Latest commit

History

1 Commit

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Repository files navigation

Are capsule networks really better than convolutional networks with max pooling?

Geoffrey Hinton claims that CNNs with max pooling are wrong, while capsule networks are very promising.

In paper they train capsule network to classify highly overlapping MNIST digits and get pretty impressive results.

There also is a mention (both in paper and in talks) that due to grabbing the manifold behind raw pixels capsule networks will need less data to train. This is the assumption tested here

Boring details about this implementation of CapsNet

It is based on original paper, but with few differences:

  • It is scaled down to have ~1 M params (original net has ~7M params) to have same number of params as reference CNN
  • As far as we are not interested in detecting several digits on same image, offered "margin loss" is replaced with default cross-entropy loss
  • Reconstruction loss and reconstruction sub-network are removed altogether - looks like it does not provide any performance boost
  • "Reduce learning rate on plateau" and "early stopping" tricks are applied instead of just using fixed number of epochs and TF Adam with default params

Kudos to @ageron and his TensorFlow CapsNet implementation, as well as videotutorial

Results

So here is the comparison of CapsNet vs straightforward CNN, both having ~1M parameters. Testing done on MNIST dataset

Inference time is not shown, but it is constant for both models, 50x more for CapsNet than for CNN

My reading of this data is as following:

  • If you have very small dataset (up to 3 cases per class for MNIST, probably more in more complex settings) you indeed can get decent performance edge over CNN by using CapsNet
  • This will cost you ~10X slower training and ~50x slower inference
  • With dataset growth CapsNet advantage evaporates and CNN even starts performing better (while keeping performance superiority)

DIY

So is Geoffrey Hinton really wrong and some nameless guy from GitHub right? Maybe not.

You are welcome to hack things around and hopefully improve my CapsNet implementation.

You are doubly welcome to let me know if you succeed.

About

CapsNeet vs CNN

Topics

Resources

Stars

7 stars

Watchers

1 watching

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages

, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Skip to content

Latest commit

History

1 Commit

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Repository files navigation

Are capsule networks really better than convolutional networks with max pooling?

Geoffrey Hinton claims that CNNs with max pooling are wrong, while capsule networks are very promising.

In paper they train capsule network to classify highly overlapping MNIST digits and get pretty impressive results.

There also is a mention (both in paper and in talks) that due to grabbing the manifold behind raw pixels capsule networks will need less data to train. This is the assumption tested here

Boring details about this implementation of CapsNet

It is based on original paper, but with few differences:

  • It is scaled down to have ~1 M params (original net has ~7M params) to have same number of params as reference CNN
  • As far as we are not interested in detecting several digits on same image, offered "margin loss" is replaced with default cross-entropy loss
  • Reconstruction loss and reconstruction sub-network are removed altogether - looks like it does not provide any performance boost
  • "Reduce learning rate on plateau" and "early stopping" tricks are applied instead of just using fixed number of epochs and TF Adam with default params

Kudos to @ageron and his TensorFlow CapsNet implementation, as well as videotutorial

Results

So here is the comparison of CapsNet vs straightforward CNN, both having ~1M parameters. Testing done on MNIST dataset

Inference time is not shown, but it is constant for both models, 50x more for CapsNet than for CNN

My reading of this data is as following:

  • If you have very small dataset (up to 3 cases per class for MNIST, probably more in more complex settings) you indeed can get decent performance edge over CNN by using CapsNet
  • This will cost you ~10X slower training and ~50x slower inference
  • With dataset growth CapsNet advantage evaporates and CNN even starts performing better (while keeping performance superiority)

DIY

So is Geoffrey Hinton really wrong and some nameless guy from GitHub right? Maybe not.

You are welcome to hack things around and hopefully improve my CapsNet implementation.

You are doubly welcome to let me know if you succeed.

About

CapsNeet vs CNN

Topics

Resources

Stars

7 stars

Watchers

1 watching

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages

, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

Latest commit

History

1 Commit

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Repository files navigation

Are capsule networks really better than convolutional networks with max pooling?

Geoffrey Hinton claims that CNNs with max pooling are wrong, while capsule networks are very promising.

In paper they train capsule network to classify highly overlapping MNIST digits and get pretty impressive results.

There also is a mention (both in paper and in talks) that due to grabbing the manifold behind raw pixels capsule networks will need less data to train. This is the assumption tested here

Boring details about this implementation of CapsNet

It is based on original paper, but with few differences:

  • It is scaled down to have ~1 M params (original net has ~7M params) to have same number of params as reference CNN
  • As far as we are not interested in detecting several digits on same image, offered "margin loss" is replaced with default cross-entropy loss
  • Reconstruction loss and reconstruction sub-network are removed altogether - looks like it does not provide any performance boost
  • "Reduce learning rate on plateau" and "early stopping" tricks are applied instead of just using fixed number of epochs and TF Adam with default params

Kudos to @ageron and his TensorFlow CapsNet implementation, as well as videotutorial

Results

So here is the comparison of CapsNet vs straightforward CNN, both having ~1M parameters. Testing done on MNIST dataset

Inference time is not shown, but it is constant for both models, 50x more for CapsNet than for CNN

My reading of this data is as following:

  • If you have very small dataset (up to 3 cases per class for MNIST, probably more in more complex settings) you indeed can get decent performance edge over CNN by using CapsNet
  • This will cost you ~10X slower training and ~50x slower inference
  • With dataset growth CapsNet advantage evaporates and CNN even starts performing better (while keeping performance superiority)

DIY

So is Geoffrey Hinton really wrong and some nameless guy from GitHub right? Maybe not.

You are welcome to hack things around and hopefully improve my CapsNet implementation.

You are doubly welcome to let me know if you succeed.

About

CapsNeet vs CNN

Topics

Resources

Stars

7 stars

Watchers

1 watching

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages

, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

Latest commit

History

1 Commit

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Repository files navigation

Are capsule networks really better than convolutional networks with max pooling?

Geoffrey Hinton claims that CNNs with max pooling are wrong, while capsule networks are very promising.

In paper they train capsule network to classify highly overlapping MNIST digits and get pretty impressive results.

There also is a mention (both in paper and in talks) that due to grabbing the manifold behind raw pixels capsule networks will need less data to train. This is the assumption tested here

Boring details about this implementation of CapsNet

It is based on original paper, but with few differences:

  • It is scaled down to have ~1 M params (original net has ~7M params) to have same number of params as reference CNN
  • As far as we are not interested in detecting several digits on same image, offered "margin loss" is replaced with default cross-entropy loss
  • Reconstruction loss and reconstruction sub-network are removed altogether - looks like it does not provide any performance boost
  • "Reduce learning rate on plateau" and "early stopping" tricks are applied instead of just using fixed number of epochs and TF Adam with default params

Kudos to @ageron and his TensorFlow CapsNet implementation, as well as videotutorial

Results

So here is the comparison of CapsNet vs straightforward CNN, both having ~1M parameters. Testing done on MNIST dataset

Inference time is not shown, but it is constant for both models, 50x more for CapsNet than for CNN

My reading of this data is as following:

  • If you have very small dataset (up to 3 cases per class for MNIST, probably more in more complex settings) you indeed can get decent performance edge over CNN by using CapsNet
  • This will cost you ~10X slower training and ~50x slower inference
  • With dataset growth CapsNet advantage evaporates and CNN even starts performing better (while keeping performance superiority)

DIY

So is Geoffrey Hinton really wrong and some nameless guy from GitHub right? Maybe not.

You are welcome to hack things around and hopefully improve my CapsNet implementation.

You are doubly welcome to let me know if you succeed.

About

CapsNeet vs CNN

Topics

Resources

Stars

7 stars

Watchers

1 watching

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages

, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Skip to content

Latest commit

History

1 Commit

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Repository files navigation

Are capsule networks really better than convolutional networks with max pooling?

Geoffrey Hinton claims that CNNs with max pooling are wrong, while capsule networks are very promising.

In paper they train capsule network to classify highly overlapping MNIST digits and get pretty impressive results.

There also is a mention (both in paper and in talks) that due to grabbing the manifold behind raw pixels capsule networks will need less data to train. This is the assumption tested here

Boring details about this implementation of CapsNet

It is based on original paper, but with few differences:

  • It is scaled down to have ~1 M params (original net has ~7M params) to have same number of params as reference CNN
  • As far as we are not interested in detecting several digits on same image, offered "margin loss" is replaced with default cross-entropy loss
  • Reconstruction loss and reconstruction sub-network are removed altogether - looks like it does not provide any performance boost
  • "Reduce learning rate on plateau" and "early stopping" tricks are applied instead of just using fixed number of epochs and TF Adam with default params

Kudos to @ageron and his TensorFlow CapsNet implementation, as well as videotutorial

Results

So here is the comparison of CapsNet vs straightforward CNN, both having ~1M parameters. Testing done on MNIST dataset

Inference time is not shown, but it is constant for both models, 50x more for CapsNet than for CNN

My reading of this data is as following:

  • If you have very small dataset (up to 3 cases per class for MNIST, probably more in more complex settings) you indeed can get decent performance edge over CNN by using CapsNet
  • This will cost you ~10X slower training and ~50x slower inference
  • With dataset growth CapsNet advantage evaporates and CNN even starts performing better (while keeping performance superiority)

DIY

So is Geoffrey Hinton really wrong and some nameless guy from GitHub right? Maybe not.

You are welcome to hack things around and hopefully improve my CapsNet implementation.

You are doubly welcome to let me know if you succeed.

About

CapsNeet vs CNN

Topics

Resources

Stars

7 stars

Watchers

1 watching

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages

, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

Latest commit

History

1 Commit

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Repository files navigation

Are capsule networks really better than convolutional networks with max pooling?

Geoffrey Hinton claims that CNNs with max pooling are wrong, while capsule networks are very promising.

In paper they train capsule network to classify highly overlapping MNIST digits and get pretty impressive results.

There also is a mention (both in paper and in talks) that due to grabbing the manifold behind raw pixels capsule networks will need less data to train. This is the assumption tested here

Boring details about this implementation of CapsNet

It is based on original paper, but with few differences:

  • It is scaled down to have ~1 M params (original net has ~7M params) to have same number of params as reference CNN
  • As far as we are not interested in detecting several digits on same image, offered "margin loss" is replaced with default cross-entropy loss
  • Reconstruction loss and reconstruction sub-network are removed altogether - looks like it does not provide any performance boost
  • "Reduce learning rate on plateau" and "early stopping" tricks are applied instead of just using fixed number of epochs and TF Adam with default params

Kudos to @ageron and his TensorFlow CapsNet implementation, as well as videotutorial

Results

So here is the comparison of CapsNet vs straightforward CNN, both having ~1M parameters. Testing done on MNIST dataset

Inference time is not shown, but it is constant for both models, 50x more for CapsNet than for CNN

My reading of this data is as following:

  • If you have very small dataset (up to 3 cases per class for MNIST, probably more in more complex settings) you indeed can get decent performance edge over CNN by using CapsNet
  • This will cost you ~10X slower training and ~50x slower inference
  • With dataset growth CapsNet advantage evaporates and CNN even starts performing better (while keeping performance superiority)

DIY

So is Geoffrey Hinton really wrong and some nameless guy from GitHub right? Maybe not.

You are welcome to hack things around and hopefully improve my CapsNet implementation.

You are doubly welcome to let me know if you succeed.

About

CapsNeet vs CNN

Topics

Resources

Stars

7 stars

Watchers

1 watching

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages

, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

Latest commit

History

1 Commit

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Repository files navigation

Are capsule networks really better than convolutional networks with max pooling?

Geoffrey Hinton claims that CNNs with max pooling are wrong, while capsule networks are very promising.

In paper they train capsule network to classify highly overlapping MNIST digits and get pretty impressive results.

There also is a mention (both in paper and in talks) that due to grabbing the manifold behind raw pixels capsule networks will need less data to train. This is the assumption tested here

Boring details about this implementation of CapsNet

It is based on original paper, but with few differences:

  • It is scaled down to have ~1 M params (original net has ~7M params) to have same number of params as reference CNN
  • As far as we are not interested in detecting several digits on same image, offered "margin loss" is replaced with default cross-entropy loss
  • Reconstruction loss and reconstruction sub-network are removed altogether - looks like it does not provide any performance boost
  • "Reduce learning rate on plateau" and "early stopping" tricks are applied instead of just using fixed number of epochs and TF Adam with default params

Kudos to @ageron and his TensorFlow CapsNet implementation, as well as videotutorial

Results

So here is the comparison of CapsNet vs straightforward CNN, both having ~1M parameters. Testing done on MNIST dataset

Inference time is not shown, but it is constant for both models, 50x more for CapsNet than for CNN

My reading of this data is as following:

  • If you have very small dataset (up to 3 cases per class for MNIST, probably more in more complex settings) you indeed can get decent performance edge over CNN by using CapsNet
  • This will cost you ~10X slower training and ~50x slower inference
  • With dataset growth CapsNet advantage evaporates and CNN even starts performing better (while keeping performance superiority)

DIY

So is Geoffrey Hinton really wrong and some nameless guy from GitHub right? Maybe not.

You are welcome to hack things around and hopefully improve my CapsNet implementation.

You are doubly welcome to let me know if you succeed.

About

CapsNeet vs CNN

Topics

Resources

Stars

7 stars

Watchers

1 watching

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages

, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })();
Skip to content

Latest commit

History

1 Commit

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Repository files navigation

Are capsule networks really better than convolutional networks with max pooling?

Geoffrey Hinton claims that CNNs with max pooling are wrong, while capsule networks are very promising.

In paper they train capsule network to classify highly overlapping MNIST digits and get pretty impressive results.

There also is a mention (both in paper and in talks) that due to grabbing the manifold behind raw pixels capsule networks will need less data to train. This is the assumption tested here

Boring details about this implementation of CapsNet

It is based on original paper, but with few differences:

  • It is scaled down to have ~1 M params (original net has ~7M params) to have same number of params as reference CNN
  • As far as we are not interested in detecting several digits on same image, offered "margin loss" is replaced with default cross-entropy loss
  • Reconstruction loss and reconstruction sub-network are removed altogether - looks like it does not provide any performance boost
  • "Reduce learning rate on plateau" and "early stopping" tricks are applied instead of just using fixed number of epochs and TF Adam with default params

Kudos to @ageron and his TensorFlow CapsNet implementation, as well as videotutorial

Results

So here is the comparison of CapsNet vs straightforward CNN, both having ~1M parameters. Testing done on MNIST dataset

Inference time is not shown, but it is constant for both models, 50x more for CapsNet than for CNN

My reading of this data is as following:

  • If you have very small dataset (up to 3 cases per class for MNIST, probably more in more complex settings) you indeed can get decent performance edge over CNN by using CapsNet
  • This will cost you ~10X slower training and ~50x slower inference
  • With dataset growth CapsNet advantage evaporates and CNN even starts performing better (while keeping performance superiority)

DIY

So is Geoffrey Hinton really wrong and some nameless guy from GitHub right? Maybe not.

You are welcome to hack things around and hopefully improve my CapsNet implementation.

You are doubly welcome to let me know if you succeed.

About

CapsNeet vs CNN

Topics

Resources

Stars

7 stars

Watchers

1 watching

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages