Transforming Auto-Encoders

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6791)


The artificial neural networks that are used to recognize shapes typically use one or more layers of learned feature detectors that produce scalar outputs. By contrast, the computer vision community uses complicated, hand-engineered features, like SIFT [6], that produce a whole vector of outputs including an explicit representation of the pose of the feature. We show how neural networks can be used to learn features that output a whole vector of instantiation parameters and we argue that this is a much more promising way of dealing with variations in position, orientation, scale and lighting than the methods currently employed in the neural networks community. It is also more promising than the hand-engineered features currently used in computer vision because it provides an efficient way of adapting the features to the domain.


Invariance auto-encoder shape representation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berkes, P., Turner, R.E., Sahani, M.: A structured model of video reproduces primary visual cortical organisation. PLoS Computational Biology 5(9), 1–16 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Freeman, W., Adelson, E.: The design and use of steerable filters. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 13(9), 891–906 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hinton, G.E.: Shape representation in parallel systems. In: Proc. 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 1088–1096 (1981)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., Haffner, P.: Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 86(11), 2278–2324 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee, H., Grosse, R., Ranganath, R., Ng, A.: Convolutional deep belief networks for scalable unsupervised learning of hierarchical representations. In: Proc. 26th International Conference on Machine Learning (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lowe, D.G.: Object recognition from local scale-invariant features. In: Proc. International Conference on Computer Vision (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Memisevic, R., Hinton, G.: Learning to represent spatial transformations with factored higher-order boltzmann machines. Neural Comp. 22, 1473–1492 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nair, V., Hinton, G.E.: Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines. In: Proc. 27th International Conference on Machine Learning (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pelli, D.G., Tillman, K.A.: The uncrowded window of object recognition. Nature Neuroscience 11, 1129–1135 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ranzato, M., Huang, F., Boureau, Y., LeCun, Y.: Unsupervised learning of invariant feature hierarchies with applications to object recognition. In: Proc. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR 2007). IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riesenhuber, M., Poggio, T.: Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience 2, 1019–1025 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zemel, R.S., Mozer, M.C., Hinton, G.E.: Traffic: Recognizing objects using hier-archical reference frame transformations. In: Touretzky, D.S. (ed.) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 266–273. Morgan Kauffman, San Mateo (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations