learning with marginalized corrupted features
play

Learning with Marginalized Corrupted Features L. van der Maaten, M. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Learning with Marginalized Corrupted Features L. van der Maaten, M. Chen, S. Tyree, K. Weinberger ICML 2013 Jan Gasthaus Tea talk April 11, 2013 1 / 17 2 / 17 2 / 17 2 / 17 2 / 17 2 / 17 2 / 17 2 / 17 2 / 17 Data Augmentation Secret


  1. Learning with Marginalized Corrupted Features L. van der Maaten, M. Chen, S. Tyree, K. Weinberger ICML 2013 Jan Gasthaus Tea talk April 11, 2013 1 / 17

  2. 2 / 17

  3. 2 / 17

  4. 2 / 17

  5. 2 / 17

  6. 2 / 17

  7. 2 / 17

  8. 2 / 17

  9. 2 / 17

  10. Data Augmentation Secret 4: lots of jittering, mirroring, and color perturbation of the original images generated on the fly to increase the size of the training set Yann LeCun on Google+ about Alex Krizhevsky’s ImageNet results 3 / 17

  11. Main Idea Old idea: create artificial additional training data by corrupting it with “noise” 4 / 17

  12. Main Idea Old idea: create artificial additional training data by corrupting it with “noise” One easy way to incorporate domain knowledge (e.g. possible transformations) 4 / 17

  13. Main Idea Old idea: create artificial additional training data by corrupting it with “noise” One easy way to incorporate domain knowledge (e.g. possible transformations) But: additional training data = ⇒ additional computation Idea: Corrupt with known ExpFam noise and integrate it out 4 / 17

  14. Explicit vs. Implicit Corruption Explicit corruption: Take training set D = { ( x n , y n ) } N n = 1 and corrupt it M times N M 1 L (˜ � � L (˜ D , Θ) = x nm , y n , Θ) M n = 1 m = 1 with x nm ∼ p (˜ x nm | x n ) . 5 / 17

  15. Explicit vs. Implicit Corruption Implicit corruption: Minimize the expected value of the loss under p (˜ x n | x n ) : N � E [ L (˜ L ( D , Θ) = x n , y n , Θ)] p (˜ x n | x n ) n = 1 i.e. replace the empirical average with the expectation. 6 / 17

  16. Wait a second . . . This is so obvious that it must have been done before . . . 7 / 17

  17. Wait a second . . . This is so obvious that it must have been done before . . . ◮ Vicinal Risk Minimization , Chapelle, Weston, Bottou, & Vapnik, NIPS 2000 7 / 17

  18. Wait a second . . . This is so obvious that it must have been done before . . . ◮ Vicinal Risk Minimization , Chapelle, Weston, Bottou, & Vapnik, NIPS 2000 Explicitly only consider the case of Gaussian noise distributions 7 / 17

  19. Quadratic Loss 8 / 17

  20. Quadratic Loss 9 / 17

  21. Exponential Loss 10 / 17

  22. Logistic Loss 11 / 17

  23. MGFs 12 / 17

  24. Results 13 / 17

  25. Results 14 / 17

  26. Results 15 / 17

  27. Results 16 / 17

  28. Results 17 / 17

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend