Latent Equivariant Operators for Robust Object Recognition: Promises and Challenges
Authors: Minh Dinh, Stéphane Deny
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA · Departments of Computer Science & Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
Despite the successes of deep learning in computer vision, difficulties persist in recognizing objects that have undergone group-symmetric transformations rarely seen during training\unicodex2013for example objects seen in unusual poses, scales, positions, or combinations thereof. Equivariant neural networks are a solution to the problem of generalizing across symmetric transformations, but require knowledge of transformations a priori. An alternative family of architectures proposes to learn equivariant operators in a latent space, from examples of symmetric transformations. Here, using simple datasets of rotated and translated noisy MNIST, we illustrate how such architectures can successfully be harnessed for out-of-distribution classification, thus overcoming the limitations of both traditional and equivariant networks. While conceptually enticing, we discuss challenges ahead on the path of scaling these architectures to more complex datasets. Our code is available at https://github.com/BRAIN-Aalto/equivariant_operator.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Pipeline for handling single transformation. Two transformed views of the same input are encoded by a shared encoder fE and mapped to a canonical representation using inverse shift operators φ−k1 and φ−k2 , yielding embeddings Z1 and Z2 . The embedding Z1 is used for classification via a MLP fCLF optimized with the cross-entropy loss LCE , while a representation consistency loss Lreg encourages alignment between Z1 and Z2 that both correspond to the canonical pose. When the operator is learned, we add an extra term Lop to the loss.
Figure 2: Classification accuracy as a function of transformations on MNIST. The shaded region denotes the range of translations observed during training.
Figure 3: Test accuracy heatmaps under joint horizontal (rows) and vertical (columns) translations. The bordered cross indicates transformations observed during training.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Pipeline of operator-based classification under compound transformations. Top (Training): A canonical input is transformed along individual axes to generate augmented views. Shared encoders map each view into a representation space, where inverse operators φ−k align embeddings back to a canonical pose. Bottom (Inference): Given an input undergoing a compound transformation Tx,y(k1,k2) , the model encodes the input and applies the corresponding inverse operators to recover a canonical representation for classification.
Degree
Operator
Degree given
k
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Translation on y-axis
×
–
–
18.151
18.519
21.299
45.145
78.490
83.016
83.294
83.072
79.613
51.129
23.357
13.602
15.182
16.717
Fixed
✓
–
95.885
95.985
95.996
95.952
96.018
96.185
96.063
96.074
95.751
96.018
95.807
95.707
95.629
95.707
Fixed
×
1
93.816
93.872
93.816
93.849
94.061
94.216
94.094
94.183
93.894
93.861
93.638
93.616
93.872
93.683
Fixed
×
3
93.594
93.849
93.938
93.861
94.150
94.261
94.606
93.894
93.282
93.582
93.427
93.638
93.538
93.293
Appendix
Table 1: Classification accuracy (%) under translation extrapolation. Results for horizontal (x-axis) and vertical (y-axis) shifts. “Degree given” indicates whether the true translation degree is provided at test time. Blue-shaded columns denote degrees seen during training; unshaded columns are unseen.
Degree
Operator
Degree given
k
-144
-108
-72
-36
0
36
72
108
144
180
×
–
–
25.170
30.620
74.497
78.456
77.322
79.001
75.075
31.721
26.148
25.648
Fixed
✓
–
95.707
95.751
95.785
95.963
95.918
95.707
95.607
95.696
95.618
95.840
Fixed
×
1
86.042
85.841
86.753
86.965
86.842
86.976
86.720
85.975
85.875
86.564
Fixed
×
3
86.920
87.521
88.644
89.523
89.890
86.831
84.763
84.051
84.740
85.864
Fixed
×
10
87.298
87.443
87.721
88.099
88.511
89.834
88.377
87.821
87.843
87.810
Appendix
Table 2: Classification accuracy (%) under rotation extrapolation. “Degree given” indicates whether the true rotation degree is provided at test time. Blue-shaded columns denote degrees seen during training; unshaded columns are unseen.
Figure 5: Extrapolation behavior of operator-based models on MNIST. Solid lines use ground-truth transformation degrees; dashed lines “(auto)” use k-NN pose inference. Shaded regions denote training degrees.
N
k
100
200
500
1000
2000
5000
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
GT
100.000
95.759
100.000
95.759
100.000
95.759
100.000
95.759
100.000
95.759
100.000
95.759
1
54.196
76.136
60.339
80.185
65.292
83.375
68.912
85.473
71.543
87.029
74.159
88.726
3
51.829
73.990
59.669
79.097
66.285
83.136
70.421
85.512
73.273
87.171
75.949
88.940
10
53.287
75.149
61.767
80.054
68.687
84.356
72.950
86.649
75.746
88.117
78.735
89.771
Appendix
Table 3: k-NN performance on rotated MNIST. Accpose ( ↑ ) and Acccls ( ↑ ) denote pose prediction and downstream classification accuracy, respectively. GT reports the reference performance with ground-truth poses.
N
k
100
200
500
1000
2000
5000
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
GT
100.000
95.097
100.000
95.097
100.000
95.097
100.000
95.097
100.000
95.097
100.000
95.097
1
65.661
86.931
71.705
89.458
76.762
91.406
79.852
92.351
82.816
93.049
85.395
93.652
3
61.803
84.460
69.530
88.018
76.752
90.774
80.566
91.964
83.767
92.776
86.307
93.501
10
59.041
82.852
68.694
87.245
77.251
90.438
81.514
91.884
84.657
92.752
87.464
93.488
Appendix
Table 4: k-NN performance on x-translated MNIST. Acc pose(↑) and Acc cls(↑) denote pose prediction and downstream classification accuracy, respectively. GT reports the reference performance when ground-truth poses were given. The highest score for each N is shown in bold .
N
k
100
200
500
1000
2000
5000
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
Accpose
Acccls
GT
100.000
95.913
100.000
95.913
100.000
95.913
100.000
95.913
100.000
95.913
100.000
95.913
1
66.732
87.442
72.056
90.092
77.052
92.161
79.872
93.020
82.513
93.792
85.342
94.532
3
63.211
84.416
71.428
88.416
77.668
91.441
80.967
92.725
83.756
93.651
86.227
94.502
10
62.334
84.603
71.036
88.648
78.322
91.380
82.019
92.753
84.673
93.655
87.319
94.521
Appendix
Table 5: k-NN performance on y-translated MNIST. Acc pose(↑) and Acc cls(↑) denote pose prediction and downstream classification accuracy, respectively. GT reports the reference performance when ground-truth poses were given. The highest score for each N is shown in bold .
In visual scene understanding tasks, it is essential to capture both invariant and equivariant structure. While neural networks are frequently trained to achieve invariance to transformations such as translation, this often comes at the cost of losing access to equivariant information - e.g., the precise location of an object. Moreover, invariance is not naturally guaranteed through supervised learning alone, and many architectures generalize poorly to input transformations not encountered during training. Here, we take an approach based on analysis-by-synthesis and factoring using resonator networks. A generative model describes the construction of simple scenes containing MNIST digits and their transformations, like color and position. The resonator network inverts the generative model, and provides both invariant and equivariant information about particular objects. Sparse features learned from training data act as a basis set to provide flexibility in representing variable shapes of objects, allowing the resonator network to handle previously unseen digit shapes from the test set. The modular structure provides a shape module which contains information about the object shape with translation factored out, allowing a simple classifier to operate on centered digits. The classification layer is trained solely on centered data, requiring much less training data, and the network as a whole can identify objects with arbitrary translations without data augmentation. The natural attention-like mechanism of the resonator network also allows for analysis of scenes with multiple objects, where the network dynamics selects and centers only one object at a time. Further, the specific position information of a particular object can be extracted from the translation module, and we show that the resonator can be designed to track multiple moving objects with precision of a few pixels.
Lazar Supic, Alec Mullen, E. Paxon Frady
Redwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience, UC Berkeley · Neuromorphic Computing Lab, Intel
Learning symmetries through data augmentation offers an alternative to architectural equivariance, but does not guarantee that a network respects those symmetries. Measuring learned equivariance is especially difficult for intermediate representations, whose group actions are not specified. In a finite discrete setting, we show that equivariance requires representations of original and transformed inputs to determine one another exactly, yielding a test based on normalized mutual information (NMI). For high-dimensional activations, we use centered kernel alignment (CKA) as a scalable test, with an exact guarantee for orthogonal feature transformations. Across architectures and tasks, augmentation usually increases transformation consistency, showing that learned equivariance can be probed directly from representations without recovering the hidden transformation rules that relate them.
Claire Schlesinger, Wolfgang Gatterbauer, Robin Walters
Khoury College of Computer Sciences Northeastern University Boston, MA 02115, USA
Rotational symmetry is one of the most important structural principles in machine learning on 3D data. In applications ranging from physics and materials science to 3D computer vision, predictions should not depend on an arbitrary choice of coordinate frame. Rotational equivariance captures this requirement mathematically by enforcing that a rotation of the input induces a corresponding transformation of the model output. This tutorial provides a comprehensive introduction to rotational equivariance, starting from the physical and geometric intuition behind coordinate independence and building up the necessary machinery from geometric deep learning, group theory, and representation theory. We introduce message passing on Euclidean graphs, group actions and representations, spherical harmonics, Wigner matrices, tensor products, and Clebsch-Gordan decomposition, and explain how these ingredients give rise to modern equivariant architectures. We then survey the principal strategies for incorporating rotational equivariance in deep learning, including group convolutions, internal tensorial representations, and canonicalization-based methods, and discuss their practical strengths and limitations. The tutorial aims to lower the barrier to the subject by connecting the underlying mathematics to practical model design, by unifying ideas that are often expressed in different formal languages, and by helping practitioners choose among competing approaches through a clear discussion of their trade-offs.
Peter Lippmann, Fred A. Hamprecht
Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing (IWR), Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany