ResNeSt: Split-Attention Networks (2004.08955v2)

Abstract: It is well known that featuremap attention and multi-path representation are important for visual recognition. In this paper, we present a modularized architecture, which applies the channel-wise attention on different network branches to leverage their success in capturing cross-feature interactions and learning diverse representations. Our design results in a simple and unified computation block, which can be parameterized using only a few variables. Our model, named ResNeSt, outperforms EfficientNet in accuracy and latency trade-off on image classification. In addition, ResNeSt has achieved superior transfer learning results on several public benchmarks serving as the backbone, and has been adopted by the winning entries of COCO-LVIS challenge. The source code for complete system and pretrained models are publicly available.

• The paper introduces the split-attention mechanism that dynamically weights grouped feature maps for improved representation.
• It integrates channel-wise attention within convolutional blocks, achieving higher accuracy and computational efficiency.
• Experimental results demonstrate that ResNeSt architectures outperform traditional models on image classification and object detection benchmarks.

Guidelines for Author Responses in CVPR

This document outlines the formatting and procedural guidelines for authors preparing a response to paper reviews for the Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). The purpose of an author response, or rebuttal, is to address reviewers' comments and correct any factual errors or misconceptions. It is notably restricted to a "one page" PDF submission.

Objectives of the Rebuttal

The rebuttal process aims to provide authors an opportunity to clarify and provide additional information requested by reviewers. However, this provision strictly prohibits the introduction of new contributions such as theorems, algorithms, or experimental results absent in the original manuscript. Authors are allowed to include figures, graphs, or proofs if they serve to elucidate their responses to the reviewers' comments but should refrain from any new empirical results.

Constraints and Guidelines

Authors must consider several formatting constraints while preparing their responses:

1. Length and Form: The response must be a single-page document encompassing any references and figures. Responses exceeding this limit will not be reviewed. Additionally, any discernible efforts to manipulate margins or formatting to circumvent the length restriction will result in the response not being reviewed.
2. Text Layout: The main text must be in a two-column format with specific dimensions: 6⅞ inches wide by 8⅞ inches high, with columns of 3¼ inches width separated by ⅚ inch space.
3. Blind Submission: To maintain the integrity of the review process, the rebuttal must follow blind submission rules.
4. Formatting of Text and Figures: Authors must use a 10-point Times font for the main text and 9-point Roman type for figure and table captions. Figures should ideally be placed using \includegraphics with sizes specified relative to line width for uniformity and coherence with the primary text.
5. Figures and Tables: Graphics must be of sufficient quality to be understandable in printed form, with resized fonts and appropriately chosen line widths.

Prohibitions on New Experimental Results

An essential directive passed in the 2018 PAMI-TC motion emphasizes that reviewers should not request additional experiments in the rebuttal, nor should they penalize authors for not providing new experiments. This directive is critical to ensure that the rebuttal process remains focused on addressing reviewers' comments rather than generating new data, which could lead to an asymmetric and unfair evaluation process.

Implications

The guidelines enforce a focused and fair process for rebuttal submissions, preventing authors from gaining undue advantage by introducing new information after the initial submission. This approach reinforces the robustness of the review process and upholds the integrity of the conference's academic standards.

Practically, authors must meticulously plan their initial submissions to include comprehensive experiments and clearly articulated contributions. This protocol ensures that the author response remains a platform for clarifying and defending existing submissions rather than creating new content.

Future Developments

While the guidelines provided are efficient in ensuring consistency and fairness, future advancements could involve the integration of automated formatting and compliance checks at the time of submission, minimizing administrative overhead and potential human errors. Additionally, evolving norms and practices in rebuttal and review processes could usher in nuanced updates to these guidelines, ensuring they remain aligned with the best practices in academic publishing.

In conclusion, the structured and disciplined approach mandated by CVPR for author responses fosters an equitable and transparent review process, essential for maintaining the high standards of scholarly communication and research dissemination.