程序代写代做代考 deep learning AI ER flex algorithm Excel Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition

Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition

Kaiming He Xiangyu Zhang Shaoqing Ren Jian Sun
Microsoft Research

{kahe, v-xiangz, v-shren, jiansun}@microsoft.com

Abstract
Deeper neural networks are more difficult to train. We

present a residual learning framework to ease the training
of networks that are substantially deeper than those used
previously. We explicitly reformulate the layers as learn-
ing residual functions with reference to the layer inputs, in-
stead of learning unreferenced functions. We provide com-
prehensive empirical evidence showing that these residual
networks are easier to optimize, and can gain accuracy from
considerably increased depth. On the ImageNet dataset we
evaluate residual nets with a depth of up to 152 layers—8×
deeper than VGG nets [41] but still having lower complex-
ity. An ensemble of these residual nets achieves 3.57% error
on the ImageNet test set. This result won the 1st place on the
ILSVRC 2015 classification task. We also present analysis
on CIFAR-10 with 100 and 1000 layers.

The depth of representations is of central importance
for many visual recognition tasks. Solely due to our ex-
tremely deep representations, we obtain a 28% relative im-
provement on the COCO object detection dataset. Deep
residual nets are foundations of our submissions to ILSVRC
& COCO 2015 competitions1, where we also won the 1st
places on the tasks of ImageNet detection, ImageNet local-
ization, COCO detection, and COCO segmentation.

1. Introduction
Deep convolutional neural networks [22, 21] have led

to a series of breakthroughs for image classification [21,
50, 40]. Deep networks naturally integrate low/mid/high-
level features [50] and classifiers in an end-to-end multi-
layer fashion, and the “levels” of features can be enriched
by the number of stacked layers (depth). Recent evidence
[41, 44] reveals that network depth is of crucial importance,
and the leading results [41, 44, 13, 16] on the challenging
ImageNet dataset [36] all exploit “very deep” [41] models,
with a depth of sixteen [41] to thirty [16]. Many other non-
trivial visual recognition tasks [8, 12, 7, 32, 27] have also

1http://image-net.org/challenges/LSVRC/2015/ and
http://mscoco.org/dataset/#detections-challenge2015.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0

iter. (1e4)

tr
ai

n
in

g
e

rr
o

r
(%

)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0

iter. (1e4)

te
st

e
rr

o
r

(%
)

56-layer

20-layer

56-layer

20-layer

Figure 1. Training error (left) and test error (right) on CIFAR-10
with 20-layer and 56-layer “plain” networks. The deeper network
has higher training error, and thus test error. Similar phenomena
on ImageNet is presented in Fig. 4.

greatly benefited from very deep models.
Driven by the significance of depth, a question arises: Is

learning better networks as easy as stacking more layers?
An obstacle to answering this question was the notorious
problem of vanishing/exploding gradients [1, 9], which
hamper convergence from the beginning. This problem,
however, has been largely addressed by normalized initial-
ization [23, 9, 37, 13] and intermediate normalization layers
[16], which enable networks with tens of layers to start con-
verging for stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with back-
propagation [22].

When deeper networks are able to start converging, a
degradation problem has been exposed: with the network
depth increasing, accuracy gets saturated (which might be
unsurprising) and then degrades rapidly. Unexpectedly,
such degradation is not caused by overfitting, and adding
more layers to a suitably deep model leads to higher train-
ing error, as reported in [11, 42] and thoroughly verified by
our experiments. Fig. 1 shows a typical example.

The degradation (of training accuracy) indicates that not
all systems are similarly easy to optimize. Let us consider a
shallower architecture and its deeper counterpart that adds
more layers onto it. There exists a solution by construction
to the deeper model: the added layers are identity mapping,
and the other layers are copied from the learned shallower
model. The existence of this constructed solution indicates
that a deeper model should produce no higher training error
than its shallower counterpart. But experiments show that
our current solvers on hand are unable to find solutions that

ar
X

iv
:1

51
2.

03
38

5v
1

[
cs

.C
V

]
1

0
D

ec
2

01
5

http://image-net.org/challenges/LSVRC/2015/
http://mscoco.org/dataset/#detections-challenge2015

identity

weight layer

relu

F(x) + x

F(x)
x

Figure 2. Residual learning: a building block.

are comparably good or better than the constructed solution
(or unable to do so in feasible time).

In this paper, we address the degradation problem by
introducing a deep residual learning framework. In-
stead of hoping each few stacked layers directly fit a
desired underlying mapping, we explicitly let these lay-
ers fit a residual mapping. Formally, denoting the desired
underlying mapping as H(x), we let the stacked nonlinear
layers fit another mapping of F(x) := H(x)−x. The orig-
inal mapping is recast intoF(x)+x. We hypothesize that it
is easier to optimize the residual mapping than to optimize
the original, unreferenced mapping. To the extreme, if an
identity mapping were optimal, it would be easier to push
the residual to zero than to fit an identity mapping by a stack
of nonlinear layers.

The formulation of F(x)+x can be realized by feedfor-
ward neural networks with “shortcut connections” (Fig. 2).
Shortcut connections [2, 34, 49] are those skipping one or
more layers. In our case, the shortcut connections simply
perform identity mapping, and their outputs are added to
the outputs of the stacked layers (Fig. 2). Identity short-
cut connections add neither extra parameter nor computa-
tional complexity. The entire network can still be trained
end-to-end by SGD with backpropagation, and can be eas-
ily implemented using common libraries (e.g., Caffe [19])
without modifying the solvers.

We present comprehensive experiments on ImageNet
[36] to show the degradation problem and evaluate our
method. We show that: 1) Our extremely deep residual nets
are easy to optimize, but the counterpart “plain” nets (that
simply stack layers) exhibit higher training error when the
depth increases; 2) Our deep residual nets can easily enjoy
accuracy gains from greatly increased depth, producing re-
sults substantially better than previous networks.

Similar phenomena are also shown on the CIFAR-10 set
[20], suggesting that the optimization difficulties and the
effects of our method are not just akin to a particular dataset.
We present successfully trained models on this dataset with
over 100 layers, and explore models with over 1000 layers.

On the ImageNet classification dataset [36], we obtain
excellent results by extremely deep residual nets. Our 152-
layer residual net is the deepest network ever presented on
ImageNet, while still having lower complexity than VGG
nets [41]. Our ensemble has 3.57% top-5 error on the

ImageNet test set, and won the 1st place in the ILSVRC
2015 classification competition. The extremely deep rep-
resentations also have excellent generalization performance
on other recognition tasks, and lead us to further win the
1st places on: ImageNet detection, ImageNet localization,
COCO detection, and COCO segmentation in ILSVRC &
COCO 2015 competitions. This strong evidence shows that
the residual learning principle is generic, and we expect that
it is applicable in other vision and non-vision problems.

2. Related Work

Residual Representations. In image recognition, VLAD
[18] is a representation that encodes by the residual vectors
with respect to a dictionary, and Fisher Vector [30] can be
formulated as a probabilistic version [18] of VLAD. Both
of them are powerful shallow representations for image re-
trieval and classification [4, 48]. For vector quantization,
encoding residual vectors [17] is shown to be more effec-
tive than encoding original vectors.

In low-level vision and computer graphics, for solv-
ing Partial Differential Equations (PDEs), the widely used
Multigrid method [3] reformulates the system as subprob-
lems at multiple scales, where each subproblem is respon-
sible for the residual solution between a coarser and a finer
scale. An alternative to Multigrid is hierarchical basis pre-
conditioning [45, 46], which relies on variables that repre-
sent residual vectors between two scales. It has been shown
[3, 45, 46] that these solvers converge much faster than stan-
dard solvers that are unaware of the residual nature of the
solutions. These methods suggest that a good reformulation
or preconditioning can simplify the optimization.

Shortcut Connections. Practices and theories that lead to
shortcut connections [2, 34, 49] have been studied for a long
time. An early practice of training multi-layer perceptrons
(MLPs) is to add a linear layer connected from the network
input to the output [34, 49]. In [44, 24], a few interme-
diate layers are directly connected to auxiliary classifiers
for addressing vanishing/exploding gradients. The papers
of [39, 38, 31, 47] propose methods for centering layer re-
sponses, gradients, and propagated errors, implemented by
shortcut connections. In [44], an “inception” layer is com-
posed of a shortcut branch and a few deeper branches.

Concurrent with our work, “highway networks” [42, 43]
present shortcut connections with gating functions [15].
These gates are data-dependent and have parameters, in
contrast to our identity shortcuts that are parameter-free.
When a gated shortcut is “closed” (approaching zero), the
layers in highway networks represent non-residual func-
tions. On the contrary, our formulation always learns
residual functions; our identity shortcuts are never closed,
and all information is always passed through, with addi-
tional residual functions to be learned. In addition, high-

way networks have not demonstrated accuracy gains with
extremely increased depth (e.g., over 100 layers).

3. Deep Residual Learning
3.1. Residual Learning

Let us consider H(x) as an underlying mapping to be
fit by a few stacked layers (not necessarily the entire net),
with x denoting the inputs to the first of these layers. If one
hypothesizes that multiple nonlinear layers can asymptoti-
cally approximate complicated functions2, then it is equiv-
alent to hypothesize that they can asymptotically approxi-
mate the residual functions, i.e., H(x) − x (assuming that
the input and output are of the same dimensions). So
rather than expect stacked layers to approximate H(x), we
explicitly let these layers approximate a residual function
F(x) := H(x) − x. The original function thus becomes
F(x)+x. Although both forms should be able to asymptot-
ically approximate the desired functions (as hypothesized),
the ease of learning might be different.

This reformulation is motivated by the counterintuitive
phenomena about the degradation problem (Fig. 1, left). As
we discussed in the introduction, if the added layers can
be constructed as identity mappings, a deeper model should
have training error no greater than its shallower counter-
part. The degradation problem suggests that the solvers
might have difficulties in approximating identity mappings
by multiple nonlinear layers. With the residual learning re-
formulation, if identity mappings are optimal, the solvers
may simply drive the weights of the multiple nonlinear lay-
ers toward zero to approach identity mappings.

In real cases, it is unlikely that identity mappings are op-
timal, but our reformulation may help to precondition the
problem. If the optimal function is closer to an identity
mapping than to a zero mapping, it should be easier for the
solver to find the perturbations with reference to an identity
mapping, than to learn the function as a new one. We show
by experiments (Fig. 7) that the learned residual functions in
general have small responses, suggesting that identity map-
pings provide reasonable preconditioning.

3.2. Identity Mapping by Shortcuts

We adopt residual learning to every few stacked layers.
A building block is shown in Fig. 2. Formally, in this paper
we consider a building block defined as:

y = F(x, {Wi}) + x. (1)

Here x and y are the input and output vectors of the lay-
ers considered. The function F(x, {Wi}) represents the
residual mapping to be learned. For the example in Fig. 2
that has two layers, F = W2σ(W1x) in which σ denotes

2This hypothesis, however, is still an open question. See [28].

ReLU [29] and the biases are omitted for simplifying no-
tations. The operation F + x is performed by a shortcut
connection and element-wise addition. We adopt the sec-
ond nonlinearity after the addition (i.e., σ(y), see Fig. 2).

The shortcut connections in Eqn.(1) introduce neither ex-
tra parameter nor computation complexity. This is not only
attractive in practice but also important in our comparisons
between plain and residual networks. We can fairly com-
pare plain/residual networks that simultaneously have the
same number of parameters, depth, width, and computa-
tional cost (except for the negligible element-wise addition).

The dimensions of x and F must be equal in Eqn.(1).
If this is not the case (e.g., when changing the input/output
channels), we can perform a linear projection Ws by the
shortcut connections to match the dimensions:

y = F(x, {Wi}) +Wsx. (2)

We can also use a square matrix Ws in Eqn.(1). But we will
show by experiments that the identity mapping is sufficient
for addressing the degradation problem and is economical,
and thus Ws is only used when matching dimensions.

The form of the residual function F is flexible. Exper-
iments in this paper involve a function F that has two or
three layers (Fig. 5), while more layers are possible. But if
F has only a single layer, Eqn.(1) is similar to a linear layer:
y =W1x+x, for which we have not observed advantages.

We also note that although the above notations are about
fully-connected layers for simplicity, they are applicable to
convolutional layers. The function F(x, {Wi}) can repre-
sent multiple convolutional layers. The element-wise addi-
tion is performed on two feature maps, channel by channel.

3.3. Network Architectures

We have tested various plain/residual nets, and have ob-
served consistent phenomena. To provide instances for dis-
cussion, we describe two models for ImageNet as follows.

Plain Network. Our plain baselines (Fig. 3, middle) are
mainly inspired by the philosophy of VGG nets [41] (Fig. 3,
left). The convolutional layers mostly have 3×3 filters and
follow two simple design rules: (i) for the same output
feature map size, the layers have the same number of fil-
ters; and (ii) if the feature map size is halved, the num-
ber of filters is doubled so as to preserve the time com-
plexity per layer. We perform downsampling directly by
convolutional layers that have a stride of 2. The network
ends with a global average pooling layer and a 1000-way
fully-connected layer with softmax. The total number of
weighted layers is 34 in Fig. 3 (middle).

It is worth noticing that our model has fewer filters and
lower complexity than VGG nets [41] (Fig. 3, left). Our 34-
layer baseline has 3.6 billion FLOPs (multiply-adds), which
is only 18% of VGG-19 (19.6 billion FLOPs).

7×7 conv, 64, /2

pool, /2

3×3 conv, 64

3×3 conv, 128, /2

3×3 conv, 128

3×3 conv, 256, /2

3×3 conv, 256

3×3 conv, 512, /2

3×3 conv, 512

avg pool

fc 1000

image

3×3 conv, 512

3×3 conv, 64

pool, /2

3×3 conv, 128

pool, /2

3×3 conv, 256

pool, /2

3×3 conv, 512

pool, /2

3×3 conv, 512

pool, /2

fc 4096

fc 1000

image

output

size: 112

output

size: 224

output

size: 56

output

size: 28

output

size: 14

output

size: 7

output

size: 1

VGG-19 34-layer plain

7×7 conv, 64, /2

pool, /2

3×3 conv, 64

3×3 conv, 128, /2

3×3 conv, 128

3×3 conv, 256, /2

3×3 conv, 256

3×3 conv, 512, /2

3×3 conv, 512

avg pool

fc 1000

image

34-layer residual

Figure 3. Example network architectures for ImageNet. Left: the
VGG-19 model [41] (19.6 billion FLOPs) as a reference. Mid-
dle: a plain network with 34 parameter layers (3.6 billion FLOPs).
Right: a residual network with 34 parameter layers (3.6 billion
FLOPs). The dotted shortcuts increase dimensions. Table 1 shows
more details and other variants.

Residual Network. Based on the above plain network, we
insert shortcut connections (Fig. 3, right) which turn the
network into its counterpart residual version. The identity
shortcuts (Eqn.(1)) can be directly used when the input and
output are of the same dimensions (solid line shortcuts in
Fig. 3). When the dimensions increase (dotted line shortcuts
in Fig. 3), we consider two options: (A) The shortcut still
performs identity mapping, with extra zero entries padded
for increasing dimensions. This option introduces no extra
parameter; (B) The projection shortcut in Eqn.(2) is used to
match dimensions (done by 1×1 convolutions). For both
options, when the shortcuts go across feature maps of two
sizes, they are performed with a stride of 2.

3.4. Implementation

Our implementation for ImageNet follows the practice
in [21, 41]. The image is resized with its shorter side ran-
domly sampled in [256, 480] for scale augmentation [41].
A 224×224 crop is randomly sampled from an image or its
horizontal flip, with the per-pixel mean subtracted [21]. The
standard color augmentation in [21] is used. We adopt batch
normalization (BN) [16] right after each convolution and
before activation, following [16]. We initialize the weights
as in [13] and train all plain/residual nets from scratch. We
use SGD with a mini-batch size of 256. The learning rate
starts from 0.1 and is divided by 10 when the error plateaus,
and the models are trained for up to 60× 104 iterations. We
use a weight decay of 0.0001 and a momentum of 0.9. We
do not use dropout [14], following the practice in [16].

In testing, for comparison studies we adopt the standard
10-crop testing [21]. For best results, we adopt the fully-
convolutional form as in [41, 13], and average the scores
at multiple scales (images are resized such that the shorter
side is in {224, 256, 384, 480, 640}).

4. Experiments
4.1. ImageNet Classification

We evaluate our method on the ImageNet 2012 classifi-
cation dataset [36] that consists of 1000 classes. The models
are trained on the 1.28 million training images, and evalu-
ated on the 50k validation images. We also obtain a final
result on the 100k test images, reported by the test server.
We evaluate both top-1 and top-5 error rates.

Plain Networks. We first evaluate 18-layer and 34-layer
plain nets. The 34-layer plain net is in Fig. 3 (middle). The
18-layer plain net is of a similar form. See Table 1 for de-
tailed architectures.

The results in Table 2 show that the deeper 34-layer plain
net has higher validation error than the shallower 18-layer
plain net. To reveal the reasons, in Fig. 4 (left) we com-
pare their training/validation errors during the training pro-
cedure. We have observed the degradation problem – the

layer name output size 18-layer 34-layer 50-layer 101-layer 152-layer
conv1 112×112 7×7, 64, stride 2

conv2 x 56×56

3×3 max pool, stride 2[
3×3, 64
3×3, 64

]
×2

[
3×3, 64
3×3, 64

]
×3


 1×1, 643×3, 64

1×1, 256


×3


 1×1, 643×3, 64

1×1, 256


×3


 1×1, 643×3, 64

1×1, 256


×3

conv3 x 28×28
[

3×3, 128
3×3, 128

]
×2

[
3×3, 128
3×3, 128

]
×4


 1×1, 1283×3, 128

1×1, 512


×4


 1×1, 1283×3, 128

1×1, 512


×4


 1×1, 1283×3, 128

1×1, 512


×8

conv4 x 14×14
[

3×3, 256
3×3, 256

]
×2

[
3×3, 256
3×3, 256

]
×6


 1×1, 2563×3, 256

1×1, 1024


×6


 1×1, 2563×3, 256

1×1, 1024


×23


 1×1, 2563×3, 256

1×1, 1024


×36

conv5 x 7×7
[

3×3, 512
3×3, 512

]
×2

[
3×3, 512
3×3, 512

]
×3


 1×1, 5123×3, 512

1×1, 2048


×3


 1×1, 5123×3, 512

1×1, 2048


×3


 1×1, 5123×3, 512

1×1, 2048


×3

1×1 average pool, 1000-d fc, softmax
FLOPs 1.8×109 3.6×109 3.8×109 7.6×109 11.3×109

Table 1. Architectures for ImageNet. Building blocks are shown in brackets (see also Fig. 5), with the numbers of blocks stacked. Down-
sampling is performed by conv3 1, conv4 1, and conv5 1 with a stride of 2.

0 10 20 30 40 50
20

iter. (1e4)

er
ro

r
(%

)

plain-18
plain-34

0 10 20 30 40 50
20

iter. (1e4)

er
ro

r
(%

)

ResNet-18
ResNet-34

18-layer

34-layer
18-layer

34-layer

Figure 4. Training on ImageNet. Thin curves denote training error, and bold curves denote validation error of the center crops. Left: plain
networks of 18 and 34 layers. Right: ResNets of 18 and 34 layers. In this plot, the residual networks have no extra parameter compared to
their plain counterparts.

plain ResNet
18 layers 27.94 27.88
34 layers 28.54 25.03

Table 2. Top-1 error (%, 10-crop testing) on ImageNet validation.
Here the ResNets have no extra parameter compared to their plain
counterparts. Fig. 4 shows the training procedures.

34-layer plain net has higher training error throughout the
whole training procedure, even though the solution space
of the 18-layer plain network is a subspace of that of the
34-layer one.

We argue that this optimization difficulty is unlikely to
be caused by vanishing gradients. These plain networks are
trained with BN [16], which ensures forward propagated
signals to have non-zero variances. We also verify that the
backward propagated gradients exhibit healthy norms with
BN. So neither forward nor backward signals vanish. In
fact, the 34-layer plain net is still able to achieve compet-
itive accuracy (Table 3), suggesting that the solver works
to some extent. We conjecture that the deep plain nets may
have exponentially low convergence rates, which impact the

reducing of the training error3. The reason for such opti-
mization difficulties will be studied in the future.

Residual Networks. Next we evaluate 18-layer and 34-
layer residual nets (ResNets). The baseline architectures
are the same as the above plain nets, expect that a shortcut
connection is added to each pair of 3×3 filters as in Fig. 3
(right). In the first comparison (Table 2 and Fig. 4 right),
we use identity mapping for all shortcuts and zero-padding
for increasing dimensions (option A). So they have no extra
parameter compared to the plain counterparts.

We have three major observations from Table 2 and
Fig. 4. First, the situation is reversed with residual learn-
ing – the 34-layer ResNet is better than the 18-layer ResNet
(by 2.8%). More importantly, the 34-layer ResNet exhibits
considerably lower training error and is generalizable to the
validation data. This indicates that the degradation problem
is well addressed in this setting and we manage to obtain
accuracy gains from increased depth.

Second, compared to its plain counterpart, the 34-layer

3We have experimented with more training iterations (3×) and still ob-
served the degradation problem, suggesting that this problem cannot be
feasibly addressed by simply using more iterations.

model top-1 err. top-5 err.

VGG-16 [41] 28.07 9.33
GoogLeNet [44] – 9.15
PReLU-net [13] 24.27 7.38

plain-34 28.54 10.02
ResNet-34 A 25.03 7.76
ResNet-34 B 24.52 7.46
ResNet-34 C 24.19 7.40
ResNet-50 22.85 6.71
ResNet-101 21.75 6.05
ResNet-152 21.43 5.71

Table 3. Error rates (%, 10-crop testing) on ImageNet validation.
VGG-16 is based on our test. ResNet-50/101/152 are of option B
that only uses projections for increasing dimensions.

method top-1 err. top-5 err.

VGG [41] (ILSVRC’14) – 8.43†

GoogLeNet [44] (ILSVRC’14) – 7.89
VGG [41] (v5) 24.4 7.1
PReLU-net [13] 21.59 5.71
BN-inception [16] 21.99 5.81
ResNet-34 B 21.84 5.71
ResNet-34 C 21.53 5.60
ResNet-50 20.74 5.25
ResNet-101 19.87 4.60
ResNet-152 19.38 4.49

Table 4. Error rates (%) of single-model results on the ImageNet
validation set (except † reported on the test set).

method top-5 err. (test)
VGG [41] (ILSVRC’14) 7.32
GoogLeNet [44] (ILSVRC’14) 6.66
VGG [41] (v5) 6.8
PReLU-net [13] 4.94
BN-inception [16] 4.82
ResNet (ILSVRC’15) 3.57

Table 5. Error rates (%) of ensembles. The top-5 error is on the
test set of ImageNet and reported by the test server.

ResNet reduces the top-1 error by 3.5% (Table 2), resulting
from the successfully reduced training error (Fig. 4 right vs.
left). This comparison verifies the effectiveness of residual
learning on extremely deep systems.

Last, we also note that the 18-layer plain/residual nets
are comparably accurate (Table 2), but the 18-layer ResNet
converges faster (Fig. 4 right vs. left). When the net is “not
overly deep” (18 layers here), the current SGD solver is still
able to find good solutions to the plain net. In this case, the
ResNet eases the optimization by providing faster conver-
gence at the early stage.

Identity vs. Projection Shortcuts. We have shown that

3×3, 64

1×1, 64

relu

1×1, 256

relu

3×3, 64

relu

64-d 256-d

Figure 5. A deeper residual function F for ImageNet. Left: a
building block (on 56×56 feature maps) as in Fig. 3 for ResNet-
34. Right: a “bottleneck” building block for ResNet-50/101/152.

parameter-free, identity shortcuts help with training. Next
we investigate projection shortcuts (Eqn.(2)). In Table 3 we
compare three options: (A) zero-padding shortcuts are used
for increasing dimensions, and all shortcuts are parameter-
free (the same as Table 2 and Fig. 4 right); (B) projec-
tion shortcuts are used for increasing dimensions, and other
shortcuts are identity; and (C) all shortcuts are projections.

Table 3 shows that all three options are considerably bet-
ter than the plain counterpart. B is slightly better than A. We
argue that this is because the zero-padded dimensions in A
indeed have no residual learning. C is marginally better than
B, and we attribute this to the extra parameters introduced
by many (thirteen) projection shortcuts. But the small dif-
ferences among A/B/C indicate that projection shortcuts are
not essential for addressing the degradation problem. So we
do not use option C in the rest of this paper, to reduce mem-
ory/time complexity and model sizes. Identity shortcuts are
particularly important for not increasing the complexity of
the bottleneck architectures that are introduced below.

Deeper Bottleneck Architectures. Next we describe our
deeper nets for ImageNet. Because of concerns on the train-
ing time that we can afford, we modify the building block
as a bottleneck design4. For each residual function F , we
use a stack of 3 layers instead of 2 (Fig. 5). The three layers
are 1×1, 3×3, and 1×1 convolutions, where the 1×1 layers
are responsible for reducing and then increasing (restoring)
dimensions, leaving the 3×3 layer a bottleneck with smaller
input/output dimensions. Fig. 5 shows an example, where
both designs have similar time complexity.

The parameter-free identity shortcuts are particularly im-
portant for the bottleneck architectures. If the identity short-
cut in Fig. 5 (right) is replaced with projection, one can
show that the time complexity and model size are doubled,
as the shortcut is connected to the two high-dimensional
ends. So identity shortcuts lead to more efficient models
for the bottleneck designs.

50-layer ResNet: We replace each 2-layer block in the

4Deeper non-bottleneck ResNets (e.g., Fig. 5 left) also gain accuracy
from increased depth (as shown on CIFAR-10), but are not as economical
as the bottleneck ResNets. So the usage of bottleneck designs is mainly due
to practical considerations. We further note that the degradation problem
of plain nets is also witnessed for the bottleneck designs.

34-layer net with this 3-layer bottleneck block, resulting in
a 50-layer ResNet (Table 1). We use option B for increasing
dimensions. This model has 3.8 billion FLOPs.

101-layer and 152-layer ResNets: We construct 101-
layer and 152-layer ResNets by using more 3-layer blocks
(Table 1). Remarkably, although the depth is significantly
increased, the 152-layer ResNet (11.3 billion FLOPs) still
has lower complexity than VGG-16/19 nets (15.3/19.6 bil-
lion FLOPs).

The 50/101/152-layer ResNets are more accurate than
the 34-layer ones by considerable margins (Table 3 and 4).
We do not observe the degradation problem and thus en-
joy significant accuracy gains from considerably increased
depth. The benefits of depth are witnessed for all evaluation
metrics (Table 3 and 4).

Comparisons with State-of-the-art Methods. In Table 4
we compare with the previous best single-model results.
Our baseline 34-layer ResNets have achieved very compet-
itive accuracy. Our 152-layer ResNet has a single-model
top-5 validation error of 4.49%. This single-model result
outperforms all previous ensemble results (Table 5). We
combine six models of different depth to form an ensemble
(only with two 152-layer ones at the time of submitting).
This leads to 3.57% top-5 error on the test set (Table 5).
This entry won the 1st place in ILSVRC 2015.

4.2. CIFAR-10 and Analysis

We conducted more studies on the CIFAR-10 dataset
[20], which consists of 50k training images and 10k test-
ing images in 10 classes. We present experiments trained
on the training set and evaluated on the test set. Our focus
is on the behaviors of extremely deep networks, but not on
pushing the state-of-the-art results, so we intentionally use
simple architectures as follows.

The plain/residual architectures follow the form in Fig. 3
(middle/right). The network inputs are 32×32 images, with
the per-pixel mean subtracted. The first layer is 3×3 convo-
lutions. Then we use a stack of 6n layers with 3×3 convo-
lutions on the feature maps of sizes {32, 16, 8} respectively,
with 2n layers for each feature map size. The numbers of
filters are {16, 32, 64} respectively. The subsampling is per-
formed by convolutions with a stride of 2. The network ends
with a global average pooling, a 10-way fully-connected
layer, and softmax. There are totally 6n+2 stacked weighted
layers. The following table summarizes the architecture:

output map size 32×32 16×16 8×8
# layers 1+2n 2n 2n
# filters 16 32 64

When shortcut connections are used, they are connected
to the pairs of 3×3 layers (totally 3n shortcuts). On this
dataset we use identity shortcuts in all cases (i.e., option A),

method error (%)
Maxout [10] 9.38

NIN [25] 8.81
DSN [24] 8.22

# layers # params
FitNet [35] 19 2.5M 8.39

Highway [42, 43] 19 2.3M 7.54 (7.72±0.16)
Highway [42, 43] 32 1.25M 8.80

ResNet 20 0.27M 8.75
ResNet 32 0.46M 7.51
ResNet 44 0.66M 7.17
ResNet 56 0.85M 6.97
ResNet 110 1.7M 6.43 (6.61±0.16)
ResNet 1202 19.4M 7.93

Table 6. Classification error on the CIFAR-10 test set. All meth-
ods are with data augmentation. For ResNet-110, we run it 5 times
and show “best (mean±std)” as in [43].

so our residual models have exactly the same depth, width,
and number of parameters as the plain counterparts.

We use a weight decay of 0.0001 and momentum of 0.9,
and adopt the weight initialization in [13] and BN [16] but
with no dropout. These models are trained with a mini-
batch size of 128 on two GPUs. We start with a learning
rate of 0.1, divide it by 10 at 32k and 48k iterations, and
terminate training at 64k iterations, which is determined on
a 45k/5k train/val split. We follow the simple data augmen-
tation in [24] for training: 4 pixels are padded on each side,
and a 32×32 crop is randomly sampled from the padded
image or its horizontal flip. For testing, we only evaluate
the single view of the original 32×32 image.

We compare n = {3, 5, 7, 9}, leading to 20, 32, 44, and
56-layer networks. Fig. 6 (left) shows the behaviors of the
plain nets. The deep plain nets suffer from increased depth,
and exhibit higher training error when going deeper. This
phenomenon is similar to that on ImageNet (Fig. 4, left) and
on MNIST (see [42]), suggesting that such an optimization
difficulty is a fundamental problem.

Fig. 6 (middle) shows the behaviors of ResNets. Also
similar to the ImageNet cases (Fig. 4, right), our ResNets
manage to overcome the optimization difficulty and demon-
strate accuracy gains when the depth increases.

We further explore n = 18 that leads to a 110-layer
ResNet. In this case, we find that the initial learning rate
of 0.1 is slightly too large to start converging5. So we use
0.01 to warm up the training until the training error is below
80% (about 400 iterations), and then go back to 0.1 and con-
tinue training. The rest of the learning schedule is as done
previously. This 110-layer network converges well (Fig. 6,
middle). It has fewer parameters than other deep and thin

5With an initial learning rate of 0.1, it starts converging (<90% error) after several epochs, but still reaches similar accuracy. 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 20 iter. (1e4) er ro r (% ) plain-20 plain-32 plain-44 plain-56 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 20 iter. (1e4) er ro r (% ) ResNet-20 ResNet-32 ResNet-44 ResNet-56 ResNet-11056-layer 20-layer 110-layer 20-layer 4 5 6 0 1 5 10 20 iter. (1e4) er ro r (% ) residual-110 residual-1202 Figure 6. Training on CIFAR-10. Dashed lines denote training error, and bold lines denote testing error. Left: plain networks. The error of plain-110 is higher than 60% and not displayed. Middle: ResNets. Right: ResNets with 110 and 1202 layers. 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 layer index (sorted by magnitude) st d plain-20 plain-56 ResNet-20 ResNet-56 ResNet-110 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 layer index (original) st d plain-20 plain-56 ResNet-20 ResNet-56 ResNet-110 Figure 7. Standard deviations (std) of layer responses on CIFAR- 10. The responses are the outputs of each 3×3 layer, after BN and before nonlinearity. Top: the layers are shown in their original order. Bottom: the responses are ranked in descending order. networks such as FitNet [35] and Highway [42] (Table 6), yet is among the state-of-the-art results (6.43%, Table 6). Analysis of Layer Responses. Fig. 7 shows the standard deviations (std) of the layer responses. The responses are the outputs of each 3×3 layer, after BN and before other nonlinearity (ReLU/addition). For ResNets, this analy- sis reveals the response strength of the residual functions. Fig. 7 shows that ResNets have generally smaller responses than their plain counterparts. These results support our ba- sic motivation (Sec.3.1) that the residual functions might be generally closer to zero than the non-residual functions. We also notice that the deeper ResNet has smaller magni- tudes of responses, as evidenced by the comparisons among ResNet-20, 56, and 110 in Fig. 7. When there are more layers, an individual layer of ResNets tends to modify the signal less. Exploring Over 1000 layers. We explore an aggressively deep model of over 1000 layers. We set n = 200 that leads to a 1202-layer network, which is trained as described above. Our method shows no optimization difficulty, and this 103-layer network is able to achieve training error <0.1% (Fig. 6, right). Its test error is still fairly good (7.93%, Table 6). But there are still open problems on such aggressively deep models. The testing result of this 1202-layer network is worse than that of our 110-layer network, although both training data 07+12 07++12 test data VOC 07 test VOC 12 test VGG-16 73.2 70.4 ResNet-101 76.4 73.8 Table 7. Object detection mAP (%) on the PASCAL VOC 2007/2012 test sets using baseline Faster R-CNN. See also Ta- ble 10 and 11 for better results. metric mAP@.5 mAP@[.5, .95] VGG-16 41.5 21.2 ResNet-101 48.4 27.2 Table 8. Object detection mAP (%) on the COCO validation set using baseline Faster R-CNN. See also Table 9 for better results. have similar training error. We argue that this is because of overfitting. The 1202-layer network may be unnecessarily large (19.4M) for this small dataset. Strong regularization such as maxout [10] or dropout [14] is applied to obtain the best results ([10, 25, 24, 35]) on this dataset. In this paper, we use no maxout/dropout and just simply impose regular- ization via deep and thin architectures by design, without distracting from the focus on the difficulties of optimiza- tion. But combining with stronger regularization may im- prove results, which we will study in the future. 4.3. Object Detection on PASCAL and MS COCO Our method has good generalization performance on other recognition tasks. Table 7 and 8 show the object de- tection baseline results on PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 [5] and COCO [26]. We adopt Faster R-CNN [32] as the de- tection method. Here we are interested in the improvements of replacing VGG-16 [41] with ResNet-101. The detection implementation (see appendix) of using both models is the same, so the gains can only be attributed to better networks. Most remarkably, on the challenging COCO dataset we ob- tain a 6.0% increase in COCO’s standard metric (mAP@[.5, .95]), which is a 28% relative improvement. This gain is solely due to the learned representations. Based on deep residual nets, we won the 1st places in several tracks in ILSVRC & COCO 2015 competitions: Im- ageNet detection, ImageNet localization, COCO detection, and COCO segmentation. The details are in the appendix. 8 References [1] Y. Bengio, P. Simard, and P. Frasconi. Learning long-term dependen- cies with gradient descent is difficult. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 5(2):157–166, 1994. [2] C. M. Bishop. Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford university press, 1995. [3] W. L. Briggs, S. F. McCormick, et al. A Multigrid Tutorial. Siam, 2000. [4] 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. [5] M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, C. K. Williams, J. Winn, and A. Zis- serman. The Pascal Visual Object Classes (VOC) Challenge. IJCV, pages 303–338, 2010. [6] S. Gidaris and N. Komodakis. Object detection via a multi-region & semantic segmentation-aware cnn model. In ICCV, 2015. [7] R. Girshick. Fast R-CNN. In ICCV, 2015. [8] R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik. Rich feature hier- archies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 2014. [9] X. Glorot and Y. Bengio. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In AISTATS, 2010. [10] I. J. Goodfellow, D. Warde-Farley, M. Mirza, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio. Maxout networks. arXiv:1302.4389, 2013. [11] K. He and J. Sun. Convolutional neural networks at constrained time cost. In CVPR, 2015. [12] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition. In ECCV, 2014. [13] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification. In ICCV, 2015. [14] G. E. Hinton, N. Srivastava, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and R. R. Salakhutdinov. Improving neural networks by preventing co- adaptation of feature detectors. arXiv:1207.0580, 2012. [15] S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735–1780, 1997. [16] S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In ICML, 2015. [17] H. Jegou, M. Douze, and C. Schmid. Product quantization for nearest neighbor search. TPAMI, 33, 2011. [18] H. Jegou, F. Perronnin, M. Douze, J. Sanchez, P. Perez, and C. Schmid. Aggregating local image descriptors into compact codes. TPAMI, 2012. [19] Y. Jia, E. Shelhamer, J. Donahue, S. Karayev, J. Long, R. Girshick, S. Guadarrama, and T. Darrell. Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding. arXiv:1408.5093, 2014. [20] A. Krizhevsky. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny im- ages. Tech Report, 2009. [21] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In NIPS, 2012. [22] Y. LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard, W. Hubbard, and L. D. Jackel. Backpropagation applied to hand- written zip code recognition. Neural computation, 1989. [23] Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, G. B. Orr, and K.-R. Müller. Efficient backprop. In Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade, pages 9–50. Springer, 1998. [24] C.-Y. Lee, S. Xie, P. Gallagher, Z. Zhang, and Z. Tu. Deeply- supervised nets. arXiv:1409.5185, 2014. [25] M. Lin, Q. Chen, and S. Yan. Network in network. arXiv:1312.4400, 2013. [26] T.-Y. Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Dollár, and C. L. Zitnick. Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context. In ECCV. 2014. [27] J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 2015. [28] G. Montúfar, R. Pascanu, K. Cho, and Y. Bengio. On the number of linear regions of deep neural networks. In NIPS, 2014. [29] V. Nair and G. E. Hinton. Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines. In ICML, 2010. [30] F. Perronnin and C. Dance. Fisher kernels on visual vocabularies for image categorization. In CVPR, 2007. [31] T. Raiko, H. Valpola, and Y. LeCun. Deep learning made easier by linear transformations in perceptrons. In AISTATS, 2012. [32] S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In NIPS, 2015. [33] S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, X. Zhang, and J. Sun. Object detection networks on convolutional feature maps. arXiv:1504.06066, 2015. [34] B. D. Ripley. Pattern recognition and neural networks. Cambridge university press, 1996. [35] A. Romero, N. Ballas, S. E. Kahou, A. Chassang, C. Gatta, and Y. Bengio. Fitnets: Hints for thin deep nets. In ICLR, 2015. [36] 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. [37] A. M. Saxe, J. L. McClelland, and S. Ganguli. Exact solutions to the nonlinear dynamics of learning in deep linear neural networks. arXiv:1312.6120, 2013. [38] N. N. Schraudolph. Accelerated gradient descent by factor-centering decomposition. Technical report, 1998. [39] N. N. Schraudolph. Centering neural network gradient factors. In Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade, pages 207–226. Springer, 1998. [40] P. Sermanet, D. Eigen, X. Zhang, M. Mathieu, R. Fergus, and Y. Le- Cun. Overfeat: Integrated recognition, localization and detection using convolutional networks. In ICLR, 2014. [41] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In ICLR, 2015. [42] R. K. Srivastava, K. Greff, and J. Schmidhuber. Highway networks. arXiv:1505.00387, 2015. [43] R. K. Srivastava, K. Greff, and J. Schmidhuber. Training very deep networks. 1507.06228, 2015. [44] C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P. Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov, D. Er- han, V. Vanhoucke, and A. Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolu- tions. In CVPR, 2015. [45] R. Szeliski. Fast surface interpolation using hierarchical basis func- tions. TPAMI, 1990. [46] R. Szeliski. Locally adapted hierarchical basis preconditioning. In SIGGRAPH, 2006. [47] T. Vatanen, T. Raiko, H. Valpola, and Y. LeCun. Pushing stochas- tic gradient towards second-order methods–backpropagation learn- ing with transformations in nonlinearities. In Neural Information Processing, 2013. [48] A. Vedaldi and B. Fulkerson. VLFeat: An open and portable library of computer vision algorithms, 2008. [49] W. Venables and B. Ripley. Modern applied statistics with s-plus. 1999. [50] M. D. Zeiler and R. Fergus. Visualizing and understanding convolu- tional neural networks. In ECCV, 2014. 9 A. Object Detection Baselines In this section we introduce our detection method based on the baseline Faster R-CNN [32] system. The models are initialized by the ImageNet classification models, and then fine-tuned on the object detection data. We have experi- mented with ResNet-50/101 at the time of the ILSVRC & COCO 2015 detection competitions. Unlike VGG-16 used in [32], our ResNet has no hidden fc layers. We adopt the idea of “Networks on Conv fea- ture maps” (NoC) [33] to address this issue. We compute the full-image shared conv feature maps using those lay- ers whose strides on the image are no greater than 16 pixels (i.e., conv1, conv2 x, conv3 x, and conv4 x, totally 91 conv layers in ResNet-101; Table 1). We consider these layers as analogous to the 13 conv layers in VGG-16, and by doing so, both ResNet and VGG-16 have conv feature maps of the same total stride (16 pixels). These layers are shared by a region proposal network (RPN, generating 300 proposals) [32] and a Fast R-CNN detection network [7]. RoI pool- ing [7] is performed before conv5 1. On this RoI-pooled feature, all layers of conv5 x and up are adopted for each region, playing the roles of VGG-16’s fc layers. The final classification layer is replaced by two sibling layers (classi- fication and box regression [7]). For the usage of BN layers, after pre-training, we com- pute the BN statistics (means and variances) for each layer on the ImageNet training set. Then the BN layers are fixed during fine-tuning for object detection. As such, the BN layers become linear activations with constant offsets and scales, and BN statistics are not updated by fine-tuning. We fix the BN layers mainly for reducing memory consumption in Faster R-CNN training. PASCAL VOC Following [7, 32], for the PASCAL VOC 2007 test set, we use the 5k trainval images in VOC 2007 and 16k train- val images in VOC 2012 for training (“07+12”). For the PASCAL VOC 2012 test set, we use the 10k trainval+test images in VOC 2007 and 16k trainval images in VOC 2012 for training (“07++12”). The hyper-parameters for train- ing Faster R-CNN are the same as in [32]. Table 7 shows the results. ResNet-101 improves the mAP by >3% over
VGG-16. This gain is solely because of the improved fea-
tures learned by ResNet.

MS COCO
The MS COCO dataset [26] involves 80 object cate-

gories. We evaluate the PASCAL VOC metric (mAP @
IoU = 0.5) and the standard COCO metric (mAP @ IoU =
.5:.05:.95). We use the 80k images on the train set for train-
ing and the 40k images on the val set for evaluation. Our
detection system for COCO is similar to that for PASCAL
VOC. We train the COCO models with an 8-GPU imple-
mentation, and thus the RPN step has a mini-batch size of

8 images (i.e., 1 per GPU) and the Fast R-CNN step has a
mini-batch size of 16 images. The RPN step and Fast R-
CNN step are both trained for 240k iterations with a learn-
ing rate of 0.001 and then for 80k iterations with 0.0001.

Table 8 shows the results on the MS COCO validation
set. ResNet-101 has a 6% increase of mAP@[.5, .95] over
VGG-16, which is a 28% relative improvement, solely con-
tributed by the features learned by the better network. Re-
markably, the mAP@[.5, .95]’s absolute increase (6.0%) is
nearly as big as mAP@.5’s (6.9%). This suggests that a
deeper network can improve both recognition and localiza-
tion.

B. Object Detection Improvements

For completeness, we report the improvements made for
the competitions. These improvements are based on deep
features and thus should benefit from residual learning.

MS COCO
Box refinement. Our box refinement partially follows the it-
erative localization in [6]. In Faster R-CNN, the final output
is a regressed box that is different from its proposal box. So
for inference, we pool a new feature from the regressed box
and obtain a new classification score and a new regressed
box. We combine these 300 new predictions with the orig-
inal 300 predictions. Non-maximum suppression (NMS) is
applied on the union set of predicted boxes using an IoU
threshold of 0.3 [8], followed by box voting [6]. Box re-
finement improves mAP by about 2 points (Table 9).

Global context. We combine global context in the Fast
R-CNN step. Given the full-image conv feature map, we
pool a feature by global Spatial Pyramid Pooling [12] (with
a “single-level” pyramid) which can be implemented as
“RoI” pooling using the entire image’s bounding box as the
RoI. This pooled feature is fed into the post-RoI layers to
obtain a global context feature. This global feature is con-
catenated with the original per-region feature, followed by
the sibling classification and box regression layers. This
new structure is trained end-to-end. Global context im-
proves mAP@.5 by about 1 point (Table 9).

Multi-scale testing. In the above, all results are obtained by
single-scale training/testing as in [32], where the image’s
shorter side is s = 600 pixels. Multi-scale training/testing
has been developed in [12, 7] by selecting a scale from a
feature pyramid, and in [33] by using maxout layers. In
our current implementation, we have performed multi-scale
testing following [33]; we have not performed multi-scale
training because of limited time. In addition, we have per-
formed multi-scale testing only for the Fast R-CNN step
(but not yet for the RPN step). With a trained model, we
compute conv feature maps on an image pyramid, where the
image’s shorter sides are s ∈ {200, 400, 600, 800, 1000}.

training data COCO train COCO trainval
test data COCO val COCO test-dev
mAP @.5 @[.5, .95] @.5 @[.5, .95]
baseline Faster R-CNN (VGG-16) 41.5 21.2
baseline Faster R-CNN (ResNet-101) 48.4 27.2
+box refinement 49.9 29.9
+context 51.1 30.0 53.3 32.2
+multi-scale testing 53.8 32.5 55.7 34.9
ensemble 59.0 37.4

Table 9. Object detection improvements on MS COCO using Faster R-CNN and ResNet-101.

system net data mAP areo bike bird boat bottle bus car cat chair cow table dog horse mbike person plant sheep sofa train tv
baseline VGG-16 07+12 73.2 76.5 79.0 70.9 65.5 52.1 83.1 84.7 86.4 52.0 81.9 65.7 84.8 84.6 77.5 76.7 38.8 73.6 73.9 83.0 72.6
baseline ResNet-101 07+12 76.4 79.8 80.7 76.2 68.3 55.9 85.1 85.3 89.8 56.7 87.8 69.4 88.3 88.9 80.9 78.4 41.7 78.6 79.8 85.3 72.0
baseline+++ ResNet-101 COCO+07+12 85.6 90.0 89.6 87.8 80.8 76.1 89.9 89.9 89.6 75.5 90.0 80.7 89.6 90.3 89.1 88.7 65.4 88.1 85.6 89.0 86.8

Table 10. Detection results on the PASCAL VOC 2007 test set. The baseline is the Faster R-CNN system. The system “baseline+++”
include box refinement, context, and multi-scale testing in Table 9.

system net data mAP areo bike bird boat bottle bus car cat chair cow table dog horse mbike person plant sheep sofa train tv
baseline VGG-16 07++12 70.4 84.9 79.8 74.3 53.9 49.8 77.5 75.9 88.5 45.6 77.1 55.3 86.9 81.7 80.9 79.6 40.1 72.6 60.9 81.2 61.5
baseline ResNet-101 07++12 73.8 86.5 81.6 77.2 58.0 51.0 78.6 76.6 93.2 48.6 80.4 59.0 92.1 85.3 84.8 80.7 48.1 77.3 66.5 84.7 65.6
baseline+++ ResNet-101 COCO+07++12 83.8 92.1 88.4 84.8 75.9 71.4 86.3 87.8 94.2 66.8 89.4 69.2 93.9 91.9 90.9 89.6 67.9 88.2 76.8 90.3 80.0

Table 11. Detection results on the PASCAL VOC 2012 test set (http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk:8080/leaderboard/
displaylb.php?challengeid=11&compid=4). The baseline is the Faster R-CNN system. The system “baseline+++” include
box refinement, context, and multi-scale testing in Table 9.

We select two adjacent scales from the pyramid following
[33]. RoI pooling and subsequent layers are performed on
the feature maps of these two scales [33], which are merged
by maxout as in [33]. Multi-scale testing improves the mAP
by over 2 points (Table 9).

Using validation data. Next we use the 80k+40k trainval set
for training and the 20k test-dev set for evaluation. The test-
dev set has no publicly available ground truth and the result
is reported by the evaluation server. Under this setting, the
results are an mAP@.5 of 55.7% and an mAP@[.5, .95] of
34.9% (Table 9). This is our single-model result.

Ensemble. In Faster R-CNN, the system is designed to learn
region proposals and also object classifiers, so an ensemble
can be used to boost both tasks. We use an ensemble for
proposing regions, and the union set of proposals are pro-
cessed by an ensemble of per-region classifiers. Table 9
shows our result based on an ensemble of 3 networks. The
mAP is 59.0% and 37.4% on the test-dev set. This result
won the 1st place in the detection task in COCO 2015.

PASCAL VOC
We revisit the PASCAL VOC dataset based on the above

model. With the single model on the COCO dataset (55.7%
mAP@.5 in Table 9), we fine-tune this model on the PAS-
CAL VOC sets. The improvements of box refinement, con-
text, and multi-scale testing are also adopted. By doing so

val2 test

GoogLeNet [44] (ILSVRC’14) – 43.9

our single model (ILSVRC’15) 60.5 58.8
our ensemble (ILSVRC’15) 63.6 62.1

Table 12. Our results (mAP, %) on the ImageNet detection dataset.
Our detection system is Faster R-CNN [32] with the improvements
in Table 9, using ResNet-101.

we achieve 85.6% mAP on PASCAL VOC 2007 (Table 10)
and 83.8% on PASCAL VOC 2012 (Table 11)6. The result
on PASCAL VOC 2012 is 10 points higher than the previ-
ous state-of-the-art result [6].

ImageNet Detection
The ImageNet Detection (DET) task involves 200 object

categories. The accuracy is evaluated by mAP@.5. Our
object detection algorithm for ImageNet DET is the same
as that for MS COCO in Table 9. The networks are pre-
trained on the 1000-class ImageNet classification set, and
are fine-tuned on the DET data. We split the validation set
into two parts (val1/val2) following [8]. We fine-tune the
detection models using the DET training set and the val1
set. The val2 set is used for validation. We do not use other
ILSVRC 2015 data. Our single model with ResNet-101 has

6http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk:8080/anonymous/3OJ4OJ.html,
submitted on 2015-11-26.

http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk:8080/leaderboard/displaylb.php?challengeid=11&compid=4
http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk:8080/leaderboard/displaylb.php?challengeid=11&compid=4
http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk:8080/anonymous/3OJ4OJ.html

LOC
method

LOC
network

testing
LOC error
on GT CLS

classification
network

top-5 LOC error
on predicted CLS

VGG’s [41] VGG-16 1-crop 33.1 [41]
RPN ResNet-101 1-crop 13.3
RPN ResNet-101 dense 11.7
RPN ResNet-101 dense ResNet-101 14.4

RPN+RCNN ResNet-101 dense ResNet-101 10.6
RPN+RCNN ensemble dense ensemble 8.9

Table 13. Localization error (%) on the ImageNet validation. In
the column of “LOC error on GT class” ([41]), the ground truth
class is used. In the “testing” column, “1-crop” denotes testing
on a center crop of 224×224 pixels, “dense” denotes dense (fully
convolutional) and multi-scale testing.

58.8% mAP and our ensemble of 3 models has 62.1% mAP
on the DET test set (Table 12). This result won the 1st place
in the ImageNet detection task in ILSVRC 2015, surpassing
the second place by 8.5 points (absolute).

C. ImageNet Localization

The ImageNet Localization (LOC) task [36] requires to
classify and localize the objects. Following [40, 41], we
assume that the image-level classifiers are first adopted for
predicting the class labels of an image, and the localiza-
tion algorithm only accounts for predicting bounding boxes
based on the predicted classes. We adopt the “per-class re-
gression” (PCR) strategy [40, 41], learning a bounding box
regressor for each class. We pre-train the networks for Im-
ageNet classification and then fine-tune them for localiza-
tion. We train networks on the provided 1000-class Ima-
geNet training set.

Our localization algorithm is based on the RPN frame-
work of [32] with a few modifications. Unlike the way in
[32] that is category-agnostic, our RPN for localization is
designed in a per-class form. This RPN ends with two sib-
ling 1×1 convolutional layers for binary classification (cls)
and box regression (reg), as in [32]. The cls and reg layers
are both in a per-class from, in contrast to [32]. Specifi-
cally, the cls layer has a 1000-d output, and each dimension
is binary logistic regression for predicting being or not be-
ing an object class; the reg layer has a 1000×4-d output
consisting of box regressors for 1000 classes. As in [32],
our bounding box regression is with reference to multiple
translation-invariant “anchor” boxes at each position.

As in our ImageNet classification training (Sec. 3.4), we
randomly sample 224×224 crops for data augmentation.
We use a mini-batch size of 256 images for fine-tuning. To
avoid negative samples being dominate, 8 anchors are ran-
domly sampled for each image, where the sampled positive
and negative anchors have a ratio of 1:1 [32]. For testing,
the network is applied on the image fully-convolutionally.

Table 13 compares the localization results. Following
[41], we first perform “oracle” testing using the ground truth
class as the classification prediction. VGG’s paper [41] re-

method
top-5 localization err
val test

OverFeat [40] (ILSVRC’13) 30.0 29.9
GoogLeNet [44] (ILSVRC’14) – 26.7
VGG [41] (ILSVRC’14) 26.9 25.3
ours (ILSVRC’15) 8.9 9.0

Table 14. Comparisons of localization error (%) on the ImageNet
dataset with state-of-the-art methods.

ports a center-crop error of 33.1% (Table 13) using ground
truth classes. Under the same setting, our RPN method us-
ing ResNet-101 net significantly reduces the center-crop er-
ror to 13.3%. This comparison demonstrates the excellent
performance of our framework. With dense (fully convolu-
tional) and multi-scale testing, our ResNet-101 has an error
of 11.7% using ground truth classes. Using ResNet-101 for
predicting classes (4.6% top-5 classification error, Table 4),
the top-5 localization error is 14.4%.

The above results are only based on the proposal network
(RPN) in Faster R-CNN [32]. One may use the detection
network (Fast R-CNN [7]) in Faster R-CNN to improve the
results. But we notice that on this dataset, one image usually
contains a single dominate object, and the proposal regions
highly overlap with each other and thus have very similar
RoI-pooled features. As a result, the image-centric training
of Fast R-CNN [7] generates samples of small variations,
which may not be desired for stochastic training. Motivated
by this, in our current experiment we use the original R-
CNN [8] that is RoI-centric, in place of Fast R-CNN.

Our R-CNN implementation is as follows. We apply the
per-class RPN trained as above on the training images to
predict bounding boxes for the ground truth class. These
predicted boxes play a role of class-dependent proposals.
For each training image, the highest scored 200 proposals
are extracted as training samples to train an R-CNN classi-
fier. The image region is cropped from a proposal, warped
to 224×224 pixels, and fed into the classification network
as in R-CNN [8]. The outputs of this network consist of two
sibling fc layers for cls and reg, also in a per-class form.
This R-CNN network is fine-tuned on the training set us-
ing a mini-batch size of 256 in the RoI-centric fashion. For
testing, the RPN generates the highest scored 200 proposals
for each predicted class, and the R-CNN network is used to
update these proposals’ scores and box positions.

This method reduces the top-5 localization error to
10.6% (Table 13). This is our single-model result on the
validation set. Using an ensemble of networks for both clas-
sification and localization, we achieve a top-5 localization
error of 9.0% on the test set. This number significantly out-
performs the ILSVRC 14 results (Table 14), showing a 64%
relative reduction of error. This result won the 1st place in
the ImageNet localization task in ILSVRC 2015.

Published by admin

Leave a Reply Cancel reply