, but also allows us to feed images with
varying sizes or scales during training. Training with
variable-size images increases scale-invariance and
reduces over-ﬁtting. We develop a simple multi-size
training method. For a single network to accept
variable input sizes, we approximate it by multiple
networks that share all parameters, while each of
these networks is trained using a ﬁxed input size. In
each epoch we train the network with a given input
size, and switch to another input size for the next
epoch. Experiments show that this multi-size training
converges just as the traditional single-size training,
and leads to better testing accuracy.
The advantages of SPP are orthogonal to the speciﬁc
CNN designs. In a series of controlled experiments on
the ImageNet 2012 dataset, we demonstrate that SPP
improves four different CNN architectures in existing
publications [3], [4], [5] (or their modiﬁcations), over
the no-SPP counterparts. These architectures have
various ﬁlter numbers/sizes, strides, depths, or other
designs. It is thus reasonable for us to conjecture
that SPP should improve more sophisticated (deeperand larger) convolutional architectures. SPP-net also
shows state-of-the-art classiﬁcation results on Cal-
tech101 [21] and Pascal VOC 2007 [22] using only a
single full-image representation and no ﬁne-tuning.
SPP-net also shows great strength in object detec-
tion. In the leading object detection method R-CNN
[7], the features from candidate windows are extracted
via deep convolutional networks. This method shows
remarkable detection accuracy on both the VOC and
ImageNet datasets. But the feature computation in R-
CNN is time-consuming, because it repeatedly applies
the deep convolutional networks to the raw pixels
of thousands of warped regions per image. In this
paper, we show that we can run the convolutional
layers only once on the entire image (regardless of
the number of windows), and then extract features
by SPP-net on the feature maps. This method yields
a speedup of over one hundred times over R-CNN.
Note that training/running a detector on the feature
maps (rather than image regions) is actually a more
popular idea [23], [24], [20], [5]. But SPP-net inherits
the power of the deep CNN feature maps and also the
ﬂexibility of SPP on arbitrary window sizes, which
leads to outstanding accuracy and efﬁciency. In our
experiment, the SPP-net-based system (built upon the
R-CNN pipeline) computes features 24-102 faster
than R-CNN, while has better or comparable accuracy.
With the recent fast proposal method of EdgeBoxes
[25], our system takes 0.5 seconds processing an image
(including all steps ). This makes our method practical
for real-world applications.
A preliminary version of this manuscript has been
published in ECCV 2014. Based on this work, we
attended the competition of ILSVRC 2014 [26], and
ranked #2 in object detection and #3 in image clas-
siﬁcation (both are provided-data-only tracks) among
all 38 teams. There are a few modiﬁcations made
for ILSVRC 2014. We show that the SPP-nets can
boost various networks that are deeper and larger
(Sec. 3.1.2-3.1.4) over the no-SPP counterparts. Fur-
ther, driven by our detection framework, we ﬁnd
that multi-view testing on feature maps with ﬂexibly
located/sized windows (Sec. 3.1.5) can increase the
classiﬁcation accuracy. This manuscript also provides
the details of these modiﬁcations.
We have released the code to facilitate future re-
search ( http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/kahe/ ).
2 D EEP NETWORKS WITH SPATIAL PYRA-
MIDPOOLING
2.1 Convolutional Layers and Feature Maps
Consider the popular seven-layer architectures [3], [4].
The ﬁrst ﬁve layers are convolutional, some of which
are followed by pooling layers. These pooling layers
can also be considered as “convolutional”, in the sense
that they are using sliding windows. The last two
3
  
  
filter #175
filter #55
(a) image (b) feature maps (c) strongest activations
  
  
filter #66
filter #118
(a) image (b) feature maps (c) strongest activations
Figure 2: Visualization of the feature maps. (a) Two images in Pascal VOC 2007. (b) The feature maps of some
conv 5ﬁlters. The arrows indicate the strongest responses and their corresponding positions in the images.
(c) The ImageNet images that have the strongest responses of the corresponding ﬁlters. The green rectangles
mark the receptive ﬁelds of the strongest responses.
layers are fully connected, with an N-way softmax as
the output, where N is the number of categories.
The deep network described above needs a ﬁxed
image size. However, we notice that the requirement
of ﬁxed sizes is only due to the fully-connected layers
that demand ﬁxed-length vectors as inputs. On the
other hand, the convolutional layers accept inputs of
arbitrary sizes. The convolutional layers use sliding
ﬁlters, and their outputs have roughly the same aspect
ratio as the inputs. These outputs are known as feature
maps [1] - they involve not only the strength of the
responses, but also their spatial positions.
In Figure 2, we visualize some feature maps. They
are generated by some ﬁlters of the conv 5layer. Fig-
ure 2(c) shows the strongest activated images of these
ﬁlters in the ImageNet dataset. We see a ﬁlter can be
activated by some semantic content. For example, the
55-th ﬁlter (Figure 2, bottom left) is most activated by
a circle shape; the 66-th ﬁlter (Figure 2, top right) is
most activated by a ^-shape; and the 118-th ﬁlter (Fig-
ure 2, bottom right) is most activated by a _-shape.
These shapes in the input images (Figure 2(a)) activate
the feature maps at the corresponding positions (the
arrows in Figure 2).
It is worth noticing that we generate the feature
maps in Figure 2 without ﬁxing the input size. These
feature maps generated by deep convolutional lay-
ers are analogous to the feature maps in traditional
methods [27], [28]. In those methods, SIFT vectors
[29] or image patches [28] are densely extracted and
then encoded, e.g., by vector quantization [16], [15],
[30], sparse coding [17], [18], or Fisher kernels [19].
These encoded features consist of the feature maps,
and are then pooled by Bag-of-Words (BoW) [16] or
spatial pyramids [14], [15]. Analogously, the deep
convolutional features can be pooled in a similar way.
2.2 The Spatial Pyramid Pooling Layer
The convolutional layers accept arbitrary input sizes,
but they produce outputs of variable sizes. The classi-
ﬁers (SVM/softmax) or fully-connected layers require
convolutional layersfeature maps of conv 5
(arbitrary size)
fixed-length representation
input image16×256-d 4×256-d 256-d…...
…...
spatial pyramid pooling layerfully-connected layers (fc 6, fc 7)Figure 3: A network structure with a spatial pyramid
pooling layer . Here 256 is the ﬁlter number of the
conv 5layer, and conv 5is the last convolutional layer.
ﬁxed-length vectors. Such vectors can be generated
by the Bag-of-Words (BoW) approach [16] that pools
the features together. Spatial pyramid pooling [14],
[15] improves BoW in that it can maintain spatial
information by pooling in local spatial bins. These
spatial bins have sizes proportional to the image size,
so the number of bins is ﬁxed regardless of the image
size. This is in contrast to the sliding window pooling
of the previous deep networks [3], where the number
of sliding windows depends on the input size.
To adopt the deep network for images of arbi-
trary sizes, we replace the last pooling layer ( e.g.,
pool 5, after the last convolutional layer) with a spatial
pyramid pooling layer . Figure 3 illustrates our method.
In each spatial bin, we pool the responses of each
ﬁlter (throughout this paper we use max pooling).
The outputs of the spatial pyramid pooling are kM-
dimensional vectors with the number of bins denoted
asM(kis the number of ﬁlters in the last convo-
lutional layer). The ﬁxed-dimensional vectors are the
input to the fully-connected layer.
With spatial pyramid pooling, the input image can
4
be of any sizes. This not only allows arbitrary aspect
ratios, but also allows arbitrary scales. We can resize
the input image to any scale ( e.g.,min(w;h)=180, 224,
...) and apply the same deep network. When the
input image is at different scales, the network (with
the same ﬁlter sizes) will extract features at different
scales. The scales play important roles in traditional
methods, e.g., the SIFT vectors are often extracted at
multiple scales [29], [27] (determined by the sizes of
the patches and Gaussian ﬁlters). We will show that
the scales are also important for the accuracy of deep
networks.
Interestingly, the coarsest pyramid level has a single
bin that covers the entire image. This is in fact a
“global pooling” operation, which is also investigated
in several concurrent works. In [31], [32] a global
average pooling is used to reduce the model size
and also reduce overﬁtting; in [33], a global average
pooling is used on the testing stage after all fc layers
to improve accuracy; in [34], a global max pooling is
used for weakly supervised object recognition. The
global pooling operation corresponds to the tradi-
tional Bag-of-Words method.
2.3 Training the Network
Theoretically, the above network structure can be
trained with standard back-propagation [1], regard-
less of the input image size. But in practice the GPU
implementations (such as cuda-convnet [3] and Caffe
[35]) are preferably run on ﬁxed input images. Next
we describe our training solution that takes advantage
of these GPU implementations while still preserving
the spatial pyramid pooling behaviors.
Single-size training
As in previous works, we ﬁrst consider a network tak-
ing a ﬁxed-size input (224 224) cropped from images.
The cropping is for the purpose of data augmentation.
For an image with a given size, we can pre-compute
the bin sizes needed for spatial pyramid pooling.
Consider the feature maps after conv 5that have a size
ofaa(e.g., 1313). With a pyramid level of nn
bins, we implement this pooling level as a sliding
window pooling, where the window size win=da=ne
and stride str=ba=ncwithdeandbcdenoting
ceiling and ﬂoor operations. With an l-level pyramid,
we implement lsuch layers. The next fully-connected
layer (fc 6) will concatenate the loutputs. Figure 4
shows an example conﬁguration of 3-level pyramid
pooling (33, 22, 11) in the cuda-convnet style [3].
The main purpose of our single-size training is to
enable the multi-level pooling behavior. Experiments
show that this is one reason for the gain of accuracy.
Multi-size training
Our network with SPP is expected to be applied on
images of any sizes. To address the issue of varying
[fc6]
type=fcoutputs=4096inputs=pool3x3,pool2x2,pool1x1[pool1x1]
type=poolpool=maxinputs=conv5sizeX=13stride=13[pool3x3]
type=poolpool=maxinputs=conv5sizeX=5stride=4[pool2x2]
type=poolpool=maxinputs=conv5sizeX=7stride=6Figure 4: An example 3-level pyramid pooling in the
cuda-convnet style [3]. Here sizeX is the size of the
pooling window. This conﬁguration is for a network
whose feature map size of conv 5is 1313, so the
pool 33, pool 22, and pool 11layers will have 3 3,
22, and 11 bins respectively.
image sizes in training, we consider a set of pre-
deﬁned sizes. We consider two sizes: 180 180 in addi-
tion to 224224. Rather than crop a smaller 180 180
region, we resize the aforementioned 224 224 region
to 180180. So the regions at both scales differ only
in resolution but not in content/layout. For the net-
work to accept 180 180 inputs, we implement another
ﬁxed-size-input (180 180) network. The feature map
size after conv 5isaa= 1010 in this case. Then we
still usewin=da=neandstr=ba=ncto implement
each pyramid pooling level. The output of the spatial
pyramid pooling layer of this 180-network has the
same ﬁxed length as the 224-network. As such, this
180-network has exactly the same parameters as the
224-network in each layer. In other words, during
training we implement the varying-input-size SPP-net
by two ﬁxed-size networks that share parameters.
To reduce the overhead to switch from one network
(e.g., 224) to the other ( e.g., 180), we train each full
epoch on one network, and then switch to the other
one (keeping all weights) for the next full epoch. This
is iterated. In experiments, we ﬁnd the convergence
rate of this multi-size training to be similar to the
above single-size training.
The main purpose of our multi-size training is to
simulate the varying input sizes while still leveraging
the existing well-optimized ﬁxed-size implementa-
tions. Besides the above two-scale implementation, we
have also tested a variant using ssas input where
sis randomly and uniformly sampled from [180;224]
at each epoch. We report the results of both variants
in the experiment section.
Note that the above single/multi-size solutions are
for training only. At the testing stage, it is straightfor-
ward to apply SPP-net on images of any sizes.
5
model conv 1 conv 2 conv 3 conv 4 conv 5 conv 6 conv 7
ZF-5 9672, str 2 25652, str 2 384323843225632
LRN, pool 32, str 2 LRN, pool 32, str 2 - -
map size 5555 2727 1313 1313 1313
Convnet*-5 96112, str 4 25652384323843225632
LRN, LRN, pool 32, str 2 pool 32, 2 - -
map size 5555 2727 1313 1313 1313
Overfeat-5/7 9672, str 2 256525123251232512325123251232
pool 32, str 3, LRN pool 22, str 2
map size 3636 1818 1818 1818 1818 1818 1818
Table 1: Network architectures: ﬁlter number ﬁlter size ( e.g.,9672), ﬁlter stride ( e.g., str 2), pooling window
size ( e.g., pool 32), and the output feature map size ( e.g., map size 5555). LRN represents Local Response
Normalization. The padding is adjusted to produce the expected output feature map size.
3 SPP- NET FOR IMAGE CLASSIFICATION
3.1 Experiments on ImageNet 2012 Classiﬁcation
We train the networks on the 1000-category training
set of ImageNet 2012. Our training algorithm follows
the practices of previous work [3], [4], [36]. The im-
ages are resized so that the smaller dimension is 256,
and a 224224 crop is picked from the center or the
four corners from the entire image1. The data are aug-
mented by horizontal ﬂipping and color altering [3].
Dropout [3] is used on the two fully-connected layers.
The learning rate starts from 0.01, and is divided by 10
(twice) when the error plateaus. Our implementation
is based on the publicly available code of cuda-convnet
[3] and Caffe [35]. All networks in this paper can be
trained on a single GeForce GTX Titan GPU (6 GB
memory) within two to four weeks.
3.1.1 Baseline Network Architectures
The advantages of SPP are independent of the con-
volutional network architectures used. We investigate
four different network architectures in existing pub-
lications [3], [4], [5] (or their modiﬁcations), and we
show SPP improves the accuracy of all these architec-
tures. These baseline architectures are in Table 1 and
brieﬂy introduced below:
ZF-5 : this architecture is based on Zeiler and Fer-
gus’s (ZF) “fast” (smaller) model [4]. The number
indicates ﬁve convolutional layers.
Convnet*-5 : this is a modiﬁcation on Krizhevsky
et al.’s network [3]. We put the two pooling layers
after conv 2and conv 3(instead of after conv 1and
conv 2). As a result, the feature maps after each
layer have the same size as ZF-5.
Overfeat-5/7 : this architecture is based on the
Overfeat paper [5], with some modiﬁcations as in
[6]. In contrast to ZF-5/Convnet*-5, this architec-
ture produces a larger feature map ( 1818instead
of1313) before the last pooling layer. A larger
ﬁlter number (512) is used in conv 3and the fol-
lowing convolutional layers. We also investigate
1. In [3], the four corners are picked from the corners of the
central 256256 crop.a deeper architecture with 7 convolutional layers,
where conv 3to conv 7have the same structures.
In the baseline models, the pooling layer after the last
convolutional layer generates 66feature maps, with
two 4096-d fc layers and a 1000-way softmax layer
following. Our replications of these baseline networks
are in Table 2 (a). We train 70 epochs for ZF-5 and
90 epochs for the others. Our replication of ZF-5 is
better than the one reported in [4]. This gain is because
the corner crops are from the entire image, as is also
reported in [36].
3.1.2 Multi-level Pooling Improves Accuracy
In Table 2 (b) we show the results using single-
size training. The training and testing sizes are both
224224. In these networks, the convolutional layers
have the same structures as the corresponding base-
line models, whereas the pooling layer after the ﬁnal
convolutional layer is replaced with the SPP layer. For
the results in Table 2, we use a 4-level pyramid. The
pyramid isf66, 33, 22, 11g(totally 50 bins).
For fair comparison, we still use the standard 10-
view prediction with each view a 224 224 crop. Our
results in Table 2 (b) show considerable improvement
over the no-SPP baselines in Table 2 (a). Interestingly,
the largest gain of top-1 error (1.65%) is given by the
most accurate architecture. Since we are still using the
same 10 cropped views as in (a), these gains are solely
because of multi-level pooling.
It is worth noticing that the gain of multi-level
pooling is notsimply due to more parameters; rather,
it is because the multi-level pooling is robust to the
variance in object deformations and spatial layout
[15]. To show this, we train another ZF-5 network with
a different 4-level pyramid: f44, 33, 22, 11g
(totally 30 bins). This network has fewer parameters
than its no-SPP counterpart, because its fc 6layer has
30256-d inputs instead of 36 256-d. The top-1/top-
5 errors of this network are 35.06/14.04. This result
is similar to the 50-bin pyramid above (34.98/14.14),
but considerably better than the no-SPP counterpart
(35.99/14.76).
6
top-1 error (%)
ZF-5 Convnet*-5 Overfeat-5 Overfeat-7
(a) no SPP 35.99 34.93 34.13 32.01
(b) SPP single-size trained 34.98 (1.01) 34.38 (0.55) 32.87 (1.26) 30.36 (1.65)
(c) SPP multi-size trained 34.60 (1.39) 33.94 (0.99) 32.26 (1.87) 29.68 (2.33)
top-5 error (%)
ZF-5 Convnet*-5 Overfeat-5 Overfeat-7
(a) no SPP 14.76 13.92 13.52 11.97
(b) SPP single-size trained 14.14 (0.62) 13.54 (0.38) 12.80 (0.72) 11.12 (0.85)
(c) SPP multi-size trained 13.64 (1.12) 13.33 (0.59) 12.33 (1.19) 10.95 (1.02)
Table 2: Error rates in the validation set of ImageNet 2012. All the results are obtained using standard 10-view
testing. In the brackets are the gains over the “no SPP” baselines.
SPP on test view top-1 val
ZF-5, single-size trained 1 crop 38.01
ZF-5, single-size trained 1 full 37.55
ZF-5, multi-size trained 1 crop 37.57
ZF-5, multi-size trained 1 full 37.07
Overfeat-7, single-size trained 1 crop 33.18
Overfeat-7, single-size trained 1 full 32.72
Overfeat-7, multi-size trained 1 crop 32.57
Overfeat-7, multi-size trained 1 full 31.25
Table 3: Error rates in the validation set of ImageNet
2012 using a single view. The images are resized so
min(w;h) = 256 . The crop view is the central 224 224
of the image.
3.1.3 Multi-size Training Improves Accuracy
Table 2 (c) shows our results using multi-size training.
The training sizes are 224 and 180, while the testing
size is still 224. We still use the standard 10-view
prediction. The top-1/top-5 errors of all architectures
further drop. The top-1 error of SPP-net (Overfeat-7)
drops to 29.68%, which is 2.33% better than its no-
SPP counterpart and 0.68% better than its single-size
trained counterpart.
Besides using the two discrete sizes of 180 and
224, we have also evaluated using a random size
uniformly sampled from [180;224]. The top-1/5 error
of SPP-net (Overfeat-7) is 30.06%/10.96%. The top-
1 error is slightly worse than the two-size version,
possibly because the size of 224 (which is used for
testing) is visited less. But the results are still better
the single-size version.
There are previous CNN solutions [5], [36] that deal
with various scales/sizes, but they are mostly based
on testing. In Overfeat [5] and Howard’s method [36],
the single network is applied at multiple scales in the
testing stage, and the scores are averaged. Howard
further trains two different networks on low/high-
resolution image regions and averages the scores. To
our knowledge, our method is the ﬁrst one that trains
a single network with input images of multiple sizes.3.1.4 Full-image Representations Improve Accuracy
Next we investigate the accuracy of the full-image
views. We resize the image so that min(w;h)=256
while maintaining its aspect ratio. The SPP-net is
applied on this full image to compute the scores of
the full view. For fair comparison, we also evaluate
the accuracy of the single view in the center 224 224
crop (which is used in the above evaluations). The
comparisons of single-view testing accuracy are in
Table 3. Here we evaluate ZF-5/Overfeat-7. The top-1
error rates are all reduced by the full-view represen-
tation. This shows the importance of maintaining the
complete content. Even though our network is trained
using square images only, it generalizes well to other
aspect ratios.
Comparing Table 2 and Table 3, we ﬁnd that the
combination of multiple views is substantially better
than the single full-image view. However, the full-
image representations are still of good merits. First,
we empirically ﬁnd that (discussed in the next sub-
section) even for the combination of dozens of views,
the additional two full-image views (with ﬂipping)
can still boost the accuracy by about 0.2%. Second,
the full-image view is methodologically consistent
with the traditional methods [15], [17], [19] where the
encoded SIFT vectors of the entire image are pooled
together. Third, in other applications such as image
retrieval [37], an image representation, rather than a
classiﬁcation score, is required for similarity ranking.
A full-image representation can be preferred.
3.1.5 Multi-view Testing on Feature Maps
Inspired by our detection algorithm (described in
the next section), we further propose a multi-view
testing method on the feature maps. Thanks to the
ﬂexibility of SPP , we can easily extract the features
from windows (views) of arbitrary sizes from the
convolutional feature maps.
On the testing stage, we resize an image so
min(w;h) =swheresrepresents a predeﬁned scale
(like 256). Then we compute the convolutional fea-
ture maps from the entire image. For the usage of
7
method test scales test views top-1 val top-5 val top-5 test
Krizhevsky et al. [3] 1 10 40.7 18.2
Overfeat (fast) [5] 1 - 39.01 16.97
Overfeat (fast) [5] 6 - 38.12 16.27
Overfeat (big) [5] 4 - 35.74 14.18
Howard (base) [36] 3 162 37.0 15.8
Howard (high-res) [36] 3 162 36.8 16.2
Zeiler & Fergus (ZF) (fast) [4] 1 10 38.4 16.5
Zeiler & Fergus (ZF) (big) [4] 1 10 37.5 16.0
Chatﬁeld et al. [6] 1 10 - 13.1
ours (SPP O-7) 1 10 29.68 10.95
ours (SPP O-7) 6 96+2full 27.86 9.14 9.08
Table 4: Error rates in ImageNet 2012. All the results are based on a single network . The number of views in
Overfeat depends on the scales and strides, for which there are several hundreds at the ﬁnest scale.
ﬂipped views, we also compute the feature maps of
the ﬂipped image. Given any view (window) in the
image, we map this window to the feature maps (the
way of mapping is in Appendix), and then use SPP
to pool the features from this window (see Figure 5).
The pooled features are then fed into the fc layers
to compute the softmax score of this window. These
scores are averaged for the ﬁnal prediction. For the
standard 10-view, we use s= 256 and the views
are 224224 windows on the corners or center. Ex-
periments show that the top-5 error of the 10-view
prediction on feature maps is within 0.1% around the
original 10-view prediction on image crops.
We further apply this method to extract multiple
views from multiple scales. We resize the image to six
scaless2 f224;256;300;360;448;560gand compute
the feature maps on the entire image for each scale.
We use 224224 as the view size for any scale,
so these views have different relative sizes on the
original image for different scales. We use 18 views
for each scale: one at the center, four at the corners,
and four on the middle of each side, with/without
ﬂipping (when s= 224 there are 6 different views).
The combination of these 96 views reduces the top-5
error from 10.95% to 9.36%. Combining the two full-
image views (with ﬂipping) further reduces the top-5
error to 9.14%.
In the Overfeat paper [5], the views are also ex-
tracted from the convolutional feature maps instead
of image crops. However, their views cannot have ar-
bitrary sizes; rather, the windows are those where the
pooled features match the desired dimensionality. We
empirically ﬁnd that these restricted windows are less
beneﬁcial than our ﬂexibly located/sized windows.
3.1.6 Summary and Results for ILSVRC 2014
In Table 4 we compare with previous state-of-the-
art methods. Krizhevsky et al .’s [3] is the winning
method in ILSVRC 2012; Overfeat [5], Howard’s [36],
and Zeiler and Fergus’s [4] are the leading methodsrank team top-5 test
1 GoogLeNet [32] 6.66
2 VGG [33] 7.32
3 ours 8.06
4 Howard 8.11
5 DeeperVision 9.50
6 NUS-BST 9.79
7 TTIC ECP 10.22
Table 5: The competition results of ILSVRC 2014 clas-
siﬁcation [26]. The best entry of each team is listed.
in ILSVRC 2013. We only consider single-network
performance for manageable comparisons.
Our best single network achieves 9.14% top-5 error
on the validation set. This is exactly the single-model
entry we submitted to ILSVRC 2014 [26]. The top-5
error is 9.08% on the testing set (ILSVRC 2014 has
the same training/validation/testing data as ILSVRC
2012). After combining eleven models, our team’s re-
sult ( 8.06%) is ranked #3 among all 38 teams attending
ILSVRC 2014 (Table 5). Since the advantages of SPP-
net should be in general independent of architectures,
we expect that it will further improve the deeper and
larger convolutional architectures [33], [32].
3.2 Experiments on VOC 2007 Classiﬁcation
Our method can generate a full-view image repre-
sentation. With the above networks pre-trained on
ImageNet, we extract these representations from the
images in the target datasets and re-train SVM clas-
siﬁers [38]. In the SVM training, we intentionally do
not use any data augmentation (ﬂip/multi-view). We
l2-normalize the features for SVM training.
The classiﬁcation task in Pascal VOC 2007 [22]
involves 9,963 images in 20 categories. 5,011 images
are for training, and the rest are for testing. The
performance is evaluated by mean Average Precision
(mAP). Table 6 summarizes the results.
8
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
model no SPP (ZF-5) SPP (ZF-5) SPP (ZF-5) SPP (ZF-5) SPP (Overfeat-7)
crop crop full full full
size 224224 224224 224- 392- 364-
conv 4 59.96 57.28 - - -
conv 5 66.34 65.43 - - -
pool 5=7(66) 69.14 68.76 70.82 71.67 76.09
fc6=8 74.86 75.55 77.32 78.78 81.58
fc7=9 75.90 76.45 78.39 80.10 82.44
Table 6: Classiﬁcation mAP in Pascal VOC 2007. For SPP-net, the pool 5=7layer uses the 66 pyramid level.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
model no SPP (ZF-5) SPP (ZF-5) SPP (ZF-5) SPP (Overfeat-7)
crop crop full full
size 224224 224224 224- 224-
conv 4 80.12 81.03 - -
conv 5 84.40 83.76 - -
pool 5=7(66) 87.98 87.60 89.46 91.46
SPP pool 5=7 - 89.47 91.44 93.42
fc6=8 87.86 88.54 89.50 91.83
fc7=9 85.30 86.10 87.08 90.00
Table 7: Classiﬁcation accuracy in Caltech101. For SPP-net, the pool 5=7layer uses the 66 pyramid level.
We start from a baseline in Table 6 (a). The model is
ZF-5 without SPP . To apply this model, we resize the
image so that its smaller dimension is 224, and crop
the center 224224 region. The SVM is trained via
the features of a layer. On this dataset, the deeper the
layer is, the better the result is. In Table 6 (b), we re-
place the no-SPP net with our SPP-net. As a ﬁrst-step
comparison, we still apply the SPP-net on the center
224224 crop. The results of the fc layers improve.
This gain is mainly due to multi-level pooling.
Table 6 (c) shows our results on full images, where
the images are resized so that the shorter side is 224.
We ﬁnd that the results are considerably improved
(78.39% vs. 76.45%). This is due to the full-image
representation that maintains the complete content.
Because the usage of our network does not depend
on scale, we resize the images so that the smaller
dimension is sand use the same network to extract
features. We ﬁnd that s= 392 gives the best results
(Table 6 (d)) based on the validation set. This is mainly
because the objects occupy smaller regions in VOC
2007 but larger regions in ImageNet, so the relative
object scales are different between the two sets. These
results indicate scale matters in the classiﬁcation tasks,
and SPP-net can partially address this “scale mis-
match” issue.
In Table 6 (e) the network architecture is replaced
with our best model (Overfeat-7, multi-size trained),
and the mAP increases to 82.44% . Table 8 summarizes
our results and the comparisons with the state-of-the-
art methods. Among these methods, VQ [15], LCC
[18], and FK [19] are all based on spatial pyramids
matching, and [13], [4], [34], [6] are based on deepnetworks. In these results, Oquab et al.’s (77.7%) and
Chatﬁeld et al .’s (82.42%) are obtained by network
ﬁne-tuning and multi-view testing. Our result is com-
parable with the state of the art, using only a single
full-image representation and without ﬁne-tuning.
3.3 Experiments on Caltech101
The Caltech101 dataset [21] contains 9,144 images in
102 categories (one background). We randomly sam-
ple 30 images per category for training and up to 50
images per category for testing. We repeat 10 random
splits and average the accuracy. Table 7 summarizes
our results.
There are some common observations in the Pascal
VOC 2007 and Caltech101 results: SPP-net is better
than the no-SPP net (Table 7 (b) vs. (a)), and the full-
view representation is better than the crop ((c) vs. (b)).
But the results in Caltech101 have some differences
with Pascal VOC. The fully-connected layers are less
accurate, and the SPP layers are better. This is possibly
because the object categories in Caltech101 are less
related to those in ImageNet, and the deeper layers
are more category-specialized. Further, we ﬁnd that
the scale 224 has the best performance among the
scales we tested on this dataset. This is mainly because
the objects in Caltech101 also occupy large regions of
the images, as is the case of ImageNet.
Besides cropping, we also evaluate warping the
image to ﬁt the 224 224 size. This solution maintains
the complete content, but introduces distortion. On
the SPP (ZF-5) model, the accuracy is 89.91% using
the SPP layer as features - lower than 91.44% which
uses the same model on the undistorted full image.
9
method VOC 2007 Caltech101
VQ [15]y56.07 74.41 1.0
LLC [18]y57.66 76.95 0.4
FK [19]y61.69 77.78 0.6
DeCAF [13] - 86.91 0.7
Zeiler & Fergus [4] 75.90z86.50.5
Oquab et al. [34] 77.7 -
Chatﬁeld et al. [6] 82.42 88.540.3
ours 82.44 93.42 0.5
Table 8: Classiﬁcation results for Pascal VOC 2007
(mAP) and Caltech101 (accuracy).ynumbers reported
by [27].zour implementation as in Table 6 (a).
Table 8 summarizes our results compared with the
state-of-the-art methods on Caltech101. Our result
(93.42% ) exceeds the previous record (88.54%) by a
substantial margin (4.88%).
4 SPP- NET FOR OBJECT DETECTION
Deep networks have been used for object detection.
We brieﬂy review the recent state-of-the-art R-CNN
method [7]. R-CNN ﬁrst extracts about 2,000 candi-
date windows from each image via selective search
[20]. Then the image region in each window is warped
to a ﬁxed size (227 227). A pre-trained deep network
is used to extract the feature of each window. A
binary SVM classiﬁer is then trained on these features
for detection. R-CNN generates results of compelling
quality and substantially outperforms previous meth-
ods. However, because R-CNN repeatedly applies the
deep convolutional network to about 2,000 windows
per image, it is time-consuming. Feature extraction is
the major timing bottleneck in testing.
Our SPP-net can also be used for object detection.
We extract the feature maps from the entire image
only once (possibly at multiple scales). Then we ap-
ply the spatial pyramid pooling on each candidate
window of the feature maps to pool a ﬁxed-length
representation of this window (see Figure 5). Because
the time-consuming convolutions are only applied
once, our method can run orders of magnitude faster.
Our method extracts window-wise features from
regions of the feature maps, while R-CNN extracts
directly from image regions. In previous works, the
Deformable Part Model (DPM) [23] extracts features
from windows in HOG [24] feature maps, and the
Selective Search (SS) method [20] extracts from win-
dows in encoded SIFT feature maps. The Overfeat
detection method [5] also extracts from windows of
deep convolutional feature maps, but needs to pre-
deﬁne the window size. On the contrary, our method
enables feature extraction in arbitrary windows from
the deep convolutional feature maps.
spatial pyramid 
pooling layer
feature maps of conv 5
convolutional layersfixed-length representation
input imagewindow…...fully-connected layers (fc 6, fc 7)Figure 5: Pooling features from arbitrary windows
on feature maps. The feature maps are computed
from the entire image. The pooling is performed in
candidate windows.
4.1 Detection Algorithm
We use the “fast” mode of selective search [20] to
generate about 2,000 candidate windows per image.
Then we resize the image such that min(w;h) =s,
and extract the feature maps from the entire image.
We use the SPP-net model of ZF-5 (single-size trained)
for the time being. In each candidate window, we use
a 4-level spatial pyramid (1 1, 22, 33, 66, totally
50 bins) to pool the features. This generates a 12,800-
d (25650) representation for each window. These
representations are provided to the fully-connected
layers of the network. Then we train a binary linear
SVM classiﬁer for each category on these features.
Our implementation of the SVM training follows
[20], [7]. We use the ground-truth windows to gen-
erate the positive samples. The negative samples are
those overlapping a positive window by at most 30%
(measured by the intersection-over-union (IoU) ratio).
Any negative sample is removed if it overlaps another
negative sample by more than 70%. We apply the stan-
dard hard negative mining [23] to train the SVM. This
step is iterated once. It takes less than 1 hour to train
SVMs for all 20 categories. In testing, the classiﬁer
is used to score the candidate windows. Then we use
non-maximum suppression [23] (threshold of 30%) on
the scored windows.
Our method can be improved by multi-scale feature
extraction. We resize the image such that min(w;h) =
s2S=f480;576;688;864;1200g, and compute the
feature maps of conv 5for each scale. One strategy of
combining the features from these scales is to pool
them channel-by-channel. But we empirically ﬁnd
that another strategy provides better results. For each
candidate window, we choose a single scale s2S
such that the scaled candidate window has a number
of pixels closest to 224 224. Then we only use the
feature maps extracted from this scale to compute
10
the feature of this window. If the pre-deﬁned scales
are dense enough and the window is approximately
square, our method is roughly equivalent to resizing
the window to 224 224 and then extracting features
from it. Nevertheless, our method only requires com-
puting the feature maps once (at each scale) from the
entire image, regardless of the number of candidate
windows.
We also ﬁne-tune our pre-trained network, follow-
ing [7]. Since our features are pooled from the conv 5
feature maps from windows of any sizes, for sim-
plicity we only ﬁne-tune the fully-connected layers.
In this case, the data layer accepts the ﬁxed-length
pooled features after conv 5, and the fc 6;7layers and
a new 21-way (one extra negative category) fc 8layer
follow. The fc 8weights are initialized with a Gaussian
distribution of =0.01. We ﬁx all the learning rates to
1e-4 and then adjust to 1e-5 for all three layers. During
ﬁne-tuning, the positive samples are those overlap-
ping with a ground-truth window by [0:5;1], and
the negative samples by [0:1;0:5). In each mini-batch,
25% of the samples are positive. We train 250k mini-
batches using the learning rate 1e-4, and then 50k
mini-batches using 1e-5. Because we only ﬁne-tune
the fc layers, the training is very fast and takes about
2 hours on the GPU (excluding pre-caching feature
maps which takes about 1 hour). Also following [7],
we use bounding box regression to post-process the
prediction windows. The features used for regression
are the pooled features from conv 5(as a counterpart
of the pool 5features used in [7]). The windows used
for the regression training are those overlapping with
a ground-truth window by at least 50%.
4.2 Detection Results
We evaluate our method on the detection task of the
Pascal VOC 2007 dataset. Table 9 shows our results
on various layers, by using 1-scale ( s=688) or 5-scale.
Here the R-CNN results are as reported in [7] using
the AlexNet [3] with 5 conv layers. Using the pool 5
layers (in our case the pooled features), our result
(44.9%) is comparable with R-CNN’s result (44.2%).
But using the non-ﬁne-tuned fc 6layers, our results are
inferior. An explanation is that our fc layers are pre-
trained using image regions, while in the detection
case they are used on the feature map regions. The
feature map regions can have strong activations near
the window boundaries, while the image regions may
not. This difference of usages can be addressed by
ﬁne-tuning. Using the ﬁne-tuned fc layers (ftfc 6;7), our
results are comparable with or slightly better than
the ﬁne-tuned results of R-CNN. After bounding box
regression, our 5-scale result ( 59.2%) is 0.7% better
than R-CNN (58.5%), and our 1-scale result (58.0%)
is 0.5% worse.
In Table 10 we further compare with R-CNN us-
ing the same pre-trained model of SPPnet (ZF-5). InSPP (1-sc) SPP (5-sc) R-CNN
(ZF-5) (ZF-5) (Alex-5)
pool 5 43.0 44.9 44.2
fc6 42.5 44.8 46.2
ftfc6 52.3 53.7 53.1
ftfc7 54.5 55.2 54.2
ftfc7bb 58.0 59.2 58.5
conv time (GPU) 0.053s 0.293s 8.96s
fc time (GPU) 0.089s 0.089s 0.07s
total time (GPU) 0.142s 0.382s 9.03s
speedup ( vs. RCNN) 64 24 -
Table 9: Detection results (mAP) on Pascal VOC 2007.
“ft” and “bb” denote ﬁne-tuning and bounding box
regression.
SPP (1-sc) SPP (5-sc) R-CNN
(ZF-5) (ZF-5) (ZF-5)
ftfc7 54.5 55.2 55.1
ftfc7bb 58.0 59.2 59.2
conv time (GPU) 0.053s 0.293s 14.37s
fc time (GPU) 0.089s 0.089s 0.089s
total time (GPU) 0.142s 0.382s 14.46s
speedup ( vs. RCNN) 102 38 -
Table 10: Detection results (mAP) on Pascal VOC 2007,
using the same pre-trained model of SPP (ZF-5).
this case, our method and R-CNN have comparable
averaged scores. The R-CNN result is boosted by
this pre-trained model. This is because of the better
architecture of ZF-5 than AlexNet, and also because
of the multi-level pooling of SPPnet (if using the no-
SPP ZF-5, the R-CNN result drops). Table 11 shows
the results for each category.
Table 11 also includes additional methods. Selective
Search (SS) [20] applies spatial pyramid matching on
SIFT feature maps. DPM [23] and Regionlet [39] are
based on HOG features [24]. The Regionlet method
improves to 46.1% [8] by combining various fea-
tures including conv 5. DetectorNet [40] trains a deep
network that outputs pixel-wise object masks. This
method only needs to apply the deep network once
to the entire image, as is the case for our method. But
this method has lower mAP (30.5%).
4.3 Complexity and Running Time
Despite having comparable accuracy, our method is
much faster than R-CNN. The complexity of the con-
volutional feature computation in R-CNN is O(n
2272)with the window number n(2000). This com-
plexity of our method is O(rs2)at a scales, where
ris the aspect ratio. Assume ris about 4/3. In the
single-scale version when s= 688 , this complexity is
11
method mAP areo bike bird boat bottle bus car cat chair cow table dog horse mbike person plant sheep sofa train tv
DPM [23] 33.7 33.2 60.3 10.2 16.1 27.3 54.3 58.2 23.0 20.0 24.1 26.7 12.7 58.1 48.2 43.2 12.0 21.1 36.1 46.0 43.5
SS [20] 33.8 43.5 46.5 10.4 12.0 9.3 49.4 53.7 39.4 12.5 36.9 42.2 26.4 47.0 52.4 23.5 12.1 29.9 36.3 42.2 48.8
Regionlet [39] 41.7 54.2 52.0 20.3 24.0 20.1 55.5 68.7 42.6 19.2 44.2 49.1 26.6 57.0 54.5 43.4 16.4 36.6 37.7 59.4 52.3
DetNet [40] 30.5 29.2 35.2 19.4 16.7 3.7 53.2 50.2 27.2 10.2 34.8 30.2 28.2 46.6 41.7 26.2 10.3 32.8 26.8 39.8 47.0
RCNN ftfc 7(A5) 54.2 64.2 69.7 50.0 41.9 32.0 62.6 71.0 60.7 32.7 58.5 46.5 56.1 60.6 66.8 54.2 31.5 52.8 48.9 57.9 64.7
RCNN ftfc 7(ZF5) 55.1 64.8 68.4 47.0 39.5 30.9 59.8 70.5 65.3 33.5 62.5 50.3 59.5 61.6 67.9 54.1 33.4 57.3 52.9 60.2 62.9
SPP ftfc 7(ZF5) 55.2 65.5 65.9 51.7 38.4 32.7 62.6 68.6 69.7 33.1 66.6 53.1 58.2 63.6 68.8 50.4 27.4 53.7 48.2 61.7 64.7
RCNN bb (A5) 58.5 68.1 72.8 56.8 43.0 36.8 66.3 74.2 67.6 34.4 63.5 54.5 61.2 69.1 68.6 58.7 33.4 62.9 51.1 62.5 64.8
RCNN bb (ZF5) 59.2 68.4 74.0 54.0 40.9 35.2 64.1 74.4 69.8 35.5 66.9 53.8 64.2 69.9 69.6 58.9 36.8 63.4 56.0 62.8 64.9
SPP bb (ZF5) 59.2 68.6 69.7 57.1 41.2 40.5 66.3 71.3 72.5 34.4 67.3 61.7 63.1 71.0 69.8 57.6 29.7 59.0 50.2 65.2 68.0
Table 11: Comparisons of detection results on Pascal VOC 2007.
method mAP areo bike bird boat bottle bus car cat chair cow table dog horse mbike person plant sheep sofa train tv
SPP-net (1) 59.2 68.6 69.7 57.1 41.2 40.5 66.3 71.3 72.5 34.4 67.3 61.7 63.1 71.0 69.8 57.6 29.7 59.0 50.2 65.2 68.0
SPP-net (2) 59.1 65.7 71.4 57.4 42.4 39.9 67.0 71.4 70.6 32.4 66.7 61.7 64.8 71.7 70.4 56.5 30.8 59.9 53.2 63.9 64.6
combination 60.9 68.5 71.7 58.7 41.9 42.5 67.7 72.1 73.8 34.7 67.0 63.4 66.0 72.5 71.3 58.9 32.8 60.9 56.1 67.9 68.8
Table 12: Detection results on VOC 2007 using model combination. The results of both models use “ftfc 7bb”.
about 1/160 of R-CNN’s; in the 5-scale version, this
complexity is about 1/24 of R-CNN’s.
In Table 10, we provide a fair comparison on the
running time of the feature computation using the
same SPP (ZF-5) model . The implementation of R-
CNN is from the code published by the authors imple-
mented in Caffe [35]. We also implement our feature
computation in Caffe . In Table 10 we evaluate the
average time of 100 random VOC images using GPU.
R-CNN takes 14.37s per image for convolutions, while
our 1-scale version takes only 0.053s per image. So
ours is 270faster than R-CNN. Our 5-scale version
takes 0.293s per image for convolutions, so is 49 
faster than R-CNN. Our convolutional feature compu-
tation is so fast that the computational time of fc layers
takes a considerable portion. Table 10 shows that the
GPU time of computing the 4,096-d fc 7features is
0.089s per image. Considering both convolutional and
fully-connected features, our 1-scale version is 102
faster than R-CNN and is 1.2% inferior; our 5-scale
version is 38faster and has comparable results.
We also compares the running time in Table 9 where
R-CNN uses AlexNet [3] as is in the original paper
[7]. Our method is 24 to 64faster. Note that the
AlexNet [3] has the same number of ﬁlters as our ZF-
5 on each conv layer. The AlexNet is faster because
it uses splitting on some layers, which was designed
for two GPUs in [3].
We further achieve an efﬁcient full system with the
help of the recent window proposal method [25]. The
Selective Search (SS) proposal [20] takes about 1-2 sec-
onds per image on a CPU. The method of EdgeBoxes
[25] only takes0.2s. Note that it is sufﬁcient to use
a fast proposal method during testing only. Using the
same model trained as above (using SS), we test pro-
posals generated by EdgeBoxes only. The mAP is 52.8
without bounding box regression. This is reasonableconsidering that EdgeBoxes are not used for training.
Then we use both SS and EdgeBox as proposals in
the training stage, and adopt only EdgeBoxes in the
testing stage. The mAP is 56.3 without bounding box
regression, which is better than 55.2 (Table 10) due to
additional training samples. In this case, the overall
testing time is0.5s per image including all steps
(proposal and recognition). This makes our method
practical for real-world applications.
4.4 Model Combination for Detection
Model combination is an important strategy for boost-
ing CNN-based classiﬁcation accuracy [3]. We pro-
pose a simple combination method for detection.
We pre-train another network in ImageNet, using
the same structure but different random initializa-
tions. Then we repeat the above detection algorithm.
Table 12 (SPP-net (2)) shows the results of this net-
work. Its mAP is comparable with the ﬁrst network
(59.1% vs. 59.2%), and outperforms the ﬁrst network
in 11 categories.
Given the two models, we ﬁrst use either model
to score all candidate windows on the test image.
Then we perform non-maximum suppression on the
union of the two sets of candidate windows (with
their scores). A more conﬁdent window given by
one method can suppress those less conﬁdent given
by the other method. After combination, the mAP
is boosted to 60.9% (Table 12). In 17 out of all 20
categories the combination performs better than either
individual model. This indicates that the two models
are complementary.
We further ﬁnd that the complementarity is mainly
because of the convolutional layers. We have tried to
combine two randomly initialized ﬁne-tuned results
of the same convolutional model, and found no gain.
12
4.5 ILSVRC 2014 Detection
The ILSVRC 2014 detection [26] task involves 200
categories. There are 450k/20k/40k images in the
training/validation/testing sets. We focus on the task
of the provided-data-only track (the 1000-category
CLS training data is not allowed to use).
There are three major differences between the detec-
tion (DET) and classiﬁcation (CLS) training datasets,
which greatly impacts the pre-training quality. First,
the DET training data is merely 1/3 of the CLS
training data. This seems to be a fundamental chal-
lenge of the provided-data-only DET task. Second, the
category number of DET is 1/5 of CLS. To overcome
this problem, we harness the provided subcategory
labels2for pre-training. There are totally 499 non-
overlapping subcategories ( i.e., the leaf nodes in the
provided category hierarchy). So we pre-train a 499-
category network on the DET training set. Third, the
distributions of object scales are different between
DET/CLS training sets. The dominant object scale in
CLS is about 0.8 of the image length, but in DET is
about 0.5. To address the scale difference, we resize
each training image to min(w;h) = 400 (instead of
256), and randomly crop 224224views for training.
A crop is only used when it overlaps with a ground
truth object by at least 50%.
We verify the effect of pre-training on Pascal VOC
2007. For a CLS-pre-training baseline, we consider
the pool 5features (mAP 43.0% in Table 9). Replaced
with a 200-category network pre-trained on DET, the
mAP signiﬁcantly drops to 32.7%. A 499-category
pre-trained network improves the result to 35.9%.
Interestingly, even if the amount of training data
do not increase, training a network of more cate-
gories boosts the feature quality. Finally, training with
min(w;h) = 400 instead of 256 further improves the
mAP to 37.8%. Even so, we see that there is still a
considerable gap to the CLS-pre-training result. This
indicates the importance of big data to deep learning.
For ILSVRC 2014, we train a 499-category Overfeat-
7 SPP-net. The remaining steps are similar to the
VOC 2007 case. Following [7], we use the validation
set to generate the positive/negative samples, with
windows proposed by the selective search fast mode.
The training set only contributes positive samples
using the ground truth windows. We ﬁne-tune the fc
layers and then train the SVMs using the samples in
both validation and training sets. The bounding box
regression is trained on the validation set.
Our single model leads to 31.84% mAP in the
ILSVRC 2014 testing set [26]. We combine six similar
models using the strategy introduced in this paper.
The mAP is 35.11% in the testing set [26]. This result
ranks #2 in the provided-data-only track of ILSVRC
2014 (Table 13) [26]. The winning result is 37.21% from
2. Using the provided subcategory labels is allowed, as is explic-
itly stated in the competition introduction.rank team mAP
1 NUS 37.21
2 ours 35.11
3 UvA 32.02
- (our single-model) (31.84)
4 Southeast-CASIA 30.47
5 1-HKUST 28.86
6 CASIA CRIPAC 2 28.61
Table 13: The competition results of ILSVRC 2014
detection (provided-data-only track) [26]. The best
entry of each team is listed.
NUS, which uses contextual information.
Our system still shows great advantages on speed
for this dataset. It takes our single model 0.6 seconds
(0.5 for conv, 0.1 for fc, excluding proposals) per test-
ing image on a GPU extracting convolutional features
from all 5 scales. Using the same model, it takes 32
seconds per image in the way of RCNN. For the 40k
testing images, our method requires 8 GPU hours to
compute convolutional features, while RCNN would
require 15 GPUdays.
5 C ONCLUSION
SPP is a ﬂexible solution for handling different scales,
sizes, and aspect ratios. These issues are important in
visual recognition, but received little consideration in
the context of deep networks. We have suggested a so-
lution to train a deep network with a spatial pyramid
pooling layer. The resulting SPP-net shows outstand-
ing accuracy in classiﬁcation/detection tasks and
greatly accelerates DNN-based detection. Our studies
also show that many time-proven techniques/insights
in computer vision can still play important roles in
deep-networks-based recognition.
APPENDIX A
In the appendix, we describe some implementation
details:
Mean Subtraction.
The 224224 cropped training/testing images are
often pre-processed by subtracting the per-pixel mean
[3]. When input images are in any sizes, the ﬁxed-
size mean image is not directly applicable. In the
ImageNet dataset, we warp the 224 224 mean image
to the desired size and then subtract it. In Pascal VOC
2007 and Caltech101, we use the constant mean (128)
in all the experiments.
Implementation of Pooling Bins.
We use the following implementation to handle all
bins when applying the network. Denote the width
and height of the conv 5feature maps (can be the
full image or a window) as wandh. For a pyra-
mid level with nnbins, the (i;j)-th bin is in the
range of [bi1
nwc;di
nwe][bj1
nhc;dj
nhe]. Intuitively,
13
bottle: 0. 24person:1.20
sheep:1.52
chair:0.21
diningtable:0.78person:1.16pers on:1.05
pottedplant:0.21chair:4.79pottedplant:0.73
c hair: 0. 33diningtable: 0.34
chair:0.89
bus:0.56
car:3.24
ca r:3.4 5pers on:1.52
train:0.31
train:1.62
pottedplant:0.33
pottedplant:0.78
sofa:0.55tvmonitor:1.77
aeroplane: 0.45
aeroplane:1.40aeroplane:1.01
aeroplane:0.94aeroplane:0.93
aeroplane:0.91aeroplane:0.79
aeroplane:0.57 aeroplane:0.54
person:0.93
person:0.68
horse:1.73pers on:1.91
boat:0.60pers on:3.20
car:2.52
bus:2.01
car:0.93per son:4.16person:0.79
pers on:0.32
hors e:1.68
hors e:0.61
horse:1.29
per son:1.23
c hair:0.87pers on:1.79
per son:0.91
sofa:0.22person:0.85
sofa:0.58
c ow:2.36
cow:1.88co w:1 .86
cow:1.82cow:1.39 cow:1.31
ca t:0.5 2person:1.02
person:0.40
bicy cle:2.85bicy cle:2.71
bicycle:2.04bicy cle:0.67person:3.35
person:2.39
pers on:2.11
pers on:0.27
person:0.22bus:1.42
person:3.29person:1.18
bottle:1.15pottedplant:0.81
s heep:1.81s heep:1.17
sheep:0.81
bird:0.24pott edplant:0.35 pot tedplant: 0. 20
car:1.31person:1.60
person:0.62
dog:0.37person:0.38
dog:0.99person:1.48
pers on:0.22
cow:0.80person:3.29
person:2.69pers on:2.42
person:1.05
person:0.92pers on:0.76
bird:1.39
bird:0.84
bottle:1.20diningtable:0.96pers on:1.53pers on:1.52
pers on:0.73
car:0.12
car:0.11
car:0.04car:0.03
car:3.98car:1.95car:1.39
car:0.50
bird:1.47
sofa:0.41 person:2.15pers on:0 .86tvmonitor:2.24
motorbike:1.11motorbike:0.74person:1.36
pers on:1.10
Figure 6: Example detection results of “SPP-net ftfc 7bb” on the Pascal VOC 2007 testing set (59.2% mAP).
All windows with scores >0 are shown. The predicted category/score are marked. The window color is
associated with the predicted category. These images are manually selected because we ﬁnd them impressive.
Visit our project website to see all 4,952 detection results in the testing set.
if rounding is needed, we take the ﬂoor operation on
the left/top boundary and ceiling on the right/bottom
boundary.
Mapping a Window to Feature Maps.
In the detection algorithm (and multi-view testing
on feature maps), a window is given in the image
domain, and we use it to crop the convolutional fea-
ture maps ( e.g., conv 5) which have been sub-sampled
several times. So we need to align the window on the
feature maps.
In our implementation, we project the corner point
of a window onto a pixel in the feature maps, such
that this corner point in the image domain is closest
to the center of the receptive ﬁeld of that feature mappixel. The mapping is complicated by the padding
of all convolutional and pooling layers. To simplify
the implementation, during deployment we pad bp=2c
pixels for a layer with a ﬁlter size of p. As such, for
a response centered at (x0;y0), its effective receptive
ﬁeld in the image domain is centered at (x;y) =
(Sx0;Sy0)whereSis the product of all previous
strides. In our models, S= 16 for ZF-5 on conv 5,
andS= 12 for Overfeat-5/7 on conv 5=7. Given a
window in the image domain, we project the left (top)
boundary by: x0=bx=Sc+ 1 and the right (bottom)
boundaryx0=dx=Se1. If the padding is not bp=2c,
we need to add a proper offset to x.
14
REFERENCES
[1] Y. LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard,
W. Hubbard, and L. D. Jackel, “Backpropagation applied to
handwritten zip code recognition,” Neural computation , 1989.
[2] J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-
Fei, “Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” in
CVPR , 2009.
[3] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. Hinton, “Imagenet classi-
ﬁcation with deep convolutional neural networks,” in NIPS ,
2012.
[4] M. D. Zeiler and R. Fergus, “Visualizing and understanding
convolutional neural networks,” arXiv:1311.2901 , 2013.
[5] P . Sermanet, D. Eigen, X. Zhang, M. Mathieu, R. Fergus,
and Y. LeCun, “Overfeat: Integrated recognition, localization
and detection using convolutional networks,” arXiv:1312.6229 ,
2013.
[6] A. V . K. Chatﬁeld, K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Return of
the devil in the details: Delving deep into convolutional nets,”
inArXiv:1405.3531 , 2014.
[7] R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik, “Rich feature
hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmen-
tation,” in CVPR , 2014.
[8] W. Y. Zou, X. Wang, M. Sun, and Y. Lin, “Generic ob-
ject detection with dense neural patterns and regionlets,” in
ArXiv:1404.4316 , 2014.
[9] A. S. Razavian, H. Azizpour, J. Sullivan, and S. Carlsson, “Cnn
features off-the-shelf: An astounding baseline for recogniton,”
inCVPR 2014, DeepVision Workshop , 2014.
[10] Y. Taigman, M. Yang, M. Ranzato, and L. Wolf, “Deepface:
Closing the gap to human-level performance in face veriﬁca-
tion,” in CVPR , 2014.
[11] N. Zhang, M. Paluri, M. Ranzato, T. Darrell, and L. Bourdevr,
“Panda: Pose aligned networks for deep attribute modeling,”
inCVPR , 2014.
[12] Y. Gong, L. Wang, R. Guo, and S. Lazebnik, “Multi-scale
orderless pooling of deep convolutional activation features,”
inArXiv:1403.1840 , 2014.
[13] J. Donahue, Y. Jia, O. Vinyals, J. Hoffman, N. Zhang, E. Tzeng,
and T. Darrell, “Decaf: A deep convolutional activation feature
for generic visual recognition,” arXiv:1310.1531 , 2013.
[14] K. Grauman and T. Darrell, “The pyramid match kernel:
Discriminative classiﬁcation with sets of image features,” in
ICCV , 2005.
[15] S. Lazebnik, C. Schmid, and J. Ponce, “Beyond bags of fea-
tures: Spatial pyramid matching for recognizing natural scene
categories,” in CVPR , 2006.
[16] J. Sivic and A. Zisserman, “Video google: a text retrieval
approach to object matching in videos,” in ICCV , 2003.
[17] J. Yang, K. Yu, Y. Gong, and T. Huang, “Linear spatial pyramid
matching using sparse coding for image classiﬁcation,” in
CVPR , 2009.
[18] J. Wang, J. Yang, K. Yu, F. Lv, T. Huang, and Y. Gong, “Locality-
constrained linear coding for image classiﬁcation,” in CVPR ,
2010.
[19] F. Perronnin, J. S ´anchez, and T. Mensink, “Improving the ﬁsher
kernel for large-scale image classiﬁcation,” in ECCV , 2010.
[20] K. E. van de Sande, J. R. Uijlings, T. Gevers, and A. W. Smeul-
ders, “Segmentation as selective search for object recognition,”
inICCV , 2011.
[21] L. Fei-Fei, R. Fergus, and P . Perona, “Learning generative
visual models from few training examples: An incremental
bayesian approach tested on 101 object categories,” CVIU ,
2007.
[22] M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, C. K. I. Williams, J. Winn, and
A. Zisserman, “The PASCAL Visual Object Classes Challenge
2007 (VOC2007) Results,” 2007.
[23] P . F. Felzenszwalb, R. B. Girshick, D. McAllester, and D. Ra-
manan, “Object detection with discriminatively trained part-
based models,” P AMI , 2010.
[24] N. Dalal and B. Triggs, “Histograms of oriented gradients for
human detection,” in CVPR , 2005.
[25] C. L. Zitnick and P . Doll ´ar, “Edge boxes: Locating object
proposals from edges,” in ECCV , 2014.
[26] O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh,
S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. Bernstein
et al. , “Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge,”
arXiv:1409.0575 , 2014.
[27] K. Chatﬁeld, V . Lempitsky, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman, “The
devil is in the details: an evaluation of recent feature encoding
methods,” in BMVC , 2011.
[28] A. Coates and A. Ng, “The importance of encoding versus
training with sparse coding and vector quantization,” in ICML ,
2011.
[29] D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant
keypoints,” IJCV , 2004.
[30] J. C. van Gemert, J.-M. Geusebroek, C. J. Veenman, and A. W.
Smeulders, “Kernel codebooks for scene categorization,” in
ECCV , 2008.[31] M. Lin, Q. Chen, and S. Yan, “Network in network,”
arXiv:1312.4400 , 2013.
[32] C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P . Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov,
D. Erhan, V . Vanhoucke, and A. Rabinovich, “Going deeper
with convolutions,” arXiv:1409.4842 , 2014.
[33] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional
networks for large-scale image recognition,” arXiv:1409.1556 ,
2014.
[34] M. Oquab, L. Bottou, I. Laptev, J. Sivic et al. , “Learning and
transferring mid-level image representations using convolu-
tional neural networks,” in CVPR , 2014.
[35] Y. Jia, “Caffe: An open source convolutional architecture
for fast feature embedding,” http://caffe.berkeleyvision.org/,
2013.
[36] A. G. Howard, “Some improvements on deep convolutional
neural network based image classiﬁcation,” ArXiv:1312.5402 ,
2013.
[37] H. Jegou, F. Perronnin, M. Douze, J. Sanchez, P . Perez, and
C. Schmid, “Aggregating local image descriptors into compact
codes,” TP AMI , vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 1704–1716, 2012.
[38] C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin, “Libsvm: a library for support
vector machines,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and
Technology (TIST) , 2011.
[39] X. Wang, M. Yang, S. Zhu, and Y. Lin, “Regionlets for generic
object detection,” in ICCV , 2013.
[40] C. Szegedy, A. Toshev, and D. Erhan, “Deep neural networks
for object detection,” in NIPS , 2013.
CHANGELOG
arXiv v1 . Initial technical report for ECCV 2014 paper.
arXiv v2 . Submitted version for TPAMI. Includes extra
experiments of SPP on various architectures. Includes
details for ILSVRC 2014.
arXiv v3 . Accepted version for TPAMI. Includes com-
parisons with R-CNN using the same architecture.
Includes detection experiments using EdgeBoxes.
arXiv v4 . Revised “Mapping a Window to Feature
Maps” in Appendix for easier implementation.