Four Things Everyone Should Know to Improve Batch Normalization

Cecilia Summers, Michael J. Dinneen
6/9/2019
cs.LGcs.CVstat.ML

Official code: ceciliaresearch/four_things_batch_norm (20 stars, last commit 2020-02-13).

Abstract

A key component of most neural network architectures is the use of normalization layers, such as Batch Normalization. Despite its common use and large utility in optimizing deep architectures, it has been challenging both to generically improve upon Batch Normalization and to understand the circumstances that lend themselves to other enhancements. In this paper, we identify four improvements to the generic form of Batch Normalization and the circumstances under which they work, yielding performance gains across all batch sizes while requiring no additional computation during training. These contributions include proposing a method for reasoning about the current example in inference normalization statistics, fixing a training vs. inference discrepancy; recognizing and validating the powerful regularization effect of Ghost Batch Normalization for small and medium batch sizes; examining the effect of weight decay regularization on the scaling and shifting parameters gamma and beta; and identifying a new normalization algorithm for very small batch sizes by combining the strengths of Batch and Group Normalization. We validate our results empirically on six datasets: CIFAR-100, SVHN, Caltech-256, Oxford Flowers-102, CUB-2011, and ImageNet.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations(1)

201PythonFeb 13, 20206 years ago

Cite this paper

@article{summers2019four,
  title  = {Four Things Everyone Should Know to Improve Batch Normalization},
  author = {Cecilia Summers and Michael J. Dinneen},
  year   = {2019},
  eprint = {1906.03548},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.03548}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/1906.03548.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/1906.03548)

Discussion