user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Data Augmentation in Training CNNs: Injecting Noise to Images

Paper content:
Noise injection is a fundamental tool for data augmentation, and yet there is no widely accepted procedure to incorporate it with learning frameworks.
This study analyzes the effects of adding or applying different noise models of varying magnitudes to Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architectures.
Noise models that are distributed with different density functions are given common magnitude levels via Structural Similarity (SSIM) metric in order to create an appropriate ground for comparison.
The basic results are conforming with the most of the common notions in machine learning, and also introduces some novel heuristics and recommendations on noise injection.
The new approaches will provide better understanding on optimal learning procedures for image classification.
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) find an ever-growing field of application throughout image and sound processing tasks, since the success of AlexNet (Krizhevsky et al., 2012) in the 2012 ImageNet competition.
Yet, training these networks still keeps the need of an "artistic" touch: even the most cited state-of-the-art studies employ wildly varying set of solvers, augmentation and regularization techniques (Domhan et al., 2015) .
In this study, one of the crucial data augmentation techniques, noise injection, will be thoroughly analysed to determine the correct way of application on image processing tasks.
Adding noise to the training data is not a procedure that is unique to the training of neural architectures: additive and multiplicative noise has long been used in signal processing for regression-based methods, in order to create more robust models (Saiz et al., 2005) .
The technique is also one of the oldest data augmentation methods employed in the training of feed forward networks, as analysed by Holmstrom & Koistinen (1992) , yet it is also pointed out in the same study that while using additive Gaussian noise is helpful, the magnitude of the noise cannot be selected blindly, as a badly-chosen variance may actually harm the performance of the resulting network (see Gu & Rigazio (2014) and Hussein et al. (2017) for more examples).
The main reasons for noise injection to the training data can be listed as such in a non-excluding manner: first of all, injection of any noise type makes the model more robust against the occurrence of that particular noise over the input data (see Braun et al. (2016) and Saiz et al. (2005) for further reference), such as the cases of Gaussian additive noise in photographs, and Gaussian-Poisson noise on low-light charge coupled devices (Bovik, 2005) .
Furthermore, it is shown that the neural networks optimize on the noise magnitude they are trained on (Yin et al., 2015) .
Therefore, it is important to choose the correct type and level of the noise to augment the data during training.
Another reason for noise addition is to encourage the model to learn the various aspects of each class by occluding random features.
Generally, stochastic regularization techniques embedded inside the neural network architectures are used for this purpose, such as Dropout layers, yet it is also possible to augment the input data for such purposes as in the example of "cutout" regularization proposed by Devries & Taylor (2017) .
The improvement of the generalization capacity of a network is highly correlated with its performance, which can be scored by the accuracy over a predetermined test set.
There has been similar studies conducted on the topic, with the example of Koziarski & Cyganek (2017) which focuses on the effects of noise injection on the training of deep networks and the possible denoising methods, yet they fail to provide a proper methodology to determine the level of noise to be injected into the training data, and use PSNR as the comparison metric between different noise types which is highly impractical (see Section 3).
To resolve these issues, this study focuses on the ways to determine which noise types to combine the training data with, and which levels, in addition to the validity of active noise injection techniques while experimenting on a larger set of noise models.
In the structure of this work, the effect of injecting different types of noises into images for varying CNN architectures is assessed based on their performance and noise robustness.
Their interaction and relationship with each other are analyzed over (also noise-injected) validation sets.
Finally as a follow-up study, proper ways on adding or applying noise to a CNN for image classification tasks are discussed.
There are several confirmations to acquire from this set of results for the literature: first of all, there exists a trade-off between noise robustness and clean set accuracy.
Yet contrary to the common notion, we believe that the data presents a highly valid optimum for this exchange in our study.
As it can be seen from Figures 6 and 7; in order to create a robust model against particular kind of noise while maintaining the performance of the model, one must apply a level of degradation that results in 0.8 MSSIM over training data.
We believe that as long as the noise or perturbation is somewhat homogeneously distributed, this rule of thumb will hold for all image classification tasks.
However, the same thing cannot be said for non-homogeneously distributed noise models, as SSIM (and also PSNR as demonstrated in Section 3) fails to capture the level of degradation appropriately for such a verdict (see Occlusion results in Figures 6 and 7) .
A second confirmation of the current literature is the fact that the neural networks optimize on the noise level they are trained with, as seen again at Figures 6 and 7 , and also the diagonals of Figure  8 .
Yet, the level of this optimization is quite small after 0.5 MSSIM, featuring similar robustness for each trained model.
Therefore, it is not particularly necessary to determine the noise level of a dataset, or sample the noise from a predetermined interval, as long as the MSSIM does not drop below 0.5, in which case noise removal techniques need to be considered for better models.
As noted above, occlusion noise type will not be thoroughly analyzed in this section because of the fact that the quality metric has failed to provide sufficient comparative data for this discussion.
Yet, the performance data and the lack of robustness the other models exhibit towards this particular noise type shows that "cutout" regularization as presented by Devries & Taylor (2017) is a crucial part of data augmentation in addition to any other perturbation or noise injection technique.
A way to further extend the contribution of this method would be to alternate the intensity level of the patches from 0 to 255 for 8-bit images, which can be a topic of another research.
For the rest of the noise types; Gaussian, speckle and Poisson noises are observed to increase the performance of the model while boosting the robustness, and their effects exhibit the possibility of interchangeable usage.
For image classification tasks involving RGB images of daily objects, injection of only one of these noise types with above-mentioned level is believed to be sufficient as repetition of the clusters can be observed in Figure 8 .
Among these three, Gaussian noise is recom-mended considering the results of model performance.
S&P noise contamination, on the other hand, may not be resolved by injection of the former noise types as the other models are not sufficiently robust against it.
Therefore, at this point one of the two methodologies are suggested: either S&P noise can be removed by simple filtering techniques, or S&P noise can be applied in an alternating manner with Gaussian noise during data augmentation.
Former approach is recommended for the simplicity of the training procedure.
The constant behaviour of the models towards occlusion noise in Figures 6, 7 and 8 unfortunately does not have a satisfactory explanation, despite several diagnostics of the training procedure.
A longer training procedure, which was not feasible in our experiment because of the model count, may resolve these undesirable results.
In this study, an extensive analysis of noise injection to training data has conducted.
The results confirmed some of the notions in the literature, while also providing new rule of thumbs for CNN training.
As further targets of research, extension of "cutout" regularization as described in the above paragraphs, and the distribution behavior of the SSIM and PSNR metrics in Figure 2 with regards to the work of Horé & Ziou (2010) may be pursued.

assistant: text: Ideal methodology to inject noise to input data during CNN training