D O D EEPER C ONVOLUTIONAL N ETWORKS P ERFORM
B ETTER ?
Anonymous authors
Paper under double-blind review
A BSTRACT
Over-parameterization is a recent topic of much interest in the machine learning community.
While over-parameterized neural networks are capable of perfectly ﬁtting (interpolating) training data, these networks often perform well on test data, thereby contradicting classical learning theory.
Recent work provided an explanation for this phenomenon by introducing the double descent curve, showing that increasing model capacity past the interpolation threshold can lead to a decrease in test error.
In line with this, it was recently shown empirically and theoretically that increasing neural network capacity through width leads to double descent.
In this work, we analyze the effect of increasing depth on test performance.
In contrast to what is observed for increasing width, we demonstrate through a variety of classiﬁcation experiments on CIFAR10 and ImageNet32 using ResNets and fullyconvolutional networks that test performance worsens beyond a critical depth.
We posit an explanation for this phenomenon by drawing intuition from the principle of minimum norm solutions in linear networks.
I NTRODUCTION
Traditional statistical learning theory argues that over-parameterized models will overﬁt training data and thus generalize poorly to unseen data (Hastie et al., 2001).
This is explained through the bias-variance tradeoff; as model complexity increases, so will variance, and thus more complex models will generalize poorly.
Modern deep learning models, however, have been able to achieve state-of-the-art test accuracy by using an increasing number of parameters (Krizhevsky et al., 2012;
Simonyan & Zisserman, 2015; He et al., 2016).
In fact, while over-parameterized neural networks have enough capacity to interpolate randomly labeled training data Zhang et al.
(2017), in practice training often leads to interpolating solutions that generalize well.
To reconcile this apparent conﬂict, Belkin et al. (2019a) proposed the double descent risk curve, where beyond the interpolation threshhold, the risk decreases as model complexity increases.
In neural networks, model complexity has thus far mainly been analyzed by varying network width.
Indeed, in line with double descent, Yang et al.
; Nakkiran et al.
(2020); Belkin et al.
(2019a) demonstrated that increasing width beyond the interpolation threshhold while holding depth constant can decrease test loss.
However, model complexity in neural networks can also be increased through depth.
In this work, we study the effect of depth on test performance while holding network width constant.
In particular, we focus on analyzing the effect of increasing depth in convolutional networks.
These networks form the core of state-of-the-art models used for image classiﬁcation and serve as a prime example of a network with layer constraints.
In this paper we answer the following question: What is the role of depth in convolutional networks?
In contrast to what has been shown for increasing model complexity through width, we demonstrate that test performance of convolutional networks worsens when increasing network depth beyond a critical point, suggesting that double descent does not happen through depth.
Figure 1 demonstrates the difference between increasing width and depth in ResNets (He et al., 2016) trained on CIFAR10.
In particular, Figure 1a shows that increasing width leads to a decrease in test error even when training accuracy is 100% .
This effect is captured by the double descent curve.
On the other hand,
Figure 1b demonstrates that training ResNets of increasing depth but ﬁxed width leads to an increase
[Figure]
in test error.
Since network depth is a form of model complexity, this behavior contradicts what is expected based on double descent.
It is therefore critical to carefully analyze and understand this phenomenon.
The main contributions of our work are as follows:
We conduct a range of experiments in the classiﬁcation setting on CIFAR10 and ImageNet32 using ResNets, fully-convolutional networks, and convolutional neural tangent kernels, and consistently demonstrate that test performance worsens beyond a critical depth (Section 3).
In particular, in several settings, we observe that the test accuracy of convolutional networks is even worse than that of fully connected networks as depth increases.
To gain intuition for this phenomenon we analyze linear neural networks.
We demonstrate that increasing depth in linear neural networks with layer constraints (e
g. convolutional networks or Toeplitz networks) leads to a decrease in the Frobenius norm and stable rank of the resulting linear operator.
This implies that increasing depth leads to poor generalization, when solutions of lower Frobenius norm (e
g. solutions learned by linear fully connected networks) do not generalize (Section 4).
Against conventional wisdom, our ﬁndings indicate that increasing depth does not always lead to better generalization.
Namely, our results provide evidence that the driving force behind the success of deep learning is not the depth of the models, but rather their width.
R ELATED W ORK
We begin with a discussion of recent works analyzing the role of depth in convolutional networks (CNNs).
Yang et al.
(2020) study the bias-variance decomposition of deep CNNs and show that as depth increases, bias decreases and variance increases.
This work observes that generally the magnitude of bias is greater than that of variance, and thus overall risk decreases.
However, the focus of their analysis on depth is not on the interpolating regime.
In fact, they posit that it is possible for deeper networks to have increased risk.
We extend their experimental methodology for training ResNets and demonstrate that, indeed, deeper networks have increased risk.
Neyshabur (2020) studied the role of convolutions, but focuses on the beneﬁt of sparsity in weight sharing.
Their work analyzed the effect of depth on fully-convolutional networks, but only considered models of two depths.
Urban et al.
(2017) analyzed the role of depth in student-teacher CNNs, speciﬁcally by training shallow CNNs to ﬁt the logits of an ensemble of deep CNNs.
This differs from our goal of understanding the effect of depth on CNN’s trained from scratch on CIFAR10; furthermore, the ensemble of CNNs they consider only have eight convolutional layers, which is much smaller than the deep ResNets we consider in our experiments.
Xiao et al.
(2018) provides initial evidence that the performance of a CNN may degrade with depth; however, it is unclear whether this phenomenon is universal across CNNs used in practice or simply an artifact of their speciﬁc initialization designed to train deep CNNs.
In fact, Xiao et al.
(2020) establish that the convolutional neural tangent kernel (CNTK) solution approaches that of the neural tangent kernel (NTK) as depth increases.
In our work, we analyze the generalization of the CNTK as a function of depth in Section 3.3.
We show that as depth increases, test error monotonically decreases and then increases.
Lastly, Xiao et al.
Figure 4a and Xiao et al.
Figure 2a,b provide examples of accuracy worsening with increasing depth in CNNs, but we demonstrate this phenomenon systematically across a number of settings.
Other works have aimed to understand the role of depth in CNNs by characterizing implicit regularization in over-parameterized deep CNNs.
Radhakrishnan et al.
characterized the inductive bias of over-parameterized autoencoders and demonstrated that with sufﬁcient depth, these networks become locally contractive around training examples.
Zhang et al.
(2020) similarly studied the role of depth in autoencoders in the more restrictive setting of a single training example.
Nguyen & Hein (2018) studied optimization in deep CNNs and showed that increasing depth increases representational power, while increasing width smooths the optimization landscape.
While each of these works identiﬁed forms of implicit regularization which occur with depth in CNNs, they did not provide an explicit connection to generalization in CNNs used for classiﬁcation, which is the focus of our work.
On the other hand, previous works studying generalization via double descent have primarily focused on over-parameterization through increasing width.
In particular, Belkin et al.
(2019a)
and
Nakkiran et al.
(2020) demonstrated that double descent occurs when increasing the width of neural networks trained on MNIST (LeCun et al., 1998) and CIFAR10 respectively.
Several theoretical works demonstrated double descent theoretically (Hastie et al., 2019; Belkin et al., 2019b; Mitra, 2019; Muthukumar et al., 2020; Bibas et al., 2019; Bartlett et al., 2020), but analyzed linear or shallow non-linear models with an increasing number of features.
Our work performs a similar empirical analysis to Nakkiran et al.
(2020), but on the impact of depth instead of width in CNNs, thereby identifying contrasting behaviors between the two different ways of increasing model complexity.
E MPIRICAL E VIDENCE IN N ON - LINEAR C LASSIFIERS
We now present our main set of experiments demonstrating that the test accuracy of convolutional networks decreases when increasing depth past a critical threshold.
We begin with a demonstration
[Figure]
of this phenomenon for fully-convolutional networks
applied to CIFAR10 and ImageNet32.
We then demonstrate that this phenomenon holds also for ResNets applied to CIFAR10.
Lastly, we show that this phenomenon occurs for the convolutional neural tangent kernel (CNTK) on subsets of CIFAR10.
Our training methodology is outlined in Appendix C.
3. I MAGE C LASSIFICATION WITH F ULLY -C ONVOLUTIONAL N ETWORKS
To understand the role of depth in convolutional networks, we begin with a simpliﬁed model of a convolutional network, which we call the Fully-Conv Net .
The architecture of a Fully-Conv Net of depth d and width w for a classiﬁcation problem with c classes is depicted in Figure 9 of the
Appendix and consists of the following layers:
• A convolutional layer with stride 1, 3 input ﬁlers, and w output ﬁlters, followed by batch norm (Ioffe & Szegedy, 2015) and a LeakyReLU activation (Xu et al., 2015).
• d − 1 convolutional layers with stride 1, w input ﬁlters, and w output ﬁlters, each followed by batch norm and LeakyReLU activation.
• 1 convolutional layer with stride 1, w input ﬁlters, and c output ﬁlters.
This is followed by an average pool of each of the output ﬁlters to produce a c -dimensional prediction.
Crucially, this network depends only on convolutional layers, a nonlinear activation, and batch norm; it does not depend on other components commonly found in deep learning architectures such as residual connections, dropout, downsampling, or fully connected layers.
We note that this model is not designed to necessarily perform well, but rather to isolate and understand the effect of increasing the number of convolutional layers.
We trained the Fully-Conv Net on 2, 5, and 10 classes from CIFAR10 (Krizhevsky, 2009).
All experiments were performed using 5 random seeds to reduce the impact of random initialization.
Models were trained using Adam (Kingma & Ba, 2015) with learning rate 10 − 4 for 2000 epochs, and we selected the model with the best training accuracy over the course of training.
We used the
Cross Entropy loss, and down-sampled images to 16 × 16 resolution to reduce the computational burden.
See Appendix C for a list of all classes used.
The resulting train and test accuracies are
T r a i n
A cc u r a c y
[Figure]
T e s t
A cc u r a c y
Increasing depth threshold again
Increasing depth beyond a critical value leads to decrease accuracy depth increases
Fully that wide fully connected shown experiments
[Figure]
shown in Figure 2.
As expected, as depth increases, training accuracy becomes 100%.
However, beyond a critical depth threshold, the test accuracy begins to degrade sharply.
Furthermore, the value of this critical depth appears to increase as the number of training classes increases.
In addition to CIFAR10, we also applied the Fully-Conv Net to subsets of ImageNet32 (Chrabaszcz et al., 2017), which is ImageNet downsampled to size 32 × 32 .
We again trained on 2, 5, and 10 classes, using the same training procedure as for CIFAR10.
Training and test accuracies for
ImageNet32 are shown in Figure 3.
Again, we observe that as depth increases past a critical value, test performance degrades.
Remarks.
When training to classify between 2 and 5 classes, the test accuracy continues to decrease even when increasing depth past the interpolation threshold, i.e. even after achieving 100% training accuracy.
This in contrast to double descent where increasing model complexity beyond the interpolation threshold leads to an increase in test accuracy.
Interestingly, as depth increases, the test accuracy approaches that of a fully connected network.
While the Fully-Conv Nets were before or at the interpolation threshold for the 10 class setting in Figures 2 and 3, Figure 4 demonstrates that a similar decrease in test accuracy occurs also after the interpolation threshold for wider models which can interpolate the data.
3. I MAGE C LASSIFICATION WITH M ODERN D EEP L EARNING M ODELS
To understand the effect of increasing depth in modern machine learning models, we analyzed variants of ResNet trained on CIFAR10.
ResNet-18 and ResNet-34 consist of 4 stages, each of which are connected by a downsampling operation.
Each stage is comprised of a number of basic blocks , which are two layers with a residual connection.
There is a convolutional layer before the ﬁrst stage, and a fully connected layer after the last stage.
ResNet-18 uses 2 basic blocks in each stage, while ResNet-34 uses (3 , 4 , 6 , 3) blocks in each stage respectively.
By varying the number of blocks in each stage, we constructed a variety of ResNet models of different depths; in particular, by choosing ( n 1 , n 2 , n 3 , n 4 ) blocks in each stage, we can construct a ResNet model of depth 2 + 2 · ( n 1 + n 2 + n 3 + n 4 ) .
The width w of a model is deﬁned to be the number of ﬁlters in the ﬁrst stage; there are then ( w, 2 w, 4 w, 8 w ) ﬁlters in each stage respectively.
See Figure 10 of the
Appendix for a diagram.
We trained models up to depth 50, see Appendix C for a more detailed description of the models used.
For Figure 1 and Figure 5, we trained each of our ResNet models using MSE loss on a random subset of 25,000 training images from CIFAR10, and plotted the test loss as a function of depth.
Our experimental methodology is based on that of Yang et al.
We trained for 500 epochs
[Figure]
using SGD with learning rate 0 .
1 and momentum 0 .
9 , and we decreased the learning rate by a factor of 10 every 200 epochs.
We also use their data augmentation scheme of random crops and random horizontal ﬂips on the training data.
In the width 64 and 32 models, test loss increases beyond a critical depth, and in the width 16 model, test loss does not improve beyond a certain depth.
Plots of the train and test losses and accuracies of all models are given in the Appendix in Figure 12.
Remarks.
In Appendix D, we provide the training and test accuracies for the ResNets presented in this work.
We also demonstrate that increasing depth in later blocks of ResNet leads to a more drastic increase in test error than increasing depth in earlier blocks.
3. I MAGE C LASSIFICATION WITH THE C ONVOLUTIONAL N EURAL T ANGENT K ERNEL
To remove the effect of additional factors in modern neural networks such as random initialization, width, batch normalization, and down-sampling, we turn to the setting of inﬁnite width neural networks.
With proper scaling as width approaches inﬁnity, the solution given by training neural networks is given by a solution to a corresponding kernel regression problem, where the kernel is referred to as the neural tangent kernel , or NTK (Jacot et al., 2018).
Arora et al.
(2019) computed the NTK for convolutional networks (CNTK); we use their code for the experiments in this section.
We analyze the effect of depth on generalization of the CNTK.
Since we are simply running kernel regression, our predictor perfectly interpolates the training data (i.e. 100% training accuracy and 0 training error).
In Figure 6, we compute the CNTK with a training set of roughly 250 examples each of CIFAR10 planes and trucks.
We then calculate the test loss and accuracy on a test set of roughly 250 planes and trucks.
We observe that test error is monotonically decreasing up to a critical depth, after which it is monotonically increasing.
This provides further evidence that such a phenomenon occurs more generally in convolutional networks.
In Appendix D.6, we present
[Figure]
additional empirical evidence that the generalization of the CNTK worsens past a critical depth by considering classiﬁcation problems with a varying number of classes.
T HE R OLE OF D EPTH IN L INEAR N EURAL N ETWORKS
In the previous section, we observed that past a critical depth threshold the performance of CNNs degrades with depth.
For Fully-Conv networks, as depth increased, test performance appeared to approach that of a fully connected network.
In this section, we aim to better understand this phenomenon, and in particular determine whether the performance of CNNs of increasing depth does indeed approach that of a fully-connected network.
We turn to the setting of linear neural networks to simplify this analysis.
Linear neural networks are useful for analyzing deep learning phenomena since they represent linear operators but have non-convex optimization landscapes.
Furthermore, the solution learned by a single layer fully connected network is well understood as it is simply the minimum Frobenius norm solution Engl et al.
In this section, we conduct experiments on linear CNNs of increasing depth in both the classiﬁcation and autoencoding settings.
We show that linear CNNs of increasing depth consistently produce solutions of decreasing Frobenius norm, thus approaching the solution learned by a single layer fully connected network.
To connect this to generalization, we provide a speciﬁc example of a classiﬁcation setting where the solution learned by a fully-connected network, and thus linear CNNs of large depth, generalizes poorly, yet shallow CNNs generalize well.
We propose that a similar mechanism could also explain the decrease in test accuracy beyond a critical threshold in the nonlinear setting.
4. P RELIMINARIES
Linear networks are models of the form f ( x ) =
W d · · · W 1 x , where W i ∈
R k
i × k
i − 1 is a weight matrix.
CNNs are a special type of a constrained neural network, where each weight matrix W i belongs to a subspace S i ⊂ R k
i × k
i − 1 of dimension r i .
Since the product of linear operators is linear, these neural networks represent linear functions.
In particular, let W = W d · · · W 1 represent the operator of a linear network.
We will analyze the Frobenius norm (square root of the sum of squares of the entries) of W and the stable rank (a surrogate for the rank) of W in our analysis.
Deﬁnition 1.
(Vershynin, 2018, Chapter 7)
Given a matrix W ∈ R d 1 × d 2 , the stable rank of W is given by:
[Equation]
where { σ i } denote the singular values of W .
Computing the Linear Operator Efﬁciently.
Given a linear neural network, it is possible to compute the linear operator by ﬁrst constructing the matrix representation for each layer and then multiplying Radhakrishnan et al.
Instead, we use the following simpler approach for producing the operator.
Given a network implementing a map from an s × s image to R d , we reshape the s 2 × s 2 identity matrix as an
s 2 × s × s tensor (so the batch size is s 2 ) and feed this through the network.
We then reshape the output matrix to be of size d × s 2 to obtain the resulting operator.
4. L INEAR C ONVOLUTIONAL C LASSIFIERS
The following experiment provides an example where fully connected networks do not generalize, and in which linear convolutional classiﬁers of increasing depth perform similarly to a fully connected network.
Consider a toy dataset of 6 × 6 color images as shown in Figure 7a.
We usetraining examples to represent two classes: Class label 1 has a blue pixel in the upper left hand corner and class label − 1 has a red pixel in the upper left hand corner.
We then construct 200 test examples with 100 having a red pixel and 100 having a blue pixel in a randomly selected location in the lower right 3 × 3 quadrant of the square.
[Figure]
While simple, this classiﬁcation setting is useful for comparing the performance of CNNs and fully connected networks.
It is set up to be trivial to solve using the convolution operation, but is such that the minimum Frobenius norm solution would not be able to generalize.
Indeed, as demonstrated in Figure 7b, a linear fully convolutional network with 5 layers and 32 ﬁlters per layer is able to consistently get 100% test accuracy across 5 random seeds.
On the other hand, performing linear regression to learn the minimum Frobenius norm solution yields a 50% test accuracy.
In Figure 7b, we see that increasing the depth of the fully convolutional network leads to a degradation in test accuracy.
In particular, the average test accuracy across 5 random seeds is approximately 50% for networks of depth 20 or larger, which all obtain 100% training accuracy.
In Figure 7c, we compare the Frobenius norm of the corresponding linear operator across depths and see that
the
Frobenius norm decreases with increasing depth.
This simple example demonstrates that the performance of CNNs of increasing depth approaches that of a fully connected network, which does not generalize for many image classiﬁcation tasks.
In Appendix D.7, we present an additional experiment with more training samples that again demonstrates a similar phenomenon.
4. L INEAR A UTOENCODERS
Similar to the case of linear convolutional classiﬁers, we now demonstrate that increasing depth in linear convolutional autoencoders leads to a decrease in Frobenius norm and stable rank.
As done in Radhakrishnan et al.
; Zhang et al.
(2020), we begin with the simple example of a linear convolutional autoencoder trained on a single image.
When there is only a single layer, the authors in Radhakrishnan et al.
; Zhang et al.
(2020) prove that the solution must be full rank due to the sparsity and weight sharing in a convolutional layer.
This is demonstrated in Figure 8d,e where the depth 1 solution has large stable rank.
In Figure 8a,b,d,e, we demonstrate that increasing depth in linear convolutional autoencoders leads to solutions of decreasing Frobenius norm and stable rank.
In particular, we observe that the norm of the trained networks decreases to approximately that of the minimum Frobenius norm solution, which is a projection onto the training examples Radhakrishnan et al.
; Zhang et al.
While the previous experiments have considered networks with convolutional layers, in Figure 8c, we present an example of a linear autoencoder with alternate layer constraints (Toeplitz layers) for which increasing depth again decreases the operator’s
Frobenius norm and stable rank.
The key similarity between this layer constraint and that of a convolutional layer is that both increase representational power through depth.
Indeed, the authors in Ye & Lim (2016) proved that every matrix can be decomposed as a product of Toeplitz matrices, and thus, neural networks with Toeplitz layers are expressive through depth.
We note that showing that every matrix can be written as a product of convolutional layers remains open, but a simple parameter counting argument as given in Radhakrishnan et al.
(2019) implies that representational power increases with depth.
This experiment thus
S qu a r e d N o r m o f
O p e r a t
o r
S t a b l e
R a n k o f O p
e r a t
o r
Depth Depth
[Figure]
example
[Figure]
Depth
[Figure]
Depth
[Figure]
provides empirical evidence that the phenomenon of decreasing norm with increasing depth occurs generally for networks with layer constraints that are more expressive through depth.
D ISCUSSION
In this work, we presented an empirical analysis of the impact of depth on generalization in CNNs.
We ﬁrst demonstrated that in modern non-linear CNNs, increasing depth past a critical threshold led to a decrease in test accuracy.
This result is in stark contrast to the role of width in CNNs, as explained by double descent.
Furthermore, for Fully-Conv Nets, we observed that increasing depth led to performance comparable to that of fully connected networks.
To better understand this phenomenon, we analyzed the operators learned by linear CNNs and demonstrated that increasing depth in these networks led to a decrease in Frobenius norm and stable rank of the learned operator.
Moreover, as depth increased, we observed that the norm of the operator approached that of the minimum Frobenius norm solution, which is the solution learned by fully connected network.
As demonstrated by our example in Section 4, in settings where the minimum
Frobenius norm solution does not generalize, we observe that deep convolutional networks do not generalize.
Understanding whether the norm of the functions learned by deep non-linear CNNs approaches that of functions learned by non-linear fully connected networks is an important direction of future work that could explain the poor generalization of deep CNNs observed in this work.
Throughout this work, we consistently observed that increasing depth in CNNs beyond the interpolation threshold led to a decrease in test accuracy.
Hence, our ﬁndings imply that practitioners should decrease depth in these settings to obtain better test performance.
An interesting direction for future work is to understand where the critical depth threshold occurs as a function of width and number of classes.
Importantly, if, as initial evidence in this paper suggests, the critical depth is correlated with the number of classes, then practitioners should use shallow, wide convolutional networks for problems with few classes.
C E XPERIMENTAL D ETAILS
All models were trained on an NVIDIA TITAN RTX GPU using the PyTorch library.
An anonymized repository with code used for this paper can be found here: https:// anonymous.4open.science/r/ebf33ffa-565e-408d-ae5f-12d91f942000/
[Figure]
[Table]
[Table] [Table]
[Figure]
T r a i n
A cc u r a c y
Depth
[Figure]
T e s t
A cc u r a c y
[Figure]
D A DDITIONAL E XPERIMENTS D. A DDITIONAL R ES N ET P LOTS
In Figure 12, we plot the train and test losses of all ResNet models used (for widths 16, 32, 64).
Additionally, in Figure 13 we plot the accuracies of all ResNet models.
D. E FFECT OF D EPTH IN MODELS WITH SMALL WIDTHS
The only model in which test loss continues to increase is the width 8 model.
We argue this is because the width 8 model is not sufﬁciently over-parameterized; in fact, in Figure 14, we see that the width 8 model is unable to reach zero training loss, while all the other models are after sufﬁcient depth.
D. E FFECT OF D OWNSAMPLING
In Figure 15 we compare a ResNet model where we increase the number of blocks in the ﬁrst stage versus a model where we increase the number of blocks in the third stage.
We observe that the model where the third stage blocks are increased performs worse.
This is likely because adding a block in a later stage, after downsampling, increases the effective depth of the model more than adding a block in an earlier stage.
[Figure]
D. E FFECT OF N UMBER OF S AMPLES
In Figure 16 is a plot of test losses when training the width 32 ResNet model on 500 samples per class ( 110 of CIFAR10).
Number of training epochs is increased accordingly.
We observe that test loss increases as depth increases, showing that this phenomenon is robust to change in sample size.
D. E FFECT OF K ERNEL S IZE
Another form of overparameterization is increasing the kernel size for convolutional ﬁlters.
In Figure 17, we train ResNet-10 and ResNet-18 of width 32 and varying kernel sizes, and observe that as kernel size increases, test loss increases.
This is consistent with our proposed explanation based on expressivity, since increasing kernel size increases representational power independent of depth.
[Figure] [Figure]
D. A DDITIONAL CNTK E XPERIMENTS
We also train the CNTK on subsets of CIFAR10 of varying number of classes.
We use 100 train and 100 test examples per class and train on both 2 classes (birds and deer), 5 classes (cats, dogs, horses, bids and deer) and 10 classes (all of CIFAR10).
The test losses and accuracies are shown in Figure 18.
Again, we see that generalization is unimodel, with test loss decreasing until a critical depth and increasing afterwards, which is in agreement with our main CNTK experiment in Figure 6.
We note that training the CNTK for large depths is computationally prohibitive.
The runtime scales quadratically in the number of training samples; furthermore, training the depth 500 CNTK on
GPU for 500 train and 500 test samples took approximately 2 days
D. A DDITIONAL L INEAR C ONVOLUTIONAL N ETWORK E XPERIMENTS
[Figure]
D. T EST LOSSES FOR F ULLY C ONVOLUTIONAL E XPERIMENTS
[Figure]
[Figure] [Figure]