Filter Bank Regularization of Convolutional Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regularization techniques are widely used to improve the generality, robustness, and efficiency of deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs). In this paper, we propose a novel approach of regulating DCNN convolutional kernels by a structured filter bank. Comparing with the existing regularization methods, such as $\ell_1$ or $\ell_2$ minimization of DCNN kernel weights and the kernel orthogonality, which ignore sample correlations within a kernel, the use of filter bank in regularization of DCNNs can mold the DCNN kernels to common spatial structures and features (e.g., edges or textures of various orientations and frequencies) of natural images. On the other hand, unlike directly making DCNN kernels fixed filters, the filter bank regularization still allows the freedom of optimizing DCNN weights via deep learning. This new DCNN design strategy aims to combine the best of two worlds: the inclusion of structural image priors of traditional filter banks to improve the robustness and generality of DCNN solutions and the capability of modern deep learning to model complex non-linear functions hidden in training data. Experimental results on object recognition tasks show that the proposed regularization approach guides DCNNs to faster convergence and better generalization than existing regularization methods of weight decay and kernel orthogonality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".