Publication | Closed Access
A Theoretically Sound Upper Bound on the Triplet Loss for Improving the Efficiency of Deep Distance Metric Learning
63
Citations
41
References
2019
Year
Unknown Venue
Geometric LearningNeural Scaling LawMachine VisionMachine LearningData ScienceEngineeringPattern RecognitionSparse Neural NetworkManifold LearningLarge Scale OptimizationComputer ScienceDeep LearningTriplet LossSupervised LearningComputer VisionCentroid Optimization StepTriplet Loss Function
We propose a method that substantially improves the efficiency of deep distance metric learning based on the optimization of the triplet loss function. One epoch of such training process based on a na¨ıve optimization of the triplet loss function has a run-time complexity O(N^3), where N is the number of training samples. Such optimization scales poorly, and the most common approach proposed to address this high complexity issue is based on sub-sampling the set of triplets needed for the training process. Another approach explored in the field relies on an ad-hoc linearization (in terms of N) of the triplet loss that introduces class centroids, which must be optimized using the whole training set for each mini-batch – this means that a na¨ıve implementation of this approach has run-time complexity O(N^2). This complexity issue is usually mitigated with poor, but computationally cheap, approximate centroid optimization methods. In this paper, we first propose a solid theory on the linearization of the triplet loss with the use of class centroids, where the main conclusion is that our new linear loss represents a tight upper-bound to the triplet loss. Furthermore, based on the theory above, we propose a training algorithm that no longer requires the centroid optimization step, which means that our approach is the first in the field with a guaranteed linear run-time complexity. We show that the training of deep distance metric learning methods using the proposed upper-bound is substantially faster than triplet-based methods, while producing competitive retrieval accuracy results on benchmark datasets (CUB-200-2011 and CAR196).
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1