Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 25 references

EdgeNet: Semantic Scene Completion from a Single RGB-D Image

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read EdgeNet fuses RGB edges with depth to improve 3D semantic scene completion, reporting 70.3 average IoU on SUNCG and matching a two-stage rival on NYU.

desk verdict EdgeNet makes a plausible architectural contribution, but its central claim that F-TSDF-encoded edges help rests on single-run gaps that need multi-seed verification. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02893 v2 pith:JRHIOFGB submitted 2019-08-08 cs.CV

Aloisio Dourado , Teofilo Emidio de Campos , Hansung Kim , Adrian Hilton This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semanticscenecompletionRGB-DfusionCannyedgedetectionflippedTSDF3DconvolutionalnetworkSUNCGNYUDv2end-to-endtraining
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

EdgeNet is an end-to-end network for semantic scene completion that claims colour information can help predict complete 3D scenes when it is encoded as binary edge volumes rather than as raw RGB projections. The paper projects Canny edges from a single RGB-D image into 3D, applies flipped truncated signed distance (F-TSDF) to both the depth surface and the edge volume, and fuses the two inside a U-Net style 3D CNN. On SUNCG the best variant reaches 70.3 average IoU, 3.3 points above the strongest depth-only prior method, and on NYUDv2 it reaches 33.7 average IoU, within one point of a more complex two-stage colour fusion method. The practical stake is a simpler training pipeline: one network, no separate 2D segmentation pretraining, and lower memory use, with gains concentrated on flat objects like pictures and TVs that depth alone cannot distinguish.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the flipped truncated signed distance function (F-TSDF) applied to a projected Canny edge volume. F-TSDF is defined as $\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{TSDF})\cdot(1-|\mathrm{TSDF}|)$, which turns the surface into a sharp discontinuity and gives dense gradients in the volume; the paper's move is to treat RGB edges as a second binary surface so that the same encoding can be applied to them. The second component is EdgeNet itself, a U-Net style 3D CNN with ResNet modules and dilated convolutions, evaluated in early, middle and late fusion schemes with a fixed channel budget so that memory use stays constant. The machinery works by giving the 3D CNN two complementary dense distance fields: one for geometry from depth and one for appearance boundaries from colour.

What would settle it

Re-run VVNetR-120 and TNetFuse with EdgeNet's re-rendered SUNCG test images and its NYU ground-truth voxelisation and evaluation code. If they reproduce their reported scores, EdgeNet's 70.3 and 33.7 IoU results hold; if their scores move, the claimed gains are protocol artefacts. A further check is to feed EdgeNet a random binary volume with the same density as the projected edges: if the IoU gain over EdgeNet-D persists, the improvement is not specifically due to RGB edges.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that previous attempts to add colour to semantic scene completion failed because colour is sparse after projection into a voxel grid, and that binarising appearance into edges before projection removes this sparsity. Because an edge volume is binary, the same F-TSDF encoding used for depth surfaces can be applied to it, producing a dense signed-distance field around projected edges. EdgeNet takes the depth F-TSDF volume and the edge F-TSDF volume, fuses them at one of three points in a 3D encoder-decoder built from ResNet modules with dilated convolutions, and trains the whole network with a batch-balanced categorical cross-entropy loss. The authors report that this is the first end-to-end approach in which RGB information improves semantic scene completion over depth only, and that the improvement is largest for classes such as TVs and generic objects.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the previously published scores for SSCNet, VVNetR-120, TNetFuse and the other baselines were computed under exactly the same test split, ground-truth voxelisation, and evaluation script as EdgeNet; the paper extracts those numbers from the original papers rather than running a shared evaluation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On SUNCG, EdgeNet-EF reaches 70.3 average semantic IoU, surpassing the best depth-only method VVNetR-120 by 3.3 points.
  • Feeding F-TSDF edges into the older SSCNet architecture (SSCNet-E) improves over the depth-only SSCNet*, so the edge representation helps beyond EdgeNet itself.
  • On NYUDv2 with SUNCG pretraining and fine-tuning, EdgeNet-MF reaches 33.7 average IoU, within 0.7 points of TNetFuse while using a single end-to-end training stage.
  • The gains are concentrated in hard-to-detect classes such as TVs, pictures and generic objects, which are nearly invisible to depth after down-sampling.
  • The offline F-TSDF preprocessing cuts training time from 7 to 4 days on SUNCG and from 30 to 6 hours on NYUDv2 compared with the original SSCNet pipeline.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper only tests Canny edges, but its transfer argument implies that any binary 3D cue that can be F-TSDF encoded, such as object boundaries, keypoints, or learned edge maps, could be fused the same way; that is an extension the authors did not run.
  • Because the paper shows that naive RGB projection fails while edge projection succeeds, a natural follow-up is to compare F-TSDF edge volumes against F-TSDF applied to dense semantic class probabilities, which would test whether the benefit comes from binarisation or from the edge cue specifically.
  • The NYU ground-truth errors the paper documents (missing windows, pictures, shelves) penalise accurate models, so a real-world benchmark with cleaner annotations would likely show a larger EdgeNet margin than the reported 33.7.
  • The fixed-memory fusion comparison suggests that late fusion loses accuracy because duplicated branches force channel cuts; a multi-scale attention mechanism could capture late-fusion benefits without that memory penalty.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. EdgeNet proposes a semantic scene completion method from a single RGB-D image. It extracts Canny edges from the RGB image, projects them to 3D using the depth map, voxelizes them, and encodes both the depth surface and the edge points with flipped TSDF (F-TSDF). The two volumes are then fed into a U-Net-like 3D CNN built from ResNet modules with dilated convolutions, and the paper evaluates three fusion schemes: early (EdgeNet-EF), middle (EdgeNet-MF), and late (EdgeNet-LF). Training uses offline F-TSDF preprocessing, weighted categorical cross-entropy, and a one-cycle learning-rate schedule. On SUNCG, EdgeNet-EF reports 70.3 average semantic IoU, above the reported VVNetR-120 value of 66.7; on NYUDv2, EdgeNet-MF reports 33.7 after fine-tuning on SUNCG plus NYU, close to the reported TNetFuse value of 34.4. The paper also reports ablations isolating the training pipeline (SSCNet*), the architecture (EdgeNet-D), and the edge input (SSCNet-E and the EdgeNet fusion variants).

Significance. If the reported gains are reproducible, the paper makes a useful contribution: binary edge volumes encoded with F-TSDF provide a simple and transferable RGB cue for 3D semantic scene completion without requiring a separately trained 2D segmentation network. The ablation design is a genuine strength: SSCNet* and EdgeNet-D isolate the training-pipeline and architecture contributions from the edge contribution, and the three fusion schemes explore a well-defined design space while keeping memory constant. However, the central claim that edges consistently improve depth-only performance is currently supported by single-run differences smaller than one IoU point on SUNCG, there is no depth-only EdgeNet baseline on NYU, and the state-of-the-art comparisons are made with numbers extracted from other papers under unspecified evaluation protocols. If the robustness and comparability issues are addressed, the contribution would be significant for the semantic scene completion community.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-D1, Table I] The evidence that F-TSDF encoded edges improve semantic scene completion rests on single training runs. On SUNCG the paired edge-vs-depth gaps are +0.5 (SSCNet-E vs SSCNet*) and +0.8 (EdgeNet-EF vs EdgeNet-D), while EdgeNet-LF is actually 2.7 points below EdgeNet-D (66.8 vs 69.5). These margins are comparable to typical stochasticity in 3D CNN training, and no variance or number of seeds is reported. The authors should provide mean and standard deviation over at least three runs for at least the paired ablations, or otherwise demonstrate that the edge advantage is not due to chance.
  2. [IV-E, Table II] On NYUDv2 the paper reports only EdgeNet variants with depth and edges; there is no EdgeNet-D depth-only baseline trained under the same protocols. The claim that edges help on real data therefore rests on comparisons to the original SSCNet, which differs in architecture and training pipeline. Without an NYU-trained EdgeNet-D, the edge contribution on real data is confounded with architecture and pipeline changes. The authors should add the depth-only EdgeNet baseline on NYU.
  3. [IV-A and IV-D, Table I] The SUNCG comparisons to previous methods are not apples-to-apples. The paper states that because the original SUNCG train/test sets did not include RGB images, the authors re-rendered new depth and RGB images and regenerated ground-truth volumes from the scene meshes. The numbers for SSCNet, DCRF, and VVNetR-120 in Table I were, however, extracted from the original papers, which used a different rendering and possibly different ground-truth generation. The large improvement of SSCNet* over the reported SSCNet (65.2 vs 46.4) may therefore be partly an artifact of the new data, not only of the new training pipeline. The authors should either evaluate prior methods on the same re-rendered data or provide evidence that their renderings and regenerated volumes reproduce the original evaluation protocol.
  4. [IV-D, Table II] The real-data comparisons are made with numbers 'extracted from the original papers' without shared evaluation code or a verified common ground-truth voxelization. The paper uses ground truth based on [20] and [21], but it does not establish that prior work used the same voxelization, test split, and evaluation script. Since the paper's stated contribution includes achieving state-of-the-art or equivalent performance on NYUDv2, this is load-bearing: small numerical differences such as 33.7 vs 34.4 cannot be interpreted as equivalence or near-equivalence unless the evaluation protocol is identical. The authors should release their evaluation code and ground-truth generation pipeline, or run official implementations of prior methods under that same pipeline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV-D1] The text refers to 'SSNet*' in the description of the baseline retrained with the new pipeline, but Table I and the rest of the paper use 'SSCNet*'; the notation should be made consistent.
  2. [III-B, Figure 4] Figure 4 shows the input volume as '240x144x200' in the network diagram, while Section III-C and the rest of the text specify a 240x144x240 volume; please correct the inconsistency.
  3. [Abstract and Section IV-E] The abstract claims an improvement of '6.9% over the state-of-the-art result on real data, for end-to-end approaches,' but no table directly supports this specific figure; please specify the exact comparison and how it is computed, or rephrase the claim to match the reported numbers.
  4. [III-B] The description of the loss-weighting scheme is difficult to follow: the definition of the ratio r and the construction of the random tensor randoccl should be clarified, including how the weights are normalized across the batch, since this affects all reported results.
  5. [V] There is a repeated typo 'approachs' in the first paragraph of the Discussion, and Section IV-D1 uses 'Ednet' instead of 'EdgeNet'; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: EdgeNet's claims are empirical and self-contained; the one self-citation is a non-load-bearing baseline reference.

full rationale

The paper does not present a derived chain that reduces to its inputs. Its central contribution, F-TSDF-encoded projected RGB edges fused with depth, is an architectural and representational proposal whose value is established by held-out test-set experiments, not by construction. The loss is a standard weighted categorical cross-entropy with weights derived from occupancy statistics, and no target metric (e.g., IoU) is fitted into the model or used to define the representation. The ablations compare SSCNet-E vs SSCNet* and EdgeNet-EF vs EdgeNet-D on SUNCG test data, which are empirical measurements, not quantities that equal the training objective by definition. The only self-citation is Guedes et al. [8], an author-overlapping preliminary study of naive RGB projection; it is used as a failed baseline and is not load-bearing for the claimed edge-fusion advantage, which is demonstrated by the paper's own paired experiments. Comparative results 'extracted from the original papers' are external evidence whose validation protocol is unverified, but that is a correctness/evaluation concern, not circularity. Overall, no step in the paper's argument reduces to its own input or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or ontological entities are introduced; EdgeNet is a network architecture, not a hypothesized world component. The ledger captures the hyperparameters and domain assumptions that the central claim rests on.

free parameters (6)
  • Voxel grid resolution and room volume dimensions = 0.02 m voxels; 240x144x240 over 4.8 x 2.88 x 4.8 m
    Chosen by hand from prior SSCNet conventions; determines input size and memory. Not derived from the task.
  • TSDF truncation distance = 0.24 m
    Set during preprocessing; controls signed-distance bandwidth and affects both depth and edge volumes.
  • Base learning rate and One Cycle schedule = base 0.01, peak 0.1 at epoch 10, decay to 0.0005 by epoch 30
    'After some preliminary tests, we found 0.01 to be a good base learning rate' (Section IV-B); tuned on the task, not predicted.
  • Training batch size = 3 samples
    Constrained by 11 GB GTX 1080Ti memory; authors note larger batches improve stability, so results depend on this hardware choice.
  • Loss class-balance ratio r = r = 2 * sum(occu) / sum(occl)
    Heuristic weighting of occupied vs occluded voxels in the cross-entropy loss (Section III-B).
  • Canny edge detector thresholds = not disclosed
    Canny has two hysteresis thresholds; without reporting them the exact edge maps, and hence edge F-TSDF volumes, cannot be reproduced.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Canny edge detection on the RGB image yields 2D boundaries that, after projection to 3D, are a meaningful cue for semantic scene completion.
    Stated in Section III-A as the motivation for edge encoding; if edges do not align with object boundaries, the fused signal is noise.
  • domain assumption Edges transfer from synthetic SUNCG to real NYU without domain adaptation.
    Section III-A claims edges are 'more transferable, removing the need for the application of a domain adaptation method'; used to justify SUNCG-to-NYU fine-tuning results.
  • domain assumption Scenes satisfy the Manhattan-world assumption and can be aligned with gravity and room orientation.
    Section III-C rotates scenes to align with gravity and room orientation based on the Manhattan assumption; the 240x144x240 volume is defined in this aligned frame.
  • domain assumption The NYUDv2 ground truth, obtained by voxelizing mesh annotations from Guo et al. [20] with category mapping from Handa et al. [21], is adequate for benchmarking, despite acknowledged severe errors.
    Section IV-A and Section IV-F acknowledge misalignments and missing objects; if ground truth is systematically wrong, the quantitative ranking is unreliable.
  • domain assumption Numbers reported for other methods in Tables I and II are directly comparable to the authors' own evaluation protocol.
    Section IV-D states comparative results were 'extracted from the original papers'; no shared evaluation code or ground truth generation is verified.
  • ad hoc to paper F-TSDF encoding of projected binary edges produces a signal that 3D CNNs can exploit as effectively as F-TSDF of depth surfaces.
    This is the core representational premise of EdgeNet (Section III-A); no theoretical or empirical justification is given beyond the reported IoU gains.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EdgeNet: Semantic Scene Completion from a Single RGB-D Image." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JRHIOFGB

@misc{pith2026190802893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EdgeNet: Semantic Scene Completion from a Single RGB-D Image},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JRHIOFGB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02893}
}
read the original abstract

Semantic scene completion is the task of predicting a complete 3D representation of volumetric occupancy with corresponding semantic labels for a scene from a single point of view. Previous works on Semantic Scene Completion from RGB-D data used either only depth or depth with colour by projecting the 2D image into the 3D volume resulting in a sparse data representation. In this work, we present a new strategy to encode colour information in 3D space using edge detection and flipped truncated signed distance. We also present EdgeNet, a new end-to-end neural network architecture capable of handling features generated from the fusion of depth and edge information. Experimental results show improvement of 6.9% over the state-of-the-art result on real data, for end-to-end approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02893 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Semantic scene completion. Given an RGB-D image, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) original scene. (b) F-TSDF of edges in 3D. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. EdgeNet architecture and fusion schemes (best viewed in colour). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative Results. We compare EdgeNet results using SSCNet* as a baseline on SUNCG and NYUDv2. Overall, EdgeNet gives more accurate voxel predictions, especially for hard to detect clases (best viewed in colour). of color edges can improve the performance of other pr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Predicting complete 3D models of indoor scenes,

    R. Guo, C. Zou, and D. Hoiem, “Predicting complete 3D models of indoor scenes,” CoRR arXiv , vol. 1504.02437, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02437

    arXiv 2015

  2. [21]

    SceneNet: Understanding real world indoor scenes with synthetic data,

    A. Handa, V . Patraucean, V . Badrinarayanan, S. Stent, and R. Cipolla, “SceneNet: Understanding real world indoor scenes with synthetic data,” CoRR arXiv , vol. 1511.07041, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07041

    arXiv 2015

  3. [1]

    Marr, Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Repre- sentation and Processing of Visual Information

    D. Marr, Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Repre- sentation and Processing of Visual Information . MIT Press, 1982

    work page 1982

  4. [2]

    Perceptual organization and recog- nition of indoor scenes from RGB-D images,

    S. Gupta, P. Arbelez, and J. Malik, “Perceptual organization and recog- nition of indoor scenes from RGB-D images,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2013, pp. 564– 571

    work page 2013

  5. [3]

    3D graph neural networks for RGBD semantic segmentation,

    X. Qi, R. Liao, J. Jia, S. Fidler, and R. Urtasun, “3D graph neural networks for RGBD semantic segmentation,” in IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 10 2017, pp. 5209–5218

    work page 2017

  6. [4]

    Rgb-(d) scene labeling: Features and algorithms,

    X. Ren, L. Bo, and D. Fox, “Rgb-(d) scene labeling: Features and algorithms,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, June 2012, pp. 2759–2766

    work page 2012

  7. [5]

    Structured prediction of unobserved voxels from a single depth image,

    M. Firman, O. M. Aodha, S. Julier, and G. J. Brostow, “Structured prediction of unobserved voxels from a single depth image,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2016, pp. 5431–5440

    work page 2016

  8. [6]

    A field model for repairing 3D shapes,

    D. T. Nguyen, B. Hua, M. Tran, Q. Pham, and S. Yeung, “A field model for repairing 3D shapes,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2016, pp. 5676–5684

    work page 2016

Show all 25 references
  1. [7]

    Semantic Scene Completion from a Single Depth Image,

    S. Song, F. Yu, A. Zeng, A. X. Chang, M. Savva, and T. Funkhouser, “Semantic Scene Completion from a Single Depth Image,” inConference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2017

    2017

  2. [8]

    Semantic scene completion combining colour and depth: preliminary experiments,

    A. B. S. Guedes, T. E. de Campos, and A. Hilton, “Semantic scene completion combining colour and depth: preliminary experiments,” CoRR arXiv , vol. 1802.04735, 2018. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/1802.04735

    2018 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Two stream 3D semantic scene completion,

    M. Garbade, J. Sawatzky, A. Richard, and J. Gall, “Two stream 3D semantic scene completion,” CoRR arXiv , vol. 1804.03550, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03550

    2018 arXiv

  4. [10]

    See and think: Disentangling semantic scene completion,

    S. Liu, Y . HU, Y . Zeng, Q. Tang, B. Jin, Y . Han, and X. Li, “See and think: Disentangling semantic scene completion,” in Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett, Eds. Cu...

    2018

  5. [11]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,

    J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, “Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2015, pp. 3431–3440

    2015

  6. [12]

    Semantic scene completion with dense CRF from a single depth image,

    L. Zhang, L. Wang, X. Zhang, P. Shen, M. Bennamoun, G. Zhu, S. A. A. Shah, and J. Song, “Semantic scene completion with dense CRF from a single depth image,” Neurocomputing, vol. 318, pp. 182–195, Nov. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S0...

    2018

  7. [13]

    View-V olume Network for Semantic Scene Completion from a Single Depth Image,

    Y . Guo and X. Tong, “View-V olume Network for Semantic Scene Completion from a Single Depth Image,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence ((IJCAI)), Stockholm, Sweden, Jul. 2018, pp. 726–732. [Online]. Available: https:/...

    2018

  8. [14]

    DeepLab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected CRFs,

    L. Chen, G. Papandreou, I. Kokkinos, K. Murphy, and A. L. Yuille, “DeepLab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected CRFs,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 834–848, April 2018

    2018

  9. [15]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” inIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  10. [16]

    A computational approach to edge detection,

    J. Canny, “A computational approach to edge detection,” IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) , vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 679–698, Nov 1986

    1986

  11. [17]

    U-Net: Convolutional net- works for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-Net: Convolutional net- works for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Comput- ing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), N. Navab, J. Horneg- ger, W. M. Wells, and A. F. Frangi, Eds. Cham: Springer International Pu...

    2015

  12. [18]

    Convolutional neural networks at constrained time cost,

    K. He and J. Sun, “Convolutional neural networks at constrained time cost,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2015

    2015

  13. [19]

    Indoor segmentation and support inference from rgbd images,

    N. Silberman, D. Hoiem, P. Kohli, and R. Fergus, “Indoor segmentation and support inference from rgbd images,” in European Conference in Computer Vision (ECCV) . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 746–760

    2012

  14. [22]

    A disciplined approach to neural network hyper- parameters: Part 1 - learning rate, batch size, momentum, and weight decay,

    L. N. Smith, “A disciplined approach to neural network hyper- parameters: Part 1 - learning rate, batch size, momentum, and weight decay,” CoRR arXiv , vol. 1803.09820, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.09820

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Curriculum learning,

    Y . Bengio, J. Louradour, R. Collobert, and J. Weston, “Curriculum learning,” in Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) . New York, NY , USA: ACM, 2009, pp. 41–48. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1553374. 1553380

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    Aarts and J

    E. Aarts and J. Korst, Simulated Annealing and Boltzmann Machines: A Stochastic Approach to Combinatorial Optimization and Neural Computing. New York, NY , USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1989

    1989

  17. [25]

    Don’t decay the learning rate, increase the batch size,

    S. Smith, P. jan Kindermans, C. Ying, and Q. V . Le, “Don’t decay the learning rate, increase the batch size,” in Sixth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.