Computer Vision Research: The deep “depression”

Re:Computer Vision Research: The deep “depression” by hacker42 on Thursday June 09, 2016 @06:14AM (#11868460)

I am not seeing the chicken and egg problem. Isn't it always the case that when we consider the optimality of something it depends on some definitions?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Computer Vision Research: The deep “depression” by argonaut on Thursday June 09, 2016 @12:42PM (#11870538)

The chicken and egg problem is that we design neural nets in order for Gabor filters to show up. If you used a different neural net architecture choice, they wouldn't show up. So the presence of Gabor filters indicating optimality is sort of begging the question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Computer Vision Research: The deep “depression” by hacker42 on Thursday June 09, 2016 @01:37PM (#11870934)

As far as I know, Gabor filters show up in all kinds of multi-layered models, even in unsupervised ones. Gabor filters are quite canonical.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Computer Vision Research: The deep “depression” by trhway on Thursday June 09, 2016 @12:55PM (#11870616)

CNN beat other architectures in images and Gabor emerges in CNN. That is a pretty good candidate for even global optimaliy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Computer Vision Research: The deep “depression” by argonaut on Thursday June 09, 2016 @01:34PM (#11870910)

The fact that X works and A, B, and C don't work, does not imply A is globally optimal.

[ Parent | on HN ]