ArticlePloS one2024
Can using a pre-trained deep learning model as the feature extractor in the bag-of-deep-visual-words model always improve image classification accuracy?
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article investigates whether higher classification accuracy can always be achieved by utilizing a pre-trained deep learning model as the feature extractor in the Bag-of-Deep-Visual-Words (BoDVW) classification model, as opposed to directly using the new classification layer of the pre-trained model for classification. Considering the multiple factors related to the feature extractor -such as model architecture, fine-tuning strategy, number of training samples, feature extraction method, and feature encoding method-we investigate these factors through experiments and then provide detailed answers to the question. In our experiments, we use five feature encoding methods: hard-voting, soft-voting, locally constrained linear coding, super vector coding, and fisher vector (FV). We also employ two popular feature extraction methods: one (denoted as Ext-DFs(CP)) uses a convolutional or non-global pooling layer, and another (denoted as Ext-DFs(FC)) uses a fully-connected or global pooling layer. Three pre-trained models-VGGNet-16, ResNext-50(32×4d), and Swin-B-are utilized as feature extractors. Experimental results on six datasets (15-Scenes, TF-Flowers, MIT Indoor-67, COVID-19 CXR, NWPU-RESISC45, and Caltech-101) reveal that compared to using the pre-trained model with only the new classification layer re-trained for classification, employing it as the feature extractor in the BoDVW model improves the accuracy in 35 out of 36 experiments when using FV. With Ext-DFs(CP), the accuracy increases by 0.13% to 8.43% (averaged at 3.11%), and with Ext-DFs(FC), it increases by 1.06% to 14.63% (averaged at 5.66%). Furthermore, when all layers of the pre-trained model are fine-tuned and used as the feature extractor, the results vary depending on the methods used. If FV and Ext-DFs(FC) are used, the accuracy increases by 0.21% to 5.65% (averaged at 1.58%) in 14 out of 18 experiments. Our results suggest that while using a pre-trained deep learning model as the feature extractor does not always improve classification accuracy, it holds great potential as an accuracy improvement technique.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.