3 ms·
My bad, I should have been more specific. The Deep PCA paper shows superior performance not on baseline MNIST, but on the MNIST variations. I also agree that v
by Seanny123 10y ago
My bad, I should have been more specific. The Deep PCA paper shows superior performance not on baseline MNIST, but on the MNIST variations.
I also agree that vanilla MNIST is pretty useless for Computer Vision researches and was trying (awkwardly) to support that idea by showing how these other non Deep Learning techniques performed equally well.
- argonaut 10y agoThe Deep PCA paper shows no such thing. They've cherry-picked bad CNN baselines. The red flag for me is that the "state of the art" methods they compare to achieve > 1% test error on vanilla MNIST, which is totally wrong since CNNs routinely achieve <0.5 % test error (even by the standards of 2014, when the paper was published).