AOGNets: Deep AND-OR Grammar Networks for Visual Recognition
Xilai Li† , Tianfu Wu†,‡∗, Xi Song and Hamid Krim†
Department of ECE† and the Visual Narrative Cluster‡ , North Carolina State University

arXiv:1711.05847v1 [] 15 Nov 2017

{xli47, tianfu wu, ahk}@ncsu.edu, xsong.lhi@gmail.com

Abstract
Output feature map

This paper presents a method of learning deep AND-OR
Grammar (AOG) networks for visual recognition, which we
term AOGNets. An AOGNet consists of a number of stages
each of which is composed of a number of AOG building
blocks. An AOG building block is designed based on a
principled AND-OR grammar and represented by a hierarchical and compositional AND-OR graph [33, 46]. Each
node applies some basic operation (e.g., Conv-BatchNormReLU) to its input. There are three types of nodes: an
AND-node explores composition, whose input is computed
by concatenating features of its child nodes; an OR-node
represents alternative ways of composition in the spirit of
exploitation, whose input is the element-wise sum of features of its child nodes; and a Terminal-node takes as input
a channel-wise slice of the input feature map of the AOG
building block. AOGNets aim to harness the best of two
worlds (grammar models and deep neural networks) in representation learning with end-to-end training. In experiments, AOGNets are tested on three highly competitive image classification benchmarks: CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and
ImageNet-1K. AOGNets obtain better performance than the
widely used Residual Net [14] and most of its variants, and
are comparable to the Dense Net [18]. AOGNets are also
tested in object detection on the PASCAL VOC 2007 and
2012 [8] using the vanilla Faster RCNN [30] system and
obtain better performance than the Residual Net.

AOG building block

And-node
Or-node
Terminal-node

Image

Channels

Figure 1. Illustration of the proposed AOGNet using the first AOG
building block. The input feature map is treated as a sentence of
N words (e.g., N = 4). The AND-OR graph of the building block
is constructed to explore all possible parses of the sentence w.r.t.
a simple binary composition rule. Each node applies some basic
operation (e.g., Conv-BatchNorm-ReLU) to its input. There are
three types of nodes: an AND-node explores composition, whose
input is computed by concatenating features of its child nodes; an
OR-node represents alternative ways of composition in the spirit
of exploitation, whose input is the element-wise sum of features of
its child nodes; and a Terminal-node takes as input a channel-wise
slice of the input feature map (i.e., a k-gram). Note that the output feature map usually has smaller spatial dimensionality through
the sub-sampling used in the Terminal-node operations and larger
number of channels. The building block can be stacked to form
deep hierarchy. See text for details. (Best viewed in color)

1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation and Objective
Recently, deep neural networks [26, 22] improved prediction accuracy significantly in many vision tasks, and
even obtained superhuman performance in image classification tasks [14, 36, 18, 6]. Much of these progress have been
achieved mainly through engineering network architectures
which can enjoy increasing representational power (by going either deeper or wider) without sacrificing the feasi∗ T.

Input feature map

bility of optimization using back-propagation with stochastic gradient descent (i.e., handling the vanishing and/or exploding gradient problem). On the one hand, although network engineering has been an active part of neural network
research since their initial development, the overall architecture are still similar to the seminal work of Fukushi-

Wu is the corresponding author.

1

Softmax

Pooling

Convolution

“Laptop”

Figure 2. Illustration of an AOGNet which has 3 stages, 1 AOG building bock in the first and third stage, and 2 AOG building blocks in
the second stage. Note that different stages can use different AND-OR graphs. We show the same one for simplicity. We also note that
before entering the first AOG stage we can apply multiple steps of Conv-BatchNorm-ReLu or front-end stages from other networks such as
residual nets. Thus, the proposed AOGNets can be integrated with many other networks. (Best viewed in color)

mas neocognitron [10]. Whether architecture are handcrafted [22, 4, 36, 14, 18, 6] or learned through architecture
search [47], the process of finding the right architecture for
a task requires significant effort for each individual case.
On the other hand, the dramatic success does not necessarily speak to its sufficiency, let alone optimality, given the
lack of theoretical underpinnings of deep neural networks
at present [1]. Different methodologies are worth exploring
to enlarge the scope of network architectures, and to potentially address the long-standing interpretability problem.
For example, Hinton recently pointed out a crucial drawback of current convolutional neural networks: according
to recent neuroscientific research, these artificial networks
do not contain enough levels of structure [16, 32].
The wisdom in designing better deep network architectures usually lies in finding a network topology which can
support both exploring new features and exploiting existing features in previous layers. From the perspective of
representation learning, skip-connections within a Residual Network (ResNet) [14] contributes to effective features
exploitation/reuse, and dense connection with feature maps
being concatenated together in the densely connected network (DenseNet) [18] leads to effective feature exploration,
beside their contributions in resolving the gradient vanishing and/or exploding issues in optimization. The Dual Path
Network (DPN) [6] proposed a simple yet effective architecture which alternates skip connection and dense connection in forming network structure. This paper presents
a method of integrating compositional grammar and deep
neural networks in a deeply collaborative manner in representation learning, which naturally embraces the wisdom,
thus harnesses the best of both worlds in representation
learning and potentially opens the door of introducing more
levels of structures based on well-studied, sophisticated, yet
intuitive grammar models and structured knowledge representation [38] in deep representation learning.
Grammar models are well known in both natural language processing and computer vision. Image grammar [46,
9, 45] was one of the dominant methods in computer vision before the recent resurgence in popularity of deep neural networks. With the recent resurgence, one fundamen-

tal puzzle arises that grammar models with more explicitly compositional structures and more analytic and theoretical potential, often perform worse than their neural network counterparts. The proposed method bridges the performance gap, which is motivated by and aims to show the
advantage of two nice properties of grammar which are desirable in network engineering: (i) The flexibility and simplicity of constructing different types of structure topology
based on a dictionary of primitives and a set of production
rules in a principled way; and (ii) The highly expressive
power and the parsimonious compactness of its explicitly
hierarchical and compositional structure. Furthermore, the
explainable rigor of grammar could be harnessed potentially
to address the intepretability issue of deep neural networks
(which is out of the scope of this paper).

1.2. Method Overview
In this paper, we utilize compositional AND-OR grammar (AOG) in network engineering. We follow the general AND-OR grammar framework [46, 45] and specifically
adopt the method presented in [33, 39] in constructing the
grammar. We term the proposed deep compositional AOG
networks AOGNets. An AOGNet consists of a stack of
AOG building blocks. An AOG building block is designed
based on a simple AND-OR grammar and represented by
a hierarchical and compositional AND-OR graph [33, 39]
(see Figure 1). Figure 2 illustrates a 3-stage AOGNet.
The key idea of an AOG building block is to take advantage of both the exploration of new features and the exploitation/reuse of previously computed features in a hierarchical and compositional way, going beyond the pure skipconnection, the pure dense connection and their sequential
combination. The proposed method is actually very simple.
Given an input feature map with the number of channels
being C, we first chunk it evenly into a small number N
of primitive maps (e.g., N = 4 in Figure 1), then treat the
input feature map as a sentence of N words. The AOG is
constructed to explore all possible parse graphs of the sentence using only binary composition rules. Starting from
the entire sentence, it is represented by an OR-node which
can be either grounded on the entire input feature map or de-

composed in two child nodes (i.e., two sub-sentences) with
respect to different splits. The former is represented by a
Terminal-node and each of the latter is represented by an
AND-node with two child nodes. The same is done recursively for the decomposed sub-sentences until no splits are
available. Then, all the nodes are organized into a directed
acyclic AND-OR graph. This is a 1-D special case of the
method presented in [33, 39]. It can also be understood
as a modified version of the well-known Cocke-YoungerKasami (CYK) parsing algorithm in natural language processing according to a binary composition rule.
In the AOG, a Terminal-node takes as input a k-gram
phrase consisting of k words (i.e., a slice of the feature map
with the number of channels being k) where 1 ≤ k ≤ N .
Then, we compute inputs of AND-nodes using the concatenation scheme as done in DenseNets [18] and OR-nodes
using the summation scheme as done in ResNets [14]. Different variants of implementation of the two schema can
be used in practice. Conceptually, an AOG building block
embodies an exploration-and-exploitation-driven compositional structure for representation learning by deep neural
networks. The AOG structure inherently embraces the skipconnection for words (chunks of feature maps) and the sentence itself (the entire input feature map) in a compositional
way. We notice that we can extend the binary composition rule to explore larger space of network structures in a
straightforward way subject to the GPU memory available
in experiments (which is out of the scope of this paper).
In experiments, we test our AOGNets on three
highly competitive and widely used image classification benchmarks: the CIFAR-10 dataset and the CIFAR100 dataset [21], and the ImageNet-1000 dataset [31].
Our AOGNets obtain better performance consistently than
ReslNets [14] and some variants, and are tightly comparable to DenseNets [18]. We further test AOGNets in object
detection on the PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 [8]. We
adopt the vanilla Faster RCNN [30] system using AOGNets
as backbone. We obtain better performance than the one
with ResNet as the backbone. We also provide a detailed
ablation study analyzing different aspects of our AOGNets.

2. Related Work
Network engineering is one of the most important and
challenging hyper-parameter optimization problems in deep
learning due to its significant contributions in improving
performance. Network architecture search can be posed as
a combinatorial search problem in a product space which
consists of two sub-spaces: the structure space exploring
all directed acyclic graphs with the start node representing
input image and the end node representing task loss functions(s), and the operator space exploring all possible functions for implementing nodes in a searched structure. It is
a extremely difficult problem due to the exponentially large

space and overall highly non-convex non-linear objective
functions to be optimized in the search. We focus on convolutional networks in computer vision tasks in reviewing
related work. The majority of existing methods are still
based on hand-crafted architectures. A promising trend is to
automatically learn better architectures with the long-term
objective to have theoretical guarantee. So far, hand-crafted
ones have better overall performance, especially on largescale datasets such as the ImageNet benchmark [31].
Hand-crafted network architectures. After more than
20 years since the seminal work 5-layer LeNet5 [26] was
proposed, the recent resurgence in popularity of neural
networks was triggered by the 8-layer AlexNet [22] with
breakthrough performance on ImageNet [31] in 2012. The
AlexNet presented two new insights in the operator space:
the Rectified Linear Unit (ReLu) and the Dropout. Since
then, a lot of efforts were devoted to learn deeper AlexNetlike networks with the intuition that deeper is better. The
VGG Net [4] proposed a 19-layer network with insights on
using multiple successive layers of small filters (e.g., 3 × 3)
to obtain the receptive field by one layer with large filter
and on adopting smaller stride in convolution to preserve
information. A special case, 1 × 1 convolution, was proposed in the network-in-network [27] for reducing or expanding feature dimensionality between consecutive layers, and have been widely used in many networks. The
VGG Net also increased computational cost and memory
footprint significantly. To address these issues, The 22layer GoogLeNet [37] introduced the first inception module and a bottleneck scheme implemented with 1 × 1 convolution for reducing computational cost. The main obstacle of going deeper lies in the gradient vanishing issue in optimization, which is addressed with a new structural design, short-path or skip-connection, proposed in the
Highway network [34] and popularized by the residual networks [14], especially when combined with the batch normalization [20]. More than 100 layers are popular design
in the recent literature [14, 36], and even more than 1000
layers trained on large scale datasets such as ImageNet are
not rare any more [19, 44]. The Fractal Net [25] provided
an alternative way of implementing short path for training
ultra-deep networks without residuals. Complementary to
going deeper, width matters in residual networks and inception based networks too [43, 41]. Going beyond simple
skip-connections, The densely connected network [18] proposed a densely connected network architecture with concatenation scheme for feature reuse and exploration, and
the Dual Path Network [6] proposed to combine residuals and densely connections in an alternating way for more
effective feature exploration and exploitation. Both skipconnection and dense-connection adapt the sequential architecture to directed and acyclic graph (DAG) structured
networks, which were explored earlier in the context of re-

current neural networks (RNN) [2, 13] and ConvNets [42].
Most work focused on boosting spatial encoding and utilizing spatial dimensionality reduction. The squeeze-andexcitation module [17] is recently proposed a simple yet
effective method focusing on channel-wise encoding. The
Hourglass network [29] proposed a hourglass module consisting of both subsampling and upsampling to enjoy repeated bottom-up/top-down feature exploration.
The proposed AOGNet belongs to hand-crafted architectures in general, but it is guided by intuitively simple
yet principled grammar models. It shares some spirit with
the inception module, the fractal net and the squeeze-andexcitation module. Thanks to its hierarchical and compositional structure, AOGNet is capable of balancing depth and
width subject to a few hyper-parameters in constructing the
AOG building blocks. It also enjoys both exploring new
features and exploiting existing features in a compositional
way, as well as taking advantage of channel-wise encoding.
Learned network architectures. There is less work on
this direction. Even with very strong assumptions (e.g.,
limited number of stages and limited set of operators), the
search space still grows exponentially due to the product
space. Bayesian hyper-parameter optimization is one of the
popular methods for network architecture search in some restricted space [3, 28]. More recently, by posing the structure
and connectivity of a neural network as a variable-length
string, the network architecture search work [47] utilizes
a recurrent network to generate a such string (i.e., network
topology) under the reinforcement learning framework with
the validation accuracy of intermediate models as reward.
This automatic exploration of network topology entails very
high demand on computing resource (e.g., 800 GPUs used
in the experiments). Genetic algorithms are also explored
in learning network structures [40]. In [7], the AdaNet was
proposed to learn directed acyclic network structures using
a theoretical framework with some guarantee.
The proposed AOG building block is potentially useful
as a better heuristic in the search or to facilitate theoretical
analyses by taking advantage of the simple production rule
in structure composition.
Grammar-like structures. A general framework of image grammar was proposed in [46]. Object detection grammar was the dominant approaches for object detection [9,
33]. Probabilistic program induction [35, 23, 24] has been
used successfully in many settings, but has not shown good
performance in difficult visual understanding tasks such as
large-scale image classification and object detection. More
recently, recursive cortical networks [11] have been proposed with much more data efficiency in learning which
adopts the AND-OR grammar framework [46], showing
great potential of grammar like structures in developing
general AI systems.
Our contributions. This paper makes two main contri-

butions in the field of deep representation learning:
• It presents a simple yet effective method of deeply integrating grammar models and deep neural networks,
which facilitates both feature exploration and exploitation in a hierarchical and compositional way with nice
balance between depth and width. In implementation,
we adopt the AND-OR grammar (AOG) [33, 46, 45].
To the best of our knowledge, it is the first work that
utilizes grammar models in network engineering. It
sheds light on introducing more sophisticated structured knowledge representation [38] in network architecture search.
• It shows better performance than state-of-the-art
ResNets in both image classification and object detection.
Paper Organization. The remainder of the paper is
organized as follows. Section 3 presents details of our
AOGNets. Section 4 shows experimental results and comparisons, as well as ablation studies on different aspects of
our AOGNets. Finally, Section 5 concludes this paper and
discusses some potential improvement.

3. AOGNets
In this section, we first present details of constructing the
structure of our AOGNets. Then, we define the operators for
nodes in an AOGNet.

3.1. The Structure of an AOGNet
An AOGNet consists of M stages (M ≥ 1). A stage l
is composed of a small number nl of AOG building blocks
(l ∈ [0, M − 1] and nl ≥ 1). Both M and nl ’s are predefined for a given task in learning. Figure 2 shows an
AOGNet with M = 3, n1 = n3 = 1, n2 = 2.
As illustrated in Figure 1, an AOG building block maps
an input feature map F with the dimensionality C × H × W
(representing the number of channels, height and width respectively) to an output feature map F with the dimensionality C × H × W. We treat the input feature map as a sentence
of N words (or a filter bank with N primitives). Each word
represents a primitive feature map with the dimensionality
c × H × W in the input, satisfying C = N × c. In implementation, following a common convention, we usually
reduce the spatial size and increase the number of channels
between consecutive stages for bigger receptive field and
greater expressive power. Within a stage, we usually keep
the dimensionalities of input and output same for the AOG
building blocks except for the first one.
Constructing the AND-OR graph in an AOG building
block. We consider the following three rules in unfolding

• The second rule is a binary decomposition (or composition) rule which decomposes the non-terminal sym-

• For an AND-node Ai,j (m), its input is computed
by the concatenation of the outputs of its two child
L
R
A
nodes, fi,i+m
and fi+m+1,j
.
We have fi,j
=
L
R
[fi,i+m , fi+m+1,j ].
• For an OR-node Oi,j , its input is thePsummation of the
O
u
outputs of its child nodes, fi,j
= ui,j ∈ch(Oi,j ) fi,j
,
where ch(·) be the set of child nodes.

(𝑐′, 1,1, 𝑠)

And-node / Or-node

O

ReLu

Bat

Linear

• The first rule is a termination rule which grounds the
non-terminal symbol Si,j directly to the corresponding sub-sentence ti,j , i.e., a k-gram terminal symbol,
which is represented by a Terminal-node in the ANDOR graph.

Pooling

Convolution

𝒯(𝐹/,0 )
𝒯(𝒇</,0 + ⋯ + 𝒇=/,0 )
𝒯([𝒇8/,/67 , 𝒇:/6769,0 ])
Input: The total length (or primitive size) N .
Output: The AND-OR graph G =< V, E >
Initialization: Create an OR-node O0,N −1 for the
Grounding
Concatenation
Summation
entire sentence, V = {O0,N −1 }, E = ∅, BFS queue
Q = {O0,N −1 };
…
𝑓/,0 = 𝐹/,0
𝒇8/,/67
𝒇</,0
𝒇=/,0
𝒇:/6769,0
while Q is not empty do
Pop a node vi,j from the Q and let k = j − i + 1;
Figure 3. Illustration of node operators in an AOGNet. Left: a
if vi,j is an OR-node then
Terminal-node grounds on a chunk of the input feature map, Midi) Add a terminal-node ti,j , and update
dle: an AND-node concatenates the outputs of its two child nodes,
V = V ∪ {ti,j }, E = E ∪ {< vi,j , ti,j >};
and Right: an OR-node sums up the outputs of its child nodes. The
same type of operator T () is applied to compute the outputs.
ii) Create AND-nodes Ai,j (m) for all valid
Output feature map
splits 0 ≤ m < k;
E = E ∪ {< vi,j , Ai,j (m) >};
bol Si,j into two child symbols representing a left subAOG building block
if Ai,j (m) ∈
/ V then
sentence and a right sub-sentence respectively: Li,i+m
V = V ∪ {Ai,j (m)};
and Ri+m+1,j , both of which are either a non-terminal
Push Ai,j (m) to the back of Q;
symbol or a terminal symbol depending on m. It is repAnd-node
end
Or-node
resented by an AND-node in the AND-OR graph and
Terminal-node
else if vi,j is an AND-node with split index m then
entails the concatenation scheme in forward compuCreate two OR-nodes Oi,i+m and Oi+m+1,j
tation.
for the two sub-sentence respectively;
• The third rule represents alternative ways of decomE = E ∪ {< vi,j (m), Oi,i+m >, <
posing a symbol Si,j , which is represented by an ORvi,j (m), Oi+m+1,j >};
feature map
node in theInput
AND-OR
graph and entails summation
Image
if Oi,i+m ∈
/ V then
scheme in forward
computation
to “integrate out” the
V = V ∪ {Oi,i+m };
Channels
decomposition structures.
Push Oi,i+m to the back of Q;
end
The AND-OR graph is constructed by a simple Algorithm 1
if Oi+m+1,j ∈
/ V then
using the breadth-first search (BFS). For example, we have
V = V ∪ {Oi+m+1,j };
10 Terminal-nodes, 10 AND-nodes and 6 OR-nodes for a
Push Oi+m+1,j to the back of Q;
small AOG with N = 4 as shown in Figure 1.
end
3.2. The Operators in an AOGNet
end
end
In an AOG building bock, each node in the AND-OR
graph is implemented with some basic operator in a unified
Algorithm 1: Constructing the AND-OR graph
way. For a node vi,j in the AND-OR graph with length
v
v
k = j − i + 1, denote by fi,j
its input feature map, and fi,j
the configurations of a sentence with N words:
its output feature map. Denote by T () the operator mapping
v
v
v
fi,j
to fi,j
= T (fi,j
) (e.g., which can be implemented by
Si,j → ti,j ,
(1)
Conv-BatchNorm-ReLU). As shown in Figure 3, we have,
Si,j (m) → Li,i+m · Ri+m+1,j , 0 ≤ m < k,
(2)
• For a Terminal-node ti,j , denote by Fi,j the correSi,j → Si,j (0)|Si,j (1)| · · · |Si,j (j − i).
(3)
sponding k-gram chunk in the input feature map F .
t
We have its input fi,j
= Fi,j with the dimensionality
where Si,j represents a symbol for unfolding the subv
t
c
×
H
×
W
,
and
its
output fi,j
= T (Fi,j ) with the
i,j
sentence starting at the i-th word (i ∈ [0, N −1]) and ending
v
dimensionality
c
×
H
×
W,
where
cvi,j = k × c and
i,j
at the j-th word (j ∈ [0, N − 1], j ≥ i) and its length equals
C
v
ci,j = k × N .
k = j − i + 1.

“Lap

(𝑐′, 1,1, 𝑠)

Output: 𝑐′×𝐻′×𝑊′

⊕

BatchNorm

(𝑐′, 1,1,1)

(𝑐′×𝛼, 3,3, 𝑠)

(𝑐′×𝛼, 1,1,1)

Input: 𝑐×𝐻×𝑊

Convolution

or Identity
if 𝑐 = 𝑐′

ReLU

Figure 4. Illustration of the bottleneck operator. The 4-tuple of
convolution represents (number of channels, kernel height, kernel
width, stride). α is the bottleneck ratio (e.g., α = 0.25). The stride
s is determined by the spatial sizes of input and output feature
maps. (Best viewed in color)

Where the input and output of an AND-node or an ORnode, vi,j , have the same dimensionalities: cvi,j × H × W
C
and cvi,j = k × N
. In learning and inference, we follow the
depth-first search (DFS) order to compute nodes in an AOG
building block, which ensures that all the child nodes have
been computed when we compute a node v.
We notice that we can apply different operators for different types of nodes as long as we can match the dimensionalities during the computation. We keep it simple in
this paper. In our experiments, we use both standard ConvBatchNorm-ReLU and a so-called bottleneck operator as
done in the Residual Nets [14]. We leave the exploration
of different operators in future work.
Short Path in an AOGNet. The hierarchical and compositional structure of an AND-OR graph facilitates very
diverse information flows in learning. In an AOG building bock, every primitive feature map (i.e., one word) goes
through multiple paths to the output feature map: some are
short and some are long. For example, every primitive feature map is directly connected with the root OR-node.
Balance between Depth and Width. The hierarchical and compositional structure of an AND-OR graph also
leads to good balance between depth and width in the network architecture.

4. Experiments
In this section, we test our AOGNets on three highly
competitive image classification benchmarks: CIFAR-10
and CIFAR-100 [21], and ImageNet-1K [31], and on the
PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 benchmarks [8]. We
first present an ablation study of two important hyperparameters of AOGNets on CIFAR-100. Then, we show detailed experimental results and analyses of our AOGNets on

Figure 5. Left: Comparison of the parameter efficiency between
Conv-BatchNorm-ReLU and bottleneck (BN) operators. Right:
Comparison between primitive size N from 2 to 6 with different
parameter sizes. Both are measured using the CIFAR-100 test error. (Best viewed in color)

image classification and object detection tasks. We implemented our AOGNets using the latest version of MXNet [5].
Our source code will be released soon.
AOGNet Settings. We use two different node operator T ()’s in our experiments. One is the standard ConvBatchNorm-ReLU, and the other one is the so-called bottleneck (BN) operator (see Figure 4) used in the ResidualNet [14] and its variants. In comparison, AOGNets will be
written by AOGNet-[BN]-PrimitiveSize-(#AOG blocks per
stage). For example, AOGNet-4-(1,1,1) and AOGNet-BN4-(1,1,1) represent a 3-stage AOGNet using standard node
operator and bottleneck one respectively, both with primitive size being 4, and 1 AOG building block per stage.
After the structure is specified, the number of parameters of an AOGNet is determined by the number of channels of input/output of each stage. Thus, for an M -stage
AOGNet, we have an (M + 1)-tuple specifying the number of channels. For example, we can specify the 4-tuple,
(16, 16, 32, 64) or (16, 32, 64, 128) for a 3-stage AOGNet4-(1,1,1), resulting different number of parameters in total.
The depth of an AOGNet is defined by the largest number of
units which have learnable parameters along the paths from
the final output to the input data following BFS order (e.g.,
a BN operator as shown in Figure 4 is counted as 3 units).

4.1. Ablation Study on CIFAR-100
The structural complexity of an AOGNet depends on
both the total number of AOG building blocks and the primitive sizes of AOG building blocks (which fully control
the AND-OR graph, see Algorithm 1). After the structure
is specified, the model complexity and expressive power
largely depend on node operators. We conduct an ablation
study of these two aspects on CIFAR-100 as follows.
Bottleneck Node Operator for Parameter Efficiency.
The left plot in Figure 5 compares the parameter efficiency
between the two node operators used in this paper: ConvBatchNorm-ReLU and bottleneck (BN). In comparisons,

we use 3-stage AOGNets with a single type of AOG building block whose primitive size is 4. Specially, we compare
AOGNet-4-(1,1,1) and AOGNeet-BN-4-(1,1,1) with the total number of parameters being 1M, 2M, 4M, and 8M respectively (M represents the unit of Million), and compare
AOGNet-4-(1,2,1) and AOGNet-BN-4-(1,2,1) with 16M
parameters. BN operator consistently outperforms the
counterpart by more than 2% with the same model structure and complexity, thus it is more efficient in terms of
the number of parameters. It is worth noting that the ConvBatchNorm-ReLU results uses a dropout layer with dropout
rate 0.1 after each Conv-BatchNorm-ReLU operation similar to DenseNet [18]. And the dropout layers result in about
0.8% improvement on the test accuracy, while BN does not
need the dropout regularization to improve accuracy. In
other words, our AOGNet-BN is less prone to overfitting.
Primitive Size vs. Channel Width. We further compare AOGNets-BN with different primitive sizes across different model complexities. The right plot in Figure 5 shows
comparisons of AOGNet-BN-N -(1, 1,1) between 5 different primitive size, N = 2, · · · , 6 with 5 different model
complexities (1M, 2M, 4M, 8M and 16M ). To control the
model complexity of AOGNets-BN with different primitive
sizes, we adjust the number of channels of input/output feature maps accordingly. Overall, we empirically observe that
N = 4 gives the best performance. We note that when
the number of parameter is sufficiently large we think that
bigger the primitive size is better the performance is with
proper hyper-parameter tuning (such as learning rate and
batch size).
Based on the ablation study, we fix the primitive size to
N = 4 in all experiments and use BN operator only on
ImageNet for the sake of saving GPU hours.

4.2. Experiments on CIFAR
CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets [21], denoted by
C10 and C100 respectively, consist of 32 × 32 color images drawn from 10 and 100 classes. The training and test
sets contains 50,000 and 10,000 images respectively. We
adopt widely used standard data augmentation scheme, random cropping and mirroring, in preparing the training data.
We train AOGNets with stochastic gradient descent
(SGD) for 300 epochs with parameters initialized by the
Xavier method [12]. The initial learning rate is set to 0.1,
and is divided by 10 at 150 and 225 epoch respectively.
For CIFAR-10, we chose batch size 64 with weight decay
1 × 10−4 , while batch size 128 with weight decay 5 × 10−4
is adopted for CIFAR-100. The momentum is set to 0.9.
If the network uses only Conv-BatchNorm-ReLU (without
bottleneck), a dropout layer of dropout ratio 0.1 is applied
after each Conv-BatchNorm-ReLU block.
Results and Analyses. We summarize the results in
Table 1. Our AOGNets obtain better performance than

Method
ResNet [14]
ResNet (reported by [19])
ResNet (pre-activation) [15]
Wide ResNet [43]
FractalNet [25]
with Dropout/DropPath
ResNeXt-29, 8 × 64d [41]
ResNeXt-29, 16 × 64d [41]
DenseNet [18] (k = 12)
DenseNet [18] (k = 12)
DenseNet [18] (k = 24)
DenseNet-BC [18] (k = 12)
DenseNet-BC [18] (k = 24)
DenseNet-BC [18] (k = 40)
AOGNet-4-(1,1,1)
AOGNet-4-(1,1,1)
AOGNet-4-(1,1,1)
AOGNet-4-(1,2,1)
AOGNet-BN-4-(1,1,1)
AOGNet-BN-4-(1,1,1)
AOGNet-BN-4-(1,2,1)
AOGNet-BN-4-(1,2,1)

Depth
110
110
164
1001
16
28
21
21
29
29
40
100
100
100
250
190
23
23
23
37
65
65
86
86

#Params
1.7M
1.7M
1.7M
10.2M
11.0M
36.5M
38.6M
38.6M
34.4M
68.1M
1.0M
7.0M
27.2M
0.8M
15.3M
25.6M
1.0M
8.1M
16.0M
32.1M
1.0M
8.0M
16.0M
32.5M

C10
6.61
6.41
5.46
4.62
4.81
4.17
5.22
4.60
3.65
3.58
5.24
4.10
3.74
4.51
3.62
3.46
5.29
4.02
3.79
3.74
4.74
3.99
3.78
3.66

C100
27.22
24.33
22.71
22.07
20.50
23.30
23.73
17.77
17.31
24.42
20.20
19.25
22.27
17.60
17.18
25.98
20.64
19.50
18.89
22.81
18.71
17.82
17.74

Table 1. Error rates (%) on the two CIFAR datasets [21]. #Params
uses the unit of Million. k in DenseNet refers to the growth rate.

Method
ResNet-101 [14]
ResNet-152 [14]
ResNet-200 [15]
WRN-50-2-bottleneck [43]
ResNeXt-101 [41]
DensetNet-161 [18] (k = 48)
DualPathNet-68 [6]
DualPathNet-92 [6]
AOGNet-BN-4-(1,1,1,1)

#Params
44.5M
60.2M
64.7M
68.9M
83.9M
27.9M
12.8M
38.0M
79.5M

top-1
23.6
23.0
21.7
21.9
20.4
22.2
23.57
20.73
21.49

top-5
7.1
6.7
5.8
6.03
5.3
6.93
5.37
5.76

Table 2. The top-1 and top-5 error rates (%) on the ImageNet-1K
validation set using single model and single-crop testing.

Residual Nets [14] consistently on both datasets, and
achieve comparable performance with the state-of-the-art
DenseNets [18] and ResNeXt [41]. Our AOGNets outperform Residual Nets even without using BN operators,
which shows the advantage of the hierarchical and compositional structure of AOG building blocks in representation learning. AOGNets are slightly worse than DenseNets
and we think that the main reason is that AND-nodes in
our current AOGNets consist of two child nodes only, thus
are less expressive in terms of exploring new features by
concatenating previous layers. One potential improvement
of AOGNets could be obtained by concatenating the entire
sub-graph rooted at each AND-node in learning, as well as
by extending the binary composition rule in constructing
AND-OR graphs. Another more straightforward way is to

07trainval/07test
07+12trainval/07test
07+12trainval/12test

Method
ResNet-101∗
AOGNet-BN-4-(1,1,1,1)
ResNet-101 [14]
ResNet-101∗
AOGNet-BN-4-(1,1,1,1)
ResNet-101∗
AOGNet-BN-4-(1,1,1,1)

mAP
74.7
77.6
76.4
78.4
81.2
75.1
77.9

areo
75.8
78.8
79.8
79.0
79.1
87.2
88.6

bike
81.6
83.4
80.7
81.9
86.5
83.1
85.7

bird
75.0
79.3
76.2
78.6
81.4
74.5
79.4

boat
67.4
66.1
68.3
69.1
73.4
60.1
66.6

bottle bus
60.1 81.4
65.2 85.9
55.9 85.1
66.4 85.5
70.5 87.4
58.3 80.3
63.2 83.6

car
85.6
87.4
85.3
87.9
88.9
80.1
82.2

cat
84.7
87.3
89.8
88.5
88.8
90.8
92.4

chair
59.7
62.6
56.7
65.0
68.4
57.5
59.0

cow
79.7
86.2
87.8
84.4
87.0
79.4
80.6

table
69.4
70.0
69.4
73.6
77.4
60.7
62.7

dog
84.4
87.6
88.3
85.6
88.3
88.7
90.4

horse
83.8
87.2
88.9
87.2
89.3
84.2
88.0

mbike person plant
79.3 79.1 47.6
81.6 79.5 51.7
80.9 78.4 41.7
84.3 79.7 50.9
85.1 83.5 55.6
84.1 82.6 52.5
85.7 84.7 57.6

sheep
73.7
77.7
78.6
77.6
83.8
76.9
79.7

sofa
74.1
78.0
79.8
80.1
82.2
67.4
70.0

train
77.9
80.7
85.3
85.3
86.1
84.4
87.2

tv
74.6
75.9
72.0
77.8
81.2
68.3
71.8

Table 3. Performance comparisons using Average Precision (AP) at the intersection over union (IoU) threshold 0.5 (AP@0.5) in the
PASCAL VOC2007 / VOC2012 dataset (using the protocol, competition ”comp4” trained with ImageNet pretrained models and using
only 2007 trainval or both 2007 and 2012 trainval datasets). ∗ reported based on our re-implementation for fair comparisons. The results
evaluated by the VOC2012 test server can be viewed at http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk:8080/anonymous/XHO7OS.html
(AOGNet-BN-4-(1,1,1,1)) and http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk:8080/anonymous/XMV4AI.html (ResNet-101).

adopt the inception module [36] like node operators as done
by the ResNeXt [41] w.r.t. ResNet [14] at the expense of
increasing model complexity significantly. We will investigate both of them in future work.

4.3. Experiments on ImageNet-1K
The ILSVRC 2012 classification dataset [31] consists of
about 1.2 million images for training, and 50,000 for validation, from 1,000 classes. We adopt the same data augmentation scheme for training images as done in [14, 15, 18],
and apply a single-crop with size 224 × 224 at test time.
Following the common protocol, we evaluate the top-1 and
top-5 classification error rates on the validation set.
We use AOGNet-BN with four stages for training the
ImageNet-1K dataset. Before entering the first AOG stage,
a 7 × 7 convolution layer with stride 2 and filter size 64 is
performed on the input image, and followed by a 3 × 3 max
pooling layer with stride 2. Similar to the network structure
for training CIFAR, in the first AOG block of each stage s
(s ≥ 2), the convolution operation of all the terminal nodes
in that block is performed with a stride 2. The intermediate
and output feature map sizes in the four stages are 56 × 56,
28 × 28, 14 × 14 and 7 × 7. The output channel width of
each four stages is set as 256, 512, 1024 and 2048.
We train the AOGNet with stochastic gradient descent
(SGD) for 120 epochs with parameters initialized by the
Xavier method [12]. The initial learning rate is set to 0.1,
and is divided by 10 at 30, 60 and 90 epoch respectively. We
set the batch size to 256 with weight decay 1 × 10−4 and
momentum 0.9.
Results and Analyses. Results and comparisons are
shown in Table 2. Our AOGNets obtain better performance than Residual Nets with comparable model complexities, and are comparable to ResNeXt. We did not test
the standard node operators on ImageNet-1K since bottleneck based node operators are consistently better on CIFAR datasets and we do not have enough GPU computing resource to train multiple models on ImageNet-1k before submission. Although we obtain slightly better performance than DenseNet and ResNet-200, our AOGNets use
more number of parameters than ResNet-200, and much

more than DenseNet. Dual Path Nets [6] outperform our
AOGNets in terms of both accuracy and model complexity. To reduce the model complexity, we will investigate
methods similar to the growth rate used in DenseNets and
Dual Path Nets when extending the binary composition rule
and applying the sub-graph based concatenation schema for
AND-nodes (as stated above). Furthermore, in our experiments, we used the same initial learning rate, the same
initialization method for parameters of the three types of
nodes, and other settings as done in training ResNet for
fair comparisons. Tuning those hyper-parameters w.r.t. our
AOGNets could improve performance potentially on ImageNet, which requires sufficiently large GPU computing resources of which we are short at present.

4.4. Object Detection on PASCAL VOC
We test the proposed AOGNets in object detection on
the PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 datasets [8]. We adopt
the vanilla Faster RCNN system [30] and reuse the code in
MXNet 1 . We only substitute the ConvNet backbone with
our AOGNets in experiments and keep everything else unchanged for fair comparison. We use the 4-stage AOGNetBN-4-(1,1,1,1) pretrained on ImageNet. We adopt the endto-end training procedure implemented in MXNet to train
the region proposal network (RPN) and RCNN jontly. The
first three stages are shared by RPN and RCNN, and the
last stage is used as the head classifier for region-of-interest
(RoI) prediction. We fix all parameters pretrained on ImageNet before stage 1 (inclusive) in training. We follow standard evaluation metrics Average Precision (AP) and mean
of AP (mAP) in the PASCAL challenge protocols for evaluation [8]. Table 3 shows the detection results and comparisons. Our AOGNets obtain better mAP than ResNet-101
by more than 2% consistently.

5. Conclusions and Discussions
This paper presented deep AND-OR grammar (AOG)
networks for visual recognition which, we term AOGNets,
consist of a number of stages of AOG building blocks. The
1 MXNet implmentation of Faster RCNN:https://github.com/
apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/master/example/rcnn

AOG building block is a simple yet effective representation
learning module implemented by a directed acyclic ANDOR graph adapted from [33, 39], which can explore new
features and exploit previously computed features in a hierarchical and compositional way, thus shed light on addressing the long-standing network architecture search problem in deep learning. The proposed AOGNets are tested
on three highly competitive image classification benchmarks, CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 [21], and ImageNet1k [31]. AOGNets obtain better performance than Residual Nets [14] and most of their variants, and are comparable
with the latest ResNeXt [41] and DenseNets [18]. AOGNets
are also tested on PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 [8] using
the vanilla Faster RCNN [30] system, and obtain better performance than Residual Nets.
Discussions. We hope this paper encourages further exploration in integrating compositional grammar models and
other structured knowledge representation and deep neural
networks end-to-end, especially to harness the explainable
rigor of the former and the discriminative power of the latter. In implementation, some interesting aspects that worth
investigating include, but not limited to, searching better
hyper-parameters in learning AOGNets (e.g., learning rate
and schedule, parameter initialization and batch size, etc),
conducting experiments with much larger AOGNets (deeper
and wider with different primitive size per stage), extending
binary composition rule in constructing AND-OR graphs,
adopting sub-graph based concatenation scheme for ANDnodes with predefined growth rate as done in DenseNet and
DPN, and using front-end stages from networks such as
ResNet, DenseNet and DPN before the first stage to further
boost the experssive power and to save memory footprint.

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

References
[1] S. Arora, A. Bhaskara, R. Ge, and T. Ma. Provable bounds
for learning some deep representations. In Proceedings of the
31th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML,
pages 584–592, 2014. 2
[2] P. Baldi and G. Pollastri. The principled design of large-scale
recursive neural network architectures–dag-rnns and the protein structure prediction problem. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 4:575–602, 2003. 3
[3] J. Bergstra, D. Yamins, and D. D. Cox. Making a science
of model search: Hyperparameter optimization in hundreds
of dimensions for vision architectures. In Proceedings of the
30th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML
2013, Atlanta, GA, USA, 16-21 June 2013, pages 115–123,
2013. 4
[4] K. Chatfield, K. Simonyan, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman.
Return of the devil in the details: Delving deep into convolutional nets. In British Machine Vision Conference, BMVC,
2014. 2, 3
[5] T. Chen, M. Li, Y. Li, M. Lin, N. Wang, M. Wang, T. Xiao,
B. Xu, C. Zhang, and Z. Zhang. Mxnet: A flexible and effi-

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]
[18]

cient machine learning library for heterogeneous distributed
systems. CoRR, abs/1512.01274, 2015. 6
Y. Chen, J. Li, H. Xiao, X. Jin, S. Yan, and J. Feng. Dual
path networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01629, 2017. 1, 2,
3, 7, 8
C. Cortes, X. Gonzalvo, V. Kuznetsov, M. Mohri, and
S. Yang. Adanet: Adaptive structural learning of artificial
neural networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International
Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW,
Australia, 6-11 August 2017, pages 874–883, 2017. 4
M. Everingham, S. M. Eslami, L. Gool, C. K. Williams,
J. Winn, and A. Zisserman. The pascal visual object classes
challenge: A retrospective. Int. J. Comput. Vision (IJCV),
111(1):98–136, Jan. 2015. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9
P. F. Felzenszwalb. Object detection grammars. In IEEE
International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops,
ICCV, page 691, 2011. 2, 4
K. Fukushima. Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position. Biological cybernetics,
36(4):193–202, 1980. 2
D. George, W. Lehrach, K. Kansky, M. Lázaro-Gredilla,
C. Laan, B. Marthi, X. Lou, Z. Meng, Y. Liu, H. Wang,
A. Lavin, and D. S. Phoenix. A generative vision model
that trains with high data efficiency and breaks text-based
captchas. Science, 2017. 4
X. Glorot and Y. Bengio. Understanding the difficulty of
training deep feedforward neural networks. In Proceedings
of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2010, Chia Laguna Resort,
Sardinia, Italy, May 13-15, 2010, pages 249–256, 2010. 7, 8
A. Graves and J. Schmidhuber. Offline handwriting recognition with multidimensional recurrent neural networks. In
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21,
Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference on
Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, December 8-11, 2008, pages 545–552,
2008. 3
K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning
for image recognition. In IEEE Conference on Computer
Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7,
8, 9
K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Identity mappings in
deep residual networks. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2016
- 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV, pages 630–645,
2016. 7, 8
G. Hinton. What is wrong with convolutional neural nets?
the 2017 - 2018 Machine Learning Advances and Applications Seminar presented by the Vector Institute at U of
Toronto, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqt8fs6ZbHk,
August 17, 2017. 2
J. Hu, L. Shen, and G. Sun. Squeeze-and-excitation networks. CoRR, abs/1709.01507, 2017. 4
G. Huang, Z. Liu, L. van der Maaten, and K. Q. Weinberger.
Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings
of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2017. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9

[19] G. Huang, Y. Sun, Z. Liu, D. Sedra, and K. Q. Weinberger.
Deep networks with stochastic depth. In Computer Vision ECCV 2016 - 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV,
pages 646–661, 2016. 3, 7
[20] S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating
deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift.
In D. Blei and F. Bach, editors, Proceedings of the 32nd
International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-15),
pages 448–456. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2015. 3
[21] A. Krizhevsky and G. Hinton. Learning multiple layers of
features from tiny images. Master’s thesis, Department of
Computer Science, University of Toronto, 2009. 3, 6, 7, 9
[22] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton. Imagenet
classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In
Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pages 1106–
1114, 2012. 1, 2, 3
[23] B. M. Lake, R. Salakhutdinov, and J. B. Tenenbaum. Humanlevel concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science, 2015. 4
[24] B. M. Lake, T. D. Ullman, J. B. Tenenbaum, and S. J. Gershman. Building machines that learn and think like people.
CoRR, abs/1604.00289, 2016. 4
[25] G. Larsson, M. Maire, and G. Shakhnarovich. Fractalnet: Ultra-deep neural networks without residuals. CoRR,
abs/1605.07648, 2016. 3, 7
[26] Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner. Gradientbased learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998. 1, 3
[27] M. Lin, Q. Chen, and S. Yan. Network in network. CoRR,
abs/1312.4400, 2013. 3
[28] H. Mendoza, A. Klein, M. Feurer, J. T. Springenberg, and
F. Hutter. Towards automatically-tuned neural networks. In
Proceedings of the 2016 Workshop on Automatic Machine
Learning, AutoML 2016, co-located with 33rd International
Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2016), New York
City, NY, USA, June 24, 2016, pages 58–65, 2016. 4
[29] A. Newell, K. Yang, and J. Deng. Stacked hourglass networks for human pose estimation. CoRR, abs/1603.06937,
2016. 4
[30] S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS),
2015. 1, 3, 8, 9
[31] O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh,
S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. Bernstein,
A. C. Berg, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge. Int. J. Comput. Vision (IJCV),
115(3):211–252, 2015. 3, 6, 8, 9
[32] S. Sabour, N. Frosst, and G. E Hinton. Dynamic Routing
Between Capsules. ArXiv e-prints, Oct. 2017. 2
[33] X. Song, T. Wu, Y. Jia, and S. Zhu. Discriminatively trained
and-or tree models for object detection. In Proceedings
of 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition (CVPR), pages 3278–3285, 2013. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9
[34] R. K. Srivastava, K. Greff, and J. Schmidhuber. Highway
networks. CoRR, abs/1505.00387, 2015. 3

[35] P. D. Summers. A methodology for LISP program construction from examples. J. ACM, 24(1):161–175, 1977. 4
[36] C. Szegedy, S. Ioffe, and V. Vanhoucke. Inception-v4,
inception-resnet and the impact of residual connections on
learning. CoRR, abs/1602.07261, 2016. 1, 2, 3, 8
[37] C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P. Sermanet, S. E. Reed,
D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V. Vanhoucke, and A. Rabinovich.
Going deeper with convolutions. In IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2015,
Boston, MA, USA, June 7-12, 2015, pages 1–9, 2015. 3
[38] F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz, and B. W. Porter, editors.
Handbook of Knowledge Representation, volume 3 of Foundations of Artificial Intelligence. Elsevier, 2008. 2, 4
[39] T. Wu, Y. Lu, and S. Zhu. Online object tracking, learning
and parsing with and-or graphs. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal.
Mach. Intell. (PAMI), DOI: 10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2644963,
2016. 2, 3, 9
[40] L. Xie and A. L. Yuille.
Genetic CNN.
CoRR,
abs/1703.01513, 2017. 4
[41] S. Xie, R. B. Girshick, P. Dollár, Z. Tu, and K. He. Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks.
CoRR, abs/1611.05431, 2016. 3, 7, 8, 9
[42] S. Yang and D. Ramanan. Multi-scale recognition with dagcnns. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer
Vision, ICCV 2015, Santiago, Chile, December 7-13, 2015,
pages 1215–1223, 2015. 4
[43] S. Zagoruyko and N. Komodakis. Wide residual networks. In
Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2016,
BMVC 2016, York, UK, September 19-22, 2016, 2016. 3, 7
[44] X. Zhang, Z. Li, C. C. Loy, and D. Lin. Polynet: A pursuit of structural diversity in very deep networks. CoRR,
abs/1611.05725, 2016. 3
[45] L. Zhu, Y. Chen, Y. Lu, C. Lin, and A. L. Yuille. Max margin AND/OR graph learning for parsing the human body. In
2008 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2008. 2, 4
[46] S. C. Zhu and D. Mumford. A stochastic grammar of images.
Foundations and Trends in Computer Graphics and Vision,
2(4):259–362, 2006. 1, 2, 4
[47] B. Zoph and Q. V. Le. Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations, 2016. 2, 4

