text: Transformation Equivariant Representations (TERs) aim to capture the intrinsic visual structures that equivary to various transformations by expanding the notion of translation equivariance underlying the success of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). For this purpose, we present both deterministic AutoEncoding Transformations (AET) and probabilistic AutoEncoding Variational Transformations (AVT) models to learn visual representations from generic groups of transformations. While the AET is trained by directly decoding the transformations from the learned representations, the AVT is trained by maximizing the joint mutual information between the learned representation and transformations. This results in Generalized TERs (GTERs) equivariant against transformations in a more general fashion by capturing complex patterns of visual structures beyond the conventional linear equivariance under a transformation group. The presented approach can be extended to (semi-)supervised models by jointly maximizing the mutual information of the learned representation with both labels and transformations. Experiments demonstrate the proposed models outperform the state-of-the-art models in both unsupervised and (semi-)supervised tasks.
  @cite_0: We trained a large, deep convolutional neural network to classify the 1.2 million high-resolution images in the ImageNet LSVRC-2010 contest into the 1000 different classes. On the test data, we achieved top-1 and top-5 error rates of 37.5 and 17.0 which is considerably better than the previous state-of-the-art. The neural network, which has 60 million parameters and 650,000 neurons, consists of five convolutional layers, some of which are followed by max-pooling layers, and three fully-connected layers with a final 1000-way softmax. To make training faster, we used non-saturating neurons and a very efficient GPU implementation of the convolution operation. To reduce overriding in the fully-connected layers we employed a recently-developed regularization method called "dropout" that proved to be very effective. We also entered a variant of this model in the ILSVRC-2012 competition and achieved a winning top-5 test error rate of 15.3 , compared to 26.2 achieved by the second-best entry.
summary: The SAT also differs from transformation-based data augmentation in which the transformed samples and their labels are used directly as additional training examples @cite_0 . First, in the semi-supervised learning, unlabeled examples cannot be directly augmented to form training examples due to their missing labels. Moreover, data augmentation needs to preserve the labels on augmented images, and this prevents us from applying the transformations that could severely distort the images (e.g., shearing, rotations with arbitrary angles, and projective transformations) or invalidate the associated labels (e.g., vertically flipping 6" to 9"). In contrast, the SAT avoids using the labels of transformed images to supervisedly train the classifier directly; instead it attempts to encode the visual structures of images equivariant to various transformations without access to their labels. This leads to a label-blind TER regularizer to explore the unlabeled examples for the semi-supervised problem.