swav
PyTorch implementation of SwAV https//arxiv.org/abs/2006.09882
view repo
Combining clustering and representation learning is one of the most promising approaches for unsupervised learning of deep neural networks. However, doing so naively leads to ill posed learning problems with degenerate solutions. In this paper, we propose a novel and principled learning formulation that addresses these issues. The method is obtained by maximizing the information between labels and input data indices. We show that this criterion extends standard cross-entropy minimization to an optimal transport problem, which we solve efficiently for millions of input images and thousands of labels using a fast variant of the Sinkhorn-Knopp algorithm. The resulting method is able to self-label visual data so as to train highly competitive image representations without manual labels. Compared to the best previous method in this class, namely DeepCluster, our formulation minimizes a single objective function for both representation learning and clustering; it also significantly outperforms DeepCluster in standard benchmarks and reaches state of the art for learning a ResNet-50 self-supervisedly.
READ FULL TEXT VIEW PDF
We present Self-Classifier – a novel self-supervised end-to-end
classifi...
read it
Recent advances in deep clustering and unsupervised representation learn...
read it
One of the most promising approaches for unsupervised learning is combin...
read it
We propose a novel framework for image clustering that incorporates join...
read it
Due to the hierarchical structure of many machine learning problems, bil...
read it
Real world learning scenarios involve a nonstationary distribution of cl...
read it
Statistical methods protecting sensitive information or the identity of ...
read it
PyTorch implementation of SwAV https//arxiv.org/abs/2006.09882
None
None
Learning from unlabelled data can dramatically reduce the cost of deploying algorithms to new applications, thus amplifying the impact of machine learning in the real world. Self-supervision is an increasingly popular framework for learning without labels. The idea is to define pretext learning tasks can be constructed from raw data alone, but that still result in neural networks that transfer well to useful applications.
Much of the research in self-supervision has focused on designing new pre-text tasks. However, given supervised data such as ImageNet
(Deng et al., 2009), the standard classification objective of minimizing the cross-entropy loss still results in better pre-training than any of such methods (for a certain amount of data and model complexity). This suggest that the task of classification may be sufficient for pre-training networks, provided that suitable data labels are available. In this paper, we thus focus on the problem of obtaining the labels automatically by designing a self-labelling algorithm.Learning a deep neural network together while discovering the data labels can be viewed as simultaneous clustering and representation learning. The latter can be approached by combining cross-entropy minimization with an off-the-shelf clustering algorithm such as -means. This is precisely the approach adopted by the recent DeepCluster method (Caron et al., 2018), which achieves excellent results in unsupervised representation learning. However, combining representation learning, which is a discriminative task, with clusteringis not at all trivial. In particular, we show that the combination of cross-entropy minimization and -means as adopted by DeepCluster cannot be described as the consistent optimization of an overall learning objective; instead, there exist degenerate solutions that the algorithm avoids via particular implementation choices.
In order to address this technical shortcoming, in this paper we contribute a new principled formulation for simultaneous clustering and representation learning. The starting point is to minimize the cross-entropy loss for learning the deep network as well as
the data labels. This is often done in semi-supervised learning and multiple instance learning. However, when applied naively to the unsupervised case, it immediately leads to a degenerate solution where all data points are mapped to the same cluster.
We solve this issue by adding the constraint that the labels must induce an equipartition of the data, which we show maximizes the information between data indices and labels. We also show that the resulting label assignment problem is the same as optimal transport, and can therefore be solved in polynomial time as a linear program. However, since we want to scale the algorithm to millions of data points and thousands of labels, standard transport solvers are inadequate. Thus, we also propose to use a fast version of the Sinkhorn-Knopp algorithm for finding an approximate solution to the transport problem efficiently at scale, using fast matrix-vector algebra.
Compared to methods such as DeepCluster, the new formulation is more principled and allows to more easily demonstrate properties of the method such as convergence. Most importantly, via extensive experimentation, we show that our new approach leads to significantly superior results than DeepCluster, achieving the new state-of-the-art for representation learning for clustering-based approaches. In fact, the method’s performance surpasses others that use a single type of supervisory signal for self-supervision.
Our paper relates to two broad areas of research: (a) self-supervised representation learning, and (b) more specifically, training a deep neural network using pseudo-labels, i.e. the assignment of a label to each image. We discuss closely related works for each.
A wide variety of methods that do not require manual annotations have been proposed for the self-training of deep convolutional neural networks. These methods use various cues and proxy tasks namely, in-painting
(Pathak et al., 2016), patch context and jigsaw puzzles (Doersch et al., 2015; Noroozi & Favaro, 2016; Noroozi et al., 2018; Mundhenk et al., 2017), clustering (Caron et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2019), noise-as-targets (Bojanowski & Joulin, 2017)(Zhang et al., 2016; Larsson et al., 2017), generation (Jenni & Favaro, 2018; Ren & Lee, 2018; Donahue et al., 2017; Donahue & Simonyan, 2019), predictive coding (Oord et al., 2018; Hénaff et al., 2019), geometry (Dosovitskiy et al., 2016), predicting transformations (Gidaris et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019) and counting (Noroozi et al., 2017). In (Feng et al., 2019), predicting rotation (Gidaris et al., 2018) is combined with instance retrieval (Wu et al., 2018).The idea is that the pretext task can be constructed automatically and easily from images alone. Thus, methods often modify information in the images and require the network to recover them. In-painting or colorization techniques fall in this category. However these methods have the downside that the features are learned on modified images which potentially harms the generalization to unmodified ones. For example, colorization uses a gray scale image as input, thus the network cannot learn to extract color information, which can be important for other tasks.
Slightly less related are methods that use additional information to learn features. Here, often temporal information is used in the form of videos. Typical pretext tasks are based on temporal-context (Misra et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017; Sermanet et al., 2018), spatio-temporal cues (Isola et al., 2015; Gao et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017), foreground-background separation via video segmentation (Pathak et al., 2017), optical-flow (Gan et al., 2018; Mahendran et al., 2018), future-frame synthesis (Srivastava et al., 2015), audio prediction from video (de Sa, 1994; Owens et al., 2016), audio-video alignment (Arandjelović & Zisserman, 2017)
, ego-motion estimation
(Jayaraman & Grauman, 2015), slow feature analysis with higher order temporal coherence (Jayaraman & Grauman, 2016), transformation between frames (Agrawal et al., 2015) and patch tracking in videos (Wang & Gupta, 2015).In the self-supervised domain, we find a spectrum of methods that either give each data point a unique label (Wu et al., 2018; Dosovitskiy et al., 2016)
or train on a flexible number of labels with k-means
(Caron et al., 2018), with mutual information (Ji et al., 2018) or with noise (Bojanowski & Joulin, 2017). In (Noroozi et al., 2018) a large network is trained with a pretext task and a smaller network is trained via knowledge transfer of the clustered data. Finally, (Bach & Harchaoui, 2008; Vo et al., 2019) use convex relaxations to regularized affine-transformation invariant linear clustering, that does not scale to larger datasets.Our contribution is a simple method that combines a novel pseudolabel extraction procedure from raw data alone and the training of a deep neural network using a standard cross-entropy loss.
We will first derive our self-labelling method, then interpret the method as optimizing labels and targets of a cross-entropy loss and finally analyze similarities and differences with other clustering based methods.
Neural network pre-training is often achieved via a supervised data classification task. Formally, consider a deep neural network mapping data (e.g. images) to feature vectors . The model is trained using a dataset (e.g. ImageNet) of data points with corresponding labels , drawn from a space of possible labels. The model is followed by a classification head
, usually consisting of a single linear layer, converting the feature vector into a vector of class scores. The class scores are mapped to class probabilities via the softmax operator:
The model and head parameters are learned by minimizing the average cross-entropy loss
(1) |
Training with objective (1) requires a labelled dataset. When labels are unavailable, we require a self-labelling mechanism to assign the labels automatically.
In semi-supervised learning, self-labelling is often achieved by jointly optimizing (1) with respect to the model and the labels . This can work if at least part of the labels is known, thus constraining the optimization. However, in the fully unsupervised case, it leads to a degenerate solution: eq. 1 is trivially minimized by assigning all data points to a single (arbitrary) label.
To address this issue, we first rewrite eq. 1 by encoding the labels as posterior distributions :
(2) |
If we set the posterior distributions to be deterministic, the formulations in eqs. 2 and 1 are equivalent, in the sense that . In this case, optimizing is the same as reassigning the labels, which leads to the degeneracy. To avoid this, we add the constraint that the label assignments must partition the data in equally-sized subsets. Formally, the learning objective objective^{1}^{1}1We assume for simplicity that divides exactly, but the formulation is easily extended to any by setting the constraints to either or , in order to assure that there is a feasible solution. is thus:
(3) |
The constraints mean that each data point is assigned to exactly one label and that, overall, the data points are split uniformly among the classes.
The objective in eq. 3 is combinatorial in and thus may appear very difficult to optimize. However, this is an instance of the optimal transport problem, which can be solved relatively efficiently. In order to see this more clearly, let be the
matrix of scaled log-posterior probabilities estimated by the model. Likewise, let
be the scaled matrix of label assignments. Using the notation of (Cuturi, 2013), we relax matrix to be an element of the transportation polytope(4) |
Here are vectors of all ones of the appropriate dimensions, so that and are the marginal projections of matrix onto its rows and columns, respectively. In our case, we require
to be a matrix of conditional probability distributions that split the data uniformly, which is captured by:
With this notation, we can rewrite the objective function in eq. 3, up to a constant shift, as
(5) |
where is the Frobenius dot-product between two matrices. Hence optimizing eq. 3 with respect to the assignments is equivalent to solving the problem:
(6) |
This is a linear program, and can thus be solved in polynomial time. Furthermore, solving this problem always leads to an integral solution despite having relaxed to the continuous polytope , guaranteeing the exact equivalence to the original problem.
In practice, however, the resulting linear program is large, involving millions of data points and thousands of classes. Traditional algorithms to solve the transport problem scale badly to instances of this size. We address this issue by adopting a fast version (Cuturi, 2013) of the Sinkhorn-Knopp algorithm. This amounts to introducing a regularization term
(7) |
where
is the Kullback-Leibler divergence and
can be interpreted as a probability matrix. The advantage of this regularization term is that the minimizer of eq. 7 can be written as:(8) |
where exponentiation is meant element-wise and and are two vectors of scaling coefficients chosen so that the resulting matrix is also a probability matrix (see (Cuturi, 2013) for a derivation). The vectors and can be obtained, as shown below, via a simple matrix scaling iteration.
For very large , optimizing eq. 7 is of course equivalent to optimizing eq. 6, but even for moderate values of the two objectives tend to have approximately the same optimizer (Cuturi, 2013). Choosing trades off convergence speed with closeness to the original transport problem. In our case, using a fixed is appropriate as we are ultimately interested in the final clustering and representation learning results, rather than in solving the transport problem exactly.
Our final algorithm’s core can be described as follows. We learn a model and a label assignment matrix by solving the optimization problem eq. 6 with respect to both , which is a probability matrix, and the model , which determines the predictions . We do so by alternating the two steps:
Given the current label assignment , the model is updated by minimizing eq. 6 with respect to (the parameters of) . This is the same as training the model using the common cross-entropy loss for classification.
Given the current model , we compute the log probabilities . Then, we find using eq. 8 by iterating the updates (Cuturi, 2013)
Each update involves a single matrix-vector multiplication with complexity , so it is relatively quick even for millions of data points and thousands of labels and so the cost of this method scales linearly with the number of images . In practice, convergence is reached within 2 minutes on ImageNet when computed on a GPU. Also note that the parameters and can be retained between steps, thus allowing a warm start of Step 2.
As shown above, the formulation in eq. 2 uses scaled versions of the probabilities. We can interpret these by treating the data index
as a random variable with uniform distribution
and by rewriting the posteriors and as conditional distributions with respect to the data index instead of the feature vector . With these changes, we can rewrite eq. 5 as(9) |
which is the cross-entropy between the joint label-index distributions and . The minimum of this quantity w.r.t. is obtained when , in which case reduces to the entropy of the random variables and . Additionally, since we assumed that , the marginal entropy is constant and, due to the equipartition condition , we have is also constant. Subtracting these two constants from the entropy yields:
Thus we see that minimizing is the same as maximizing the mutual information between the label and the data index .
In our formulation, the maximization above is carried out under the equipartition constraint. We can instead relax this constraint and directly maximize the information . However, by rewriting information as the difference , we see that the optimal solution is given by , which states each data point is associated to only one label deterministically, and by , which is another way of stating the equipartition condition.
In other words, our learning formulation can be interpreted as maximizing the information between data indices and labels while explicitly enforcing the equipartition condition, which is implied by maximizing the information in any case. Compared to minimizing the entropy alone, maximizing information avoids degenerate solutions as the latter carry no mutual information between labels and indices .
In the discussion above, self-labelling amounts to assigning discrete labels to data and can thus be interpreted as clustering. Most of the traditional clustering approaches are generative. For example, -means takes a dataset of vectors and partitions it into classes in order to minimize the reconstruction error
(10) |
where are the data-to-cluster assignments and are means approximating the vectors in the corresponding clusters. The -means energy can thus be interpreted as the average data reconstruction error.
It is natural to ask whether a clustering method such as -means, which is generative, could be combined with representation learning, which is discriminative. In this setting, the feature vectors are extracted by the neural network from the input data . Unfortunately, optimizing a loss such as eq. 10 with respect to the clustering and representation parameters is meaningless: in fact, the obvious solution is to let the representation send all the data points to the same constant feature vector and setting all the means to coincide with it, in which case the -means reconstruction error is zero (minimal).
Nevertheless, DeepCluster (Caron et al., 2018) does successfully combine -means with representation learning. DeepCluster can be related to our approach as follows. Step 1 of the algorithm, namely representation learning via cross-entropy minimization, is exactly the same. Step 2, namely self-labelling, differs: where we solve an optimal transport problem to obtain the pseudo-labels, they do so by running -means on the feature vectors extracted by the neural network.
DeepCluster does have an obvious degenerate solution: we can assign all data points to the same label and learn a constant representation, achieving simultaneously a minimum of the cross-entropy loss in Step 1 and of the -means loss in Step 2. The reason why DeepCluster avoids this pitfall is due to the particular interaction between the two steps. First, during Step 2, the features are fixed so -means cannot pull them together. Instead, the means spread to cover the features as they are, resulting in a balanced partitioning. Second, during the classification step, the cluster assignments are fixed, and optimizing the features with respect to the cross-entropy loss tends to separate them. Lastly, the method in (Caron et al., 2018)
also uses other heuristics such as sampling the training data inversely to their associated clusters’ size, leading to further regularization.
However, a downside of DeepCluster is that it does not have a single, well-defined objective to optimize, which means that it is difficult to characterize its convergence properties. By contrast, in our formulation, both Step 1 and Step 2 optimize the same objective, with the advantage that convergence to a (local) optimum is guaranteed.
Methods such as DeepCluster extend the training data via augmentations. In vision problems, this amounts to (heavily) distorting and cropping the input images at random. Augmentations are applied so that the neural network is encouraged to learn a labelling function which is transformation invariant. In practice, this is crucial to learn good clusters and representations, so we adopt it here. This is achieved by setting where the transformations are sampled at random. In practice, in Step 1 (representation learning), this is implemented via the application of the random transformations to data batches during optimization via SGD, which is corresponds to the usual data augmentation scheme for deep neural networks.
Intuitively, the same data can often be clustered in many equally good ways. For example, visual objects can be clustered by color, size, typology, viewpoint, and many other attributes. Since our main objective is to use clustering to learn a good data representation , we consider a multi-task setting in which the same representation is shared among several different clustering tasks, which can potentially capture different and complementary clustering axis.
In our formulation, this is easily achieved by considering multiple heads (Ji et al., 2018) , one for each of clustering tasks (which may also have a different number of labels). Then, we optimize a sum of objective functions of the type eq. 6, one for each task, while sharing the parameters of the feature extractor among them.
In this section, we will evaluate the quality of the learned representations. We first ablate our hyper-parameters and then compare to the state of the art in self-supervised learning, where we find that our method is the best clustering-based feature learner and overall second best on many benchmarks.
In order to quantify if a neural network has learned useful feature representations, we follow the standard approach of using linear probes (Zhang et al., 2017)
. This amounts to solving a difficult task, such as ImageNet classification, by training a linear classifier on top of pre-trained feature representations, which are kept fixed. Linear classifiers heavily rely on the quality of the representation since their discriminative power is low.
We apply linear probes to all intermediate convolutional blocks of networks and train on the ImageNet LSVRC-12 (Deng et al., 2009) and other smaller scale datasets, and transfer to MIT Places (Zhou et al., 2014), all of which are standard benchmarks for evaluation in self-supervised learning. Our base encoder architecture is AlexNet (Krizhevsky et al., 2012)
, since this is most often used in other self-supervised learning work for the purpose of benchmarking. We insert the probes right after the ReLU layer in each of the five blocks, and denote these entry points
conv1 to conv5. Applying the linear probes at each convolutional layer allows studying the quality of the representation learned at different depths of the network. While linear probes are conceptually straightforward, there are several technical details that can affect the final accuracy. We detail the exact setup in the Appendix.Method | #opt. | c3 | c4 | c5 |
SL [] | 0 | |||
SL [] | 40 | |||
SL [] | 80 | |||
SL [] | 160 |
Method | c3 | c4 | c5 |
SL [] | |||
SL [] | |||
SL [] | |||
SL [] |
Method | Architecture | Top-1 |
SL [] | AlexNet | |
SL [] | AlexNet | |
SL [] | ResNet-50 |
Method | Architecture | Top-1 |
SL [] | AlexNet (small) | |
SL [] | AlexNet | |
SL [] | ResNet-50 |
Method | Source (Top-1) | Target (Top-1) |
SL [] | AlexNet () | AlexNet () |
SL [] | ResNet-50 () | AlexNet () |
SL [] | ResNet-50 () | AlexNet () |
Our method contains two major hyper-parameters. As any clustering method, the number of clusters (or an equivalent parameter) needs to be defined. Additionally, the number of clustering heads can be specified. Due to the simplicity of the approach, no other parameters such as balancing losses are needed. In our experiments we specify and by denoting our self-labelling method as “SL”.
In Tables 5-5 we show extensive ablations of our method. Since the conv1 and conv2 are mostly learned from just augmentations (Asano et al., 2019) alone, we evaluate only the deeper layers. First, in Table 5, we validate that our label-optimization method is key for achieving a good performance and not augmentations or random labels (i.e. zero label optimizations). We further observe performance gain from increasing the number of times we optimize the label assignment (#opts) yields diminishing or slightly decreasing returns indicating saturation.
Next, in Table 5, we compare the different choices of . We find that moving from 1k to 3k improves the results, but larger number of clusters decrease the quality slightly.
In Table 5 we observe that increasing the number of heads from to yields strongest performance gain, with .
In Table 5, we show that the performance increases with larger architectures from a smaller variant of AlexNet which uses (64, 192) filters in its first two convolutional layers (Krizhevsky, 2014), to the standard variant with (96, 256) (Krizhevsky et al., 2012), all the way to a ResNet-50. This indicates that the task is hard enough to scale to better architectures, yet simple enough to also be able to train AlexNet, which other methods such as BigBiGAN (Donahue & Simonyan, 2019) or CPC (Hénaff et al., 2019) cannot do.
Lastly, in Table 5
, we find that the labels extracted using our method can be used to quickly retrain a network from scratch. For this we use a shorter 90 epoch schedule and conduct standard supervised training using the labels. We find that retraining an AlexNet this way recovers the original performance. This is an interesting result, indicating that the quality of the features depends on the final label assignment and not on the intermediate “label-paths” during training. Since the labels are independent of the network architecture, one can use them to pre-train any architecture without running the actual method. To verify this assumption, we use the labels obtained from a SL [
] ResNet-50 and train an AlexNet and find it performing even better than the directly trained AlexNet. For this reason we will publish our self-labels for the ImageNet dataset together with the code and trained models.As we show qualitatively in the appendix, the labels identified by our algorithm are highly meaningful and group visually similar concepts in the same clusters, often even capturing whole ImageNet classes.
Dataset | |||
Method | CIFAR-10 | CIFAR-100 | SVHN |
Classifier/Feature | Linear Classifier / conv5 | ||
Supervised | |||
Counting | |||
DeepCluster | |||
Instance | |||
AND | |||
SL | |||
Classifier/Feature | Weighted kNN / FC |
||
Supervised | |||
Counting | |||
DeepCluster | |||
Instance | |||
AND | |||
SL |
PascalVOC Task | |||
Method | Cls. | Det. | Seg. |
ImageNet labels | |||
Random | |||
Random Rescaled | |||
BiGAN | |||
Context | |||
Context 2 | |||
CC+VGG | |||
RotNet | |||
DeepCluster | |||
RotNet+retrieval | |||
SL [] |
First, we evaluate our method on relatively simple and small datasets, namely CIFAR-10/100 (Krizhevsky et al., 2009) and SVHN (Netzer et al., 2011). For this, we follow the experimental and evaluation protocol from the current state-of-the-art in self-supervised learning in these datasets, AND (Huang et al., 2019). In Table 7, we compare our method with the settings [] for CIFAR-10, [] for CIFAR-100 and [] for SVHN to other published methods. We observe that our method outperforms the best previous method by 5.8% for CIFAR-10, by 9.5% for CIFAR-100 and by 0.8% for SVHN respectively. The relatively minor gains on SVHN can be explained by the fact that the gap between the supervised baseline and the self-supervised results already being very small (<3%). Even in the nearest neighbour retrieval evaluation, which should naturally favour the AND method, as it is based on learning local neighbourhoods, we surpass AND by around 2% consistently across these datasets.
To compare to the state of the art and concurrent work, we evaluate several architectures using linear probes on public benchmark datasets.
ILSVRC-12 | Places | |||||||||
Method | c1 | c2 | c3 | c4 | c5 | c1 | c2 | c3 | c4 | c5 |
ImageNet supervised | ||||||||||
Places supervised | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
Random | ||||||||||
Inpainting, (Pathak et al., 2016) | ||||||||||
BiGAN, (Donahue et al., 2017) | ||||||||||
Instance retrieval, (Wu et al., 2018) | ||||||||||
RotNet, (Gidaris et al., 2018) | ||||||||||
DeepCluster (RGB), (Caron et al., 2018) | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
AND,(Huang et al., 2019) | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
DeepCluster, (Caron et al., 2018) | ||||||||||
AET,(Zhang et al., 2019) | ||||||||||
RotNet+retrieval, (Feng et al., 2019) | ||||||||||
SL [] |
The main benchmark for feature learning methods is linear probing of an AlexNet on ImageNet. In Table 8 we compare the performance across layers also on the Places dataset. We find that across both datasets our method outperforms DeepCluster at every layer. From our ablation studies in Tables 5-5 we also note that even our single head variant outperforms DeepCluster, which searches for the optimal number of clusters resulting k clusters. Furthermore we find that our method is either first or second best in all layers and datasets, and the best method that utilizes a combination of two self-supervised modalities, which are known to increase performance (Doersch & Zisserman, 2017) but blur the sources of gain. Barring this combining method, we improve upon the latest single self-supervision benchmark, Auto-Encoding-Transformations (AET) by on ImageNet and by on Places.
Method | Architecture | Evaluation details (epochs) | Top-1 | Top-5 |
Supervised, (Donahue & Simonyan, 2019) | ResNet-50 | Adam, LR sweeps (135) | ||
Supervised, (Donahue & Simonyan, 2019) | ResNet-101 | Adam, LR sweeps (135) | ||
Jigsaw, (Kolesnikov et al., 2019) | ResNet-50 | SGD (500) | ||
Rotation, (Kolesnikov et al., 2019) | ResNet-50 | SGD (500) | ||
CPC, (Oord et al., 2018) | ResNet-101 | SGD (145) | ||
BigBiGAN, (Donahue & Simonyan, 2019) | ResNet-50 | Adam, LR sweeps (135) | ||
SL [] | ResNet-50 | SGD (145) | ||
SL [] | ResNet-50 | SGD (145) | ||
SL [] | ResNet-50 | SGD (145) | ||
other architectures | ||||
Rotation, (Kolesnikov et al., 2019) | RevNet-50 | SGD (500) | 53.7 | - |
BigBiGAN, (Donahue & Simonyan, 2019) | RevNet-50 | Adam, LR sweeps (135) | 60.8 | 81.4 |
Efficient CPC, (Hénaff et al., 2019) | ResNet-170 | SGD (145) | 61.0 | 83.0 |
Training better models than AlexNets is not yet standardized in the feature learning community. In Table 9 we compare a ResNet-50 trained with our method to other works. We perform better than all other methods except the computationally very expensive BigBiGAN.
Finally, since pre-training is usually aimed at improving down-stream tasks, we evaluate the quality of the learned features by fine-tuning the model for three distinct tasks on the Pascal VOC benchmark. In Table 7 we compare results with regard to multi-label classification, object detection and semantic segmentation on PascalVOC (Everingham et al., ).
As in the linear probe experiments, we find our method better or close to the best performing method. This shows that our trained convolutional network does not only learn useful feature representations but is also able to perform well on actual down-stream tasks.
We present a self-supervised feature learning method that is based on clustering. In contrast to other methods, our method optimizes the same objective during feature learning and during clustering. This becomes possible through a weak assumption that the number of samples should be equal across clusters. This constraint is explicitly encoded in the label assignment step and can be solved for efficiently using a modified Sinkhorn-Knopp algorithm. Our method outperforms all other clustering-based feature learning approaches and the resulting self-labels can be used to learn features for new architectures using simple cross-entropy training.
Yuki Asano gratefully acknowledges support from the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Autonomous Intelligent Machines & Systems (EP/L015897/1). We are also grateful to ERC IDIU-638009, AWS Machine Learning Research Awards (MLRA) and the use of the University of Oxford Advanced Research Computing (ARC).
Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
, pp. 10364–10374, 2019.Unsupervised deep learning by neighbourhood discovery.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on machine learning (ICML), 2019.Split-brain autoencoders: Unsupervised learning by cross-channel prediction.
In Proc. CVPR, 2017.Learning deep features for scene recognition using places database.
In Advances in neural information processing systems, pp. 487–495, 2014.kNN | Linear/conv5 | |||
Training data | CIFAR-10 | CIFAR-100 | CIFAR-10 | CIFAR-100 |
CIFAR-10, full | ||||
Supervised | ||||
k-means [] | ||||
ours [] | ||||
CIFAR-10, light imbalance | ||||
Supervised | ||||
k-means [] | ||||
ours [] | ||||
CIFAR-10, heavy imbalance | ||||
Supervised | ||||
k-means [] | ||||
ours [] |
In order to understand if our equipartition regularization affects the type of datasets it can be applied to, we perform multiple ablation experiments on artificially imbalanced datasets in Table A.1. In particular, we compare the performance of our clustering algorithm based on optimal transport with a simple k-means clustering using the same number of clusters. For k-means we use the "k-means++" (Arthur & Vassilvitskii, 2007) initialization method with three initializations.
On the full dataset, we find that while supervised training yields the best results on the same dataset for both kNN and linear separation evaluations; kNN evaluation on CIFAR-100 works better on our self-supervised method (
). This might be due to the fact that the last layer of the network heavily overfits on the specific training data under supervised learning signals. Compared to our method, k-means performs significantly for all evaluation metrics.
Under the first imbalance scenario, where we leave out half of the training images of the last class of CIFAR-10 (truck), we find the same ordering in the methods’ performances. This is not surprising as the change in training data is very small.
Under the much stronger heavy imbalance scenario, where the number of images per class are linearly increasing from to of the original size, we find that all methods drop in performance. However, compared to full data and light imbalance, the gap between supervised and self-supervised decreases only slightly for both k-means and our method. While the supervised method still yields better performance, this indicates that the supervised baseline is affected more by the imbalance than the other methods. We find that even in this heavy imbalance scenario, our method outperforms a k-means based objective by more than for kNN baselines and by percentage points for the linear evaluation.
In conclusion, our method does not rely on the data to contain the same number of classes for every class and outperforms a k-means baseline even in very strong imbalance settings.
Unless otherwise noted, we train all our self-supervised models with SGD and intial learning rate 0.05 for 400 epochs with two learning rate drops where we divide the rate by ten at 150 and 300 and 350 epochs. We spread our pseudolabel optimizations throughout the whole training process in a logarithmic distribution. We optimize the label assignment at , where is the user-defined number of optimizations and is expressed as a fraction of total training epochs. For the Sinkhorn-Kopp optimization we set as in (Cuturi, 2013). We use standard data augmentations during training that consist of randomly resized crops, horizontal flipping and adding noise, as in (Wu et al., 2018).
Unfortunately, prior work has used several slightly different setups, so that comparing results between different publications must be done with caution.
In our ImageNet implementation, we follow the original proposal (Zhang et al., 2017) in pooling each representation to a vector with dimensions for conv1-5
using adaptive max-pooling, and absorb the batch normalization weights into the preceding convolutions. For evaluation on ImageNet we follow RotNet to train linear probes: images are resized such that the shorter edge has a length of
pixels, random crops of are computed and flipped horizontally with probability. Learning lasts for epochs and the learning rate schedule starts from and is divided by five at epochs , and . The top-1 accuracy of the linear classifier is then measured on the ImageNet validation subset by extracting crops for each validation image (four at the corners and one at the center along with their horizontal flips) and averaging the prediction scores before the accuracy is computed. For CIFAR-10/100 and SVHN we train AlexNet architectures on the resized images with batchsize , learning rate and also the same image augmentations (random resized crops, color jitter and random grayscale) as is used in prior work (Huang et al., 2019). We use the same linear probing protocol as for our ImageNet experiments but without using crops. For the kNN experiments we use and we use an embedding of size as done in previous works.In Figure A.1 we find that most learning takes place in the early epochs, and we reach a final NMI value of around 66%. Similarly, we find that due to the updating of the pseudolabels at regular intervals and our data augmentation, the pseudolabel accuracies keep continously rising without overfitting to these labels.
In Table A.2, we report standard clustering metrics (see (Vinh et al., 2010) for detailed definitions) of our trained models with regards to the ImageNet validation set ground-truth labels. These metrics include chance-corrected metrics which are the adjusted normalized mutual information (NMI) and the adjusted Rand-Index, as well as the default NMI, also reported in DeepCluster (Caron et al., 2018).
Metrics | ||||
adjusted | ||||
Variant | NMI | adjusted NMI | Rand-Index | Top-1 Acc. |
SL [] AlexNet | ||||
SL [] AlexNet | ||||
SL [] AlexNet | ||||
SL [] AlexNet | ||||
SL [] ResNet-50 |
In Figure A.3 we show the first convolutional filters of two of our trained models. We can find the typical Gabor-like edge detectors as well as color blops and dot-detectors.
In Figure A.4, we show how the distribution of entropy with regards to the true ImageNet labels changes with training time. We find that while at first, all 3000 pseudolabels contain random real ImageNet labels, yielding high entropy of around . Towards the end of training we arrive at a broad spectrum of entropies with some as low as (see Fig. A.5 and A.6 for low entropy label visualizations) and the mean around (see Fig. A.7 and A.8 for randomly chosen labels’ visualizations).
Further AlexNet baselines In Table A.3, we report additional linear probe evaluation details for fully-supervisedly trained and random AlexNet 2012 models. Averaging over 10-crops is consistently better.
ILSVRC-12 | |||||
Method | c1 | c2 | c3 | c4 | c5 |
ImageNet labels (10-crop) | |||||
ImageNet labels (1-crop) | |||||
Random (10-crop) | |||||
Random (1-crop) |
In the following, we report the unabridged tables with all related work.
ILSVRC-12 | Places | |||||||||
Method | c1 | c2 | c3 | c4 | c5 | c1 | c2 | c3 | c4 | c5 |
ImageNet supervised | ||||||||||
Places supervised | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
Random | ||||||||||
Inpainting, (Pathak et al., 2016) | ||||||||||
BiGAN, (Donahue et al., 2017) | ||||||||||
Context, (Doersch et al., 2015) | ||||||||||
Colorization, (Zhang et al., 2016) | ||||||||||
Jigsaw, (Noroozi & Favaro, 2016) | ||||||||||
Counting, (Noroozi et al., 2017) | ||||||||||
SplitBrain, (Zhang et al., 2017) | ||||||||||
Instance retrieval, (Wu et al., 2018) | ||||||||||
CC+VGG-, (Noroozi et al., 2018) | ||||||||||
Context 2 (Mundhenk et al., 2018) | ||||||||||
RotNet, (Gidaris et al., 2018) | ||||||||||
Artifacts, (Jenni & Favaro, 2018) | ||||||||||
DeepCluster (RGB), (Caron et al., 2018) | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
AND,(Huang et al., 2019) | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
DeepCluster, (Caron et al., 2018) | ||||||||||
AET,(Zhang et al., 2019) | ||||||||||
RotNet+retrieval, (Feng et al., 2019) | ||||||||||
SL [] |
Method | Architecture | Evaluation details (epochs) | Top-1 | Top-5 |
Supervised, (Donahue & Simonyan, 2019) | ResNet-50 | Adam, LR sweeps (135) | ||
Supervised, (Donahue & Simonyan, 2019) | ResNet-101 | Adam, LR sweeps (135) | ||
Jigsaw, (Kolesnikov et al., 2019) | ResNet-50 | SGD (500) | ||
RelPathLoc, (Kolesnikov et al., 2019) | ResNet-50 | SGD (500) | ||
Exemplar, (Kolesnikov et al., 2019) | ResNet-50 | SGD (500) | ||
Rotation, (Kolesnikov et al., 2019) | ResNet-50 | SGD (500) | ||
Multi-task, (Doersch & Zisserman, 2017) | ResNet-101 | unclear | ||
CPC, (Oord et al., 2018) | ResNet-101 | SGD (145) | ||
BigBiGAN, (Donahue & Simonyan, 2019) | ResNet-50 | Adam, LR sweeps (135) | ||
SL [] | ResNet-50 | SGD (145) | ||
SL [] | ResNet-50 | SGD (145) | ||
SL [] | ResNet-50 | SGD (145) | ||
other architectures | ||||
Rotation, (Kolesnikov et al., 2019) | RevNet-50 | SGD (500) | 53.7 | - |
BigBiGAN, (Donahue & Simonyan, 2019) | RevNet-50 | Adam, LR sweeps (135) | 60.8 | 81.4 |
Efficient CPC, (Hénaff et al., 2019) | ResNet-170 | SGD (145) | 61.0 | 83.0 |
Comments
There are no comments yet.