HardNet: Convolutional Network for Local Image Description
•
1 recomendación•1,369 vistas
We introduce a novel loss for learning local feature descriptors which is inspired by the Lowe's matching criterion for SIFT. We show that the proposed loss that maximizes the distance between the closest positive and closest negative patch in the batch is better than complex regularization methods; it works well for both shallow and deep convolution network architectures. Applying the novel loss to the L2Net CNN architecture results in a compact descriptor -- it has the same dimensionality as SIFT (128) that shows state-of-art performance in wide baseline stereo, patch verification and instance retrieval benchmarks. It is fast, computing a descriptor takes about 1 millisecond on a low-end GPU.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a HardNet: Convolutional Network for Local Image Description
Similar a HardNet: Convolutional Network for Local Image Description (20)
Último
Último (20)
HardNet: Convolutional Network for Local Image Description
- 1. HARDNET: CONVOLUTIONAL NETWORK FOR LOCAL IMAGE DESCRIPTION Anastasiia Mishchuk, Dmytro Mishkin, Filip Radenovic Jiri Matas
- 3. 3 TRAINING DATA Discriminant Learning of Local Image Descriptors Brown et al, PAMI2010 3 sets, 400k patches each: • Liberty (shown) • Notredame • Yosemite Size: 64x64, grayscale. Obtained from SfM model, 3D point → DoG keypoints Used in all learned descriptors meantioned in this presentation
- 4. 4 CONVEXOPT (SIMONYAN ET AL, 2012) Global margin loss Simonyan et al, ECCV 2012 Convex optimization problem
- 5. 5 MATCHNET Han et al, CVPR2015. Works well, but rely on metric network. Approximate kNN methods, e.g. FLANN cannot be applied directly 7x7 Conv pad 1 64 24 ReLU 1 24 5x5 Conv pad 2 64 ReLU 64 3x3 Conv pad 1 ReLU 64 2x2 MP/2 32 32 2x2 MP/2 16 96 16 3x3 Conv pad 1 ReLU 96 16 3x3 Conv pad 1 ReLU 64 16 3x3 MP/2 64 8 8x8 Conv ReLU 1 128 1x1 Conv ReLU 1 256 1x1 Conv ReLU 1 256 1x1 Conv Softmax 1 2
- 6. 6 DEEPCOMPARE Zagoruyko and Komodakis, CVPR 2015 Works well, but rely on metric network. Approximate kNN methods, e.g. FLANN cannot be applied directly 7x7 Conv pad 3 64 96 ReLU 1 96 5x5 Conv pad 2 192 ReLU 192 3x3 Conv pad 1 ReLU 64 2x2 MP/2 32 32 2x2 MP/2 16 256 16 8 8x8 Conv ReLU 1 1 256 1x1 Conv ReLU 256 1x1 Conv Sigmoid 1 2x2 MP/2 256
- 7. 9 Simo-Serra et al, ICCV 2015. Balntas et al, BMVC 2016 32 32 7x7 Conv 26 TanH 1 2x2 MP/2 13 6x6 Conv TanH 8 64 8x8 Conv TanH 1 12832 TFeat (Balntas et al, 2016) • Even shallower and faster CNN, • hard-negative mining: by anchor swap in triplet. • triplet margin loss on L2 distance 1 64 7x7 Conv 58 32 TanH 2x2 L2pool/2 29 6x6 Conv TanH 23 64 5x5 Conv TanH 4 12832 3x3 L2Pool/3 8 64 4x4 L2Pool/4 1 128 DeepDesc (Simo-Serra et al, 2015 ) Relatively shallow and fast CNN. Hard negative mining: Contrastive loss on L2 distance
- 8. 10 DESCRIPTOR COMPARISON Descr. #layers w/params Loss Hard mining Kd-tree ready ConvexOpt 1 Global margin - + DeepDesc 3 Contrastive + + TFeat 3 Triplet margin +/- + MatchNet 8 Cross entropy - - DeepComp 5 Hinge - - Balntas et al, BMVC 2016
- 9. 11 L2NET. TIAN ET AL (CVPR 2017) 32 32 16 16 3x3 Conv pad 1 32 32 BN + ReLU 1 3x3 Conv pad 1 32 BN + ReLU 3x3 Conv pad 1 /2 64 BN + ReLU 3x3 Conv pad 1 64 BN + ReLU 3x3 Conv pad 1 /2 BN + ReLU 8 128 3x3 Conv pad 1 BN + ReLU 8 128 8x8 Conv BN+ L2Norm 1 128
- 10. 13 L2NET: LOSS TERMS Softmax over row/column of distance matrix
- 11. 14 L2NET: LOSS TERMS Softmax over row/column of distance matrix Penalty on descriptor components correlation
- 12. 15 L2NET: LOSS TERMS Softmax over row/column of distance matrix Softmax over row/column of distance matrix of intermediate features Penalty on descriptor components correlation
- 13. 16 HARDNET Triplet margin loss for hard negative Penalty on descriptor channels correlation Softmax over row/column of distance matrix of intermediate features
- 14. 17 HARDNET (OURS) 3x3 Conv pad 1 32 32 BN + ReLU 1 3x3 Conv pad 1 32 BN + ReLU 3x3 Conv pad 1 /2 64 BN + ReLU 3x3 Conv pad 1 64 BN + ReLU 3x3 Conv pad 1 /2 BN + ReLU 8 128 3x3 Conv pad 1 BN + ReLU 8 128 8x8 Conv BN+ L2Norm 1 128
- 16. 19 DESCRIPTOR COMPARISON Descr. #layers w/params Loss Hard mining Kd-tree ready ConvexOpt 1 Global margin - + DeepDesc 3 Contrastive + + TFeat 3 Triplet margin +/- + MatchNet 8 Cross entropy - - DeepComp 5 Hinge - - L2Net 7 SoftMax + + HardNet 7 Triplet margin + +
- 19. 22 LOSSES COMPARISON, DERIVATIVES No gradient from negative example Small gradients
- 20. 23 LOSSES COMPARISON Contrastive Softmax (L2Net) Triplet margin FPR, Brown Yos 0.009 0.009 0.006 mAUC, W1BS 0.072 0.083 0.083 mAUC, HP-T 0.153 0.157 0.164
- 21. Results 24
- 23. 26 RESULTS: W1BS DATASET Mishkin et al, BMVC 2015 Nuisance factor: Appearance Geometry Lighting Sensor
- 24. 27 HPATCHES DATASETDoG, Hessian, Harris – in ref.image ~1300 patches per image kept. Reprojected to other images with 3 levels of “affine frame noise” added V: 57 image sixplets – photometric changes I: 59 image sixplets – geometric changes Balntas et al, CVPR 2017
- 26. 29 RESULTS: MATCHING WITH VIEW SYNTH Datasets are already saturated On par with RootSIFT Still challenging due to multiple nuisance factors Zitnick and Ramnath, 2011, Mishkin et al 2015, Mikolajczyk et al. 2013, Hauagge and Snavely, 2012, Kelman et al, 2007, Fernando et al. 2014
- 27. 30 RESULTS: BOW OXFORD5K & PARIS 6K Philbin et al 2007, Philbin et al 2008