Enhancing the Performance of Convolutional
Neural Networks on Quality Degraded Datasets
Jonghwa Yim

Kyung-Ah Sohn

Department of Computer Engineering
Ajou University
Suwon, Republic of Korea
jonhwayim@ajou.ac.kr

Department of Software and Computer Engineering
Ajou University
Suwon, Republic of Korea
kasohn@ajou.ac.kr

Abstract—Despite the appeal of deep neural networks that largely
replace the traditional handmade filters, they still suffer from isolated
cases that cannot be properly handled only by the training of
convolutional filters. Abnormal factors, including real-world noise,
blur, or other quality degradations, ruin the output of a neural network.
These unexpected problems can produce critical complications, and it
is surprising that there has only been minimal research into the effects
of noise in the deep neural network model. Therefore, we present an
exhaustive investigation into the effect of noise in image classification
and suggest a generalized architecture of a dual-channel model to
treat quality degraded input images. We compare the proposed dualchannel model with a simple single model and show it improves the
overall performance of neural networks on various types of quality
degraded input datasets.
Keywords—Image classification, Quality distortion, Noisy input,
Deep neural network, Convolutional network, Image preprocessing

I. INTRODUCTION
Recently, emerging convolutional neural networks (CNNs)
have outpaced previous approaches in many problems in
computer vision, including image classification, object detection,
and object segmentation problems. The deep neural network
model became possible due to powerful GPUs, which allow us
to stack deep layers and process various features from the image
data. Owing to the high performance of convolutional networks,
the deep neural network model is applied to many practical
problems; some of these require high confidence and extremely
low error rates. This includes the real-time classification of
autonomous cars or face recognition in a security system. Until
now, the existing imaging solutions cannot be used to replace
human resources completely due to unexpected errors. Despite
the current achievements in the use of deep convolutional
networks for image classification or object detection tasks, and
that theoretically these networks outpace human recognition
accuracy, their use in real-world applications is error-prone as
their real performance is yet to be confirmed and particularly on
quality degraded input images. Moreover, in previous research
[1], the performance of the existing popular convolutional
network model was severely affected by quality degraded input
images, even if it was not visible. There are many factors that
may have a negative impact on the existing network model—
noise in the image, JPEG compression loss, blurred image, etc.
These problems occur naturally in real-world situations,
This work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of
Education [NRF-2016R1D1A1B03933875].

significantly lowering the performance compared to that as
reported in [1]. Therefore, without solving these problems,
which are different from the problems of human recognition, the
current deep neural network model is unreliable.
In this study, we analyze the effects of image quality on the
performance of a state-of-the-art convolutional network in an
image classification task and suggest a novel architecture to
overcome the effects. We choose three popular noise types and
JPEG lossy compression that can be easily seen in real-world
images, which represent low quality. Because there are several
factors that generate different types of noise, we use the most
common sources of noise that can be seen in the real world—
Gaussian, salt-and-pepper (or impulse), and speckle noise. We
then investigate the performance degradation in popular neural
network models and experiment with the most common input
image preprocessing to enhance the performance of the image
classification under noisy environments.
We choose the three most common input image denoising
methods to make the neural network model robust to quality
degradation. The reason for choosing these common denoising
methods is that they boost the edges and outlines of an object
while suppressing the smaller details. Therefore, we can expect
the features from these denoised and outline-enhanced images
not to contain any type of quality distortion. We then propose a
dual-channel architecture with outline-enhanced input and make
a comparison of the small variations in the proposed architecture
and its training methods. To generalize our proposed model, we
test it with various quality inputs, including an original image
dataset, and verify that the model is robust to any type of input
quality degradation. We choose three different image denoising
methods and verify their effectiveness to strengthen our
hypothesis of using an outline-enhanced image.
II. RELATED WORK
The emergence of the CNN suggests that the neural network
model can substitute human labor because the current neural
network model has capabilities similar to those of humans. Since
its development, there have been a few attempts to explain the
vulnerable property of the current neural network model. In an
image-understanding task, the convolutional network does not
perform as expected when applied to real-world problems. The
study by Dodge & Karam [1] showed that image quality, even
without visible differences, affected the deep neural network in

a negative way and the displayed image output was different
from the same image without quality degradation. In the study,
the author divided the quality degrading factors into five types:
blur, noise, contrast, JPEG compression, and JPEG 2000
compression, none of which disturbed the object identity
perceived by a human. What is interesting is that all five types
of quality degradation significantly lowered the output labels of
the convolutional network. In addition, the study revealed that
the filter responses at the upper layers are slightly different
compared to the ones from the original undistorted image.
Therefore, suppressing the noise or treating the low-quality
input image is an unresolved problem that cannot be treated
solely by existing convolutional operations.
Proving the effects of the noise in image recognition tasks is
a problem not only in CNNs but also in traditional feature
extraction methods. The previous paper by da Costa et al. [2]
exhaustively researched the effects of different types of noise on
the traditional feature extraction methods such as local binary
pattern (LBP) and histogram of oriented gradient (HOG). These
methods were used extensively in image recognition tasks prior
to the use of CNNs. Their study concentrated on the adverse
effects of noise on feature extractions of the LBP and HOG
methods. They then trained a support vector machine (SVM)
classifier for every version of their training set, and each version
of a training set had only one type of noise. This setup enabled
each model to be specialized for each different type of noise. As
a result of this experimental setup and their detailed research,
they hypothesized that the performance of a classifier is hindered
by a noisy image dataset; the models derived from a clean image
dataset are not generalized enough to classify all types of input
images and are not robust to noise; and that the study
demonstrated image denoising methods. After executing an
input image denoising method on a noisy image dataset, the
classification performance increased but not sufficiently to
obtain the original performance of the original dataset. The
authors assumed that this could be due to the loss of details and
textures caused by the denoising methods.
Convolutional filters are designed to learn countless
numbers of different filters that cannot be designed exclusively
by the human hand. A previous study [3] to train filters that can
treat various noise on images divided the tasks into two types:
near-duplicate detection and image classification. Then the
target network was trained with a noisy image dataset. This
resulted in the learnt model being resistant to the input noise that
the model was trained on. Therefore, this provided evidence that
the model could learn the type or pattern of noises and become
robust to these. However, the study focused only on pre-defined
types of noise to train the model. Moreover, it reduced the
accuracy of the original dataset without noise.
There are many known ways to improve the performance of
existing models by creating small variations. After capturing an
image using real-world sensor, it will acquire certain types of
noise. In traditional image processing methods, there are
numerous techniques to treat such problems. Moreover, there are
trials [4], which designed and implemented image processing
methods with denoising and deblurring methods on a deep
neural network model. They proposed a combined architecture
for image classification tasks, demonstrating a resistant property
under sparse light conditions.

In a recent study [5], the author suggested an ensemble
model containing specialized models for each quality
degradation. This is progress toward a quality resilient model,
but still requires every type of expected quality-distorted dataset
at the training time. Moreover, they used the VGG16 model [6]
which is a shallower network compared to recent network
models. More recent deeper neural network models, such as
Inception network [7] or Resnet [8], are more appropriate to
verify the effectiveness against the original model.
III. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
A. Image Preprocessing
There have been many previous attempts to solve the
problem of a noisy or distorted image dataset. For example, the
studies [3], [9] focused on the fine-tuning of the neural network
model to make it robust to noise, and others, such as [4],
attempted to modify the design of the neural network model by
adding a novel image processing module ahead of neural
network model. We focused on image preprocessing techniques,
such as image denoising, to consider real-world images from an
imperfect image-capturing device. We will focus on
demonstrating that the previous image processing techniques
also improve the output of the neural network model. Because
the most recent neural network model has very deep layers, over
one hundred layers, and has various filters that can extract the
various spatial properties of an image, traditional denoising
filters may not work on the deep neural network. Therefore, we
pick three common denoising methods and attach these before
the neural network module.
Nonlocal filtering [10] uses redundant information to
suppress noise by performing a weighted average of all pixel
values in the image, and by determining the similarities of these
pixels to the target pixel. Meanwhile, bilateral filtering [11]
performs noise suppressing and smooths images while
preserving the edges by replacing the intensity value at each
pixel in an image with a weighted average of intensity values
from nearby pixels. Lastly, a total variation denoising method
[12] reduces the total variation of the abnormal signal to remove
any unwanted details and noise while preserving the edges and
important details. This is done using the hypothesis that a
suspicious signal with excessive detail may have a high total
variation. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the sample output using
all three denoising methods. In later sections, nonlocal filtering,
bilateral filtering, and total variation denoising are simply
mentioned as preprocessing “1”, “2”, and “3” respectively.
Denoising methods commonly enhance edges and outlines
but suppress details and perturbations. Therefore, all three
common denoising methods generate an outline-enhanced
image dataset. Therefore, the features that are extracted from this
dataset have an augmented property of the object shape. If these
outline-enhanced features are added to the features from the
original image dataset, the robustness of the neural network is
improved against quality degradations or small perturbations.
Figure 1 illustrates the sample image with the three different
methods. Although we can see a clear difference from the
original image, all three methods preserved the edges and outline

Figure 1. Sample images of the four preprocessing methods. The top-left
image is the original image. The sample results in the panels were
obtained using nonlocal filtering (top-right), bilateral filtering (bottomleft), and the total variation denoising method (bottom-right).

B. Base Neural Network Model
It is not surprising that models, which have won worldwide
competitions in image classification, are generally used in
research and many related industries. One of the popular
competitions in image classification and object detection is the
ImageNet challenge, ILSVRC [13]. In 2014 ILSVRC [13], a
novel model [7], having network in network architecture, won
the challenge. Shortly afterwards, an improved version
Inception-v3 [14] broke records and is the most widely used
model today. The Inception-v3 model scores 21.2% top-1 and
5.6% top-5 errors for image classification and attains
computational efficiency while expanding and maintaining
receptive fields by using asymmetric filters. As shown in Figure
3, the Inception-v3 network consists of micromodules that have
many asymmetric filters. The goal of this network in network
architecture is to act as a multilevel feature extractor by
computing 1 × 1, 3 × 3, and 5 × 5 convolutions within the same
module of the network. Because it consists of many differentsized small filters, shown in Figure 4, it is assumed to have a
strong representation power leading the model, and should be
resistant to small perturbations or quality degradation. Therefore,
we use the Inception-v3 model in our experiment. If the
preprocessing or denoising methods are effective in this model,
it will have capabilities above and beyond the most recent neural
networks. We also use the pretrained models, which are publicly
available.

Figure 3. Inception-3v network architecture. It is comprised of filters
with various shapes including a 1 × 1 identity convolutional operation.

Figure 2. Enlargement of the sample image. While all three methods tend
to maintain edges and shapes of object, each method has its own property
to suppress details and perturbations. If we look into the parts and
features of the sample image, compared to the second method, the first
method heavily removes the details.

shape. However, the first nonlocal filtering method, tended to
wipe out the lines and partial details of the objects inconsistently.
These inconsistencies in maintaining the details are reflected in
the results and are discussed later.

Figure 4. Inception inner network modules. This architecture has n size
asymmetric filters to aggregate spatial information while preserving
representational power. These mini networks replace n × n convolutions
and perform better with less computation than symmetric filters.

C. Quality Degradation
An imperfect environment during the image acquisition
process leads to a ruined image. For example, real-world
imaging devices often suffer from many types of noise or
blurring. In particular, different environmental conditions
produce different types of quality degradation. Under various
environmental situations, there can be detrimental factors
relating to temperature, light conditions, sensor sensitivity, and
improper IOS settings. In addition, noise can appear in the image
due to the transmitted signals moving through the electrical
circuit. Furthermore, the image quality loss can occur even by
compressing the image into a small size JPEG file to obtain
additional memory space. We therefore must include these
possible quality degradation factors; image noise and JPEG
compression are the most common factors. There are several
existing models that can reproduce different types of real-world
noise.
We used the three most common noise models: Gaussian,
speckle, and salt-and-pepper (or impulse) noise. The Gaussian
noise model is the most common model that represents general
noise in image data. The major causes of Gaussian noise are
undesirable environmental factors, such as an unfavorable
temperature, poor illumination, or noisy transmission leading to
sensor noise. Speckle noise may occur in an active radar,
synthetic aperture radar, medical ultrasound, or optical
coherence tomography images. Salt-and-pepper noise, also
called impulse noise, occurs during digital signal transmission
or processing. Note that all these are pixel-wise noise, while
JPEG compression generates distorted lines or color fragments
as seen in Figure 5. We also used four levels of noise and a JPEG
compression rate ranging from a mild to heavy noise level. We
chose the levels of the parameters manually. The samples of the
four intensities are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 5. Four types of quality distortions. The panels show the samples
with Gaussian noise (top-left), speckle noise (top-right), impulse noise
(bottom-left), and JPEG compression (bottom-right)

IV. METHOD
A. Single Model with Image Preprocessing
The current CNN creates less accuracy in the images that
contain quality loss or noise, even if it was rarely recognizable.
Traditionally image-denoising methods have been used to treat
noisy images. Denoising suppresses the small details and
perturbations, and enhances the edges. This operation can
basically be represented as a blurring of the image, followed by
the enhancement of the edges. Therefore, the resultant image
emphasizes edges and suppressed details, thereby suppressing
the noise in the image.
Although denoising methods have been verified as an
effective way to suppress noise, it is unknown if they will be
effective when grafted onto a deep neural network. For this
reason, we will first perform the input image denoising before
grafting it onto the neural network. With this single-model
architecture, we empirically prove that training and testing with
the denoising method can produce a model robust to some types
of noise. Given that it may also be resistant to common qualitydistortions, we additionally prepared JPEG compression loss.
However, it does not show the general resistant property; it only
demonstrates a partial improvement. Consequently, we then
propose a dual-channel architecture with a use of outlineenhanced input image.

Figure 6. Four degrees of distortion. We used four degrees of the
distortion level for each of the quality distortions. The sample image is a
result of the Gaussian noise with four levels. The numbering refers to the
intensity of distortion.

B. Dual-Channel Architecture
When the target image goes through the CNN module, we
can extract various features before going into the fully connected
layer. The features include the edges, blobs, or any other details
obtained through the convolutional operation. Particularly, in a

2-dimensional (2D) image, convolutional operation is the same
as filtering every small region of an image. Therefore, with the
deep convolutional network model, we expect the model to have
various filters capable of extracting numerous features.
While we can attain many levels of features, from low-level
features to high-level features, from an image the obtained
features from the outline-enhanced image can be robust to noise
and quality degradation. In addition, the denoising method
enhances the edges and outlines of an object while suppressing
the details or perturbations distributed in the image.
A single model, without a model ensemble, trained and finetuned with a noise-suppressed input dataset may reduce the
quality of the output from the network on the original image
dataset. Although the single model has been proven partially
effective for input distortion, we require more stability against
all types of quality degradation, including on the original dataset.
We designed a new model to maintain the performance on the
original image dataset and to utilize the outline-enhanced image
that may be robust to all types of noisy input images. This dualchannel model can augment features extracted from the outlineenhanced image, and the architecture is shown in Figure 7. Our
ensemble method is similar to the multi-column neural network
[15], but differs in that our architecture requires two different
inputs from both the outline-enhanced and original image
datasets.
The features from the denoised image can be made robust
against small perturbations or distortions. To generalize our
dual-channel model, we performed broad experiments with all
three image-denoising methods that can smooth the image while
preserving strong edges as stated in Section III. Then, to enable
our model to maintain a high performance on the original image
dataset, we also used the original image. Therefore, we pose
input image preprocessing on one side and pass the original
images on the other side. After the model extracted features from
each side of the dual-channel, we merged the two features before
they went through the final fully connected layer. Then, we
trained the top fully connected layer and fine-tuned the first side,
which was adjusted to input image preprocessing. With the

dual-channel architecture, the model can provide stable accuracy
on any dataset.
There are two different ways of merging the two sides in our
architecture. The first method is as follows: before going into the
fully connected layer, the dimension of the layer is 2048, and
one can concatenate two 2048 2-d vectors to form 4096
dimensional feature maps. The advantage of concatenation is
that all the available features are utilized from both sides through
the fully connected layer. However, this method creates a
computational burden. Therefore, we designed a dual-channel
using feature summation. We also compared both methods in
this study.
C. Training with Fine-tuning
We utilized a pre-trained model for the Inception-v3
architecture, and the input image for our architecture was a
denoised image dataset with different properties than those of
the original image dataset. Therefore, we needed to fine-tune the
entire model. To obtain generality and prove that the
preprocessing module makes the CNN model robust to any types
of quality distortion, we did not use a noisy image dataset during
the training phase. The dual-channel model consists of two CNN
models with a concatenation layer and a fully connected layer at
the top. Therefore, there were only a few combinations of
training the model. The methods were as follows. Firstly,
method “1” is training the entire model at the same time.
Secondly, method “2” is fine-tuning the left side first, and then
training fully connected layer few more times. Lastly, method
“3” is training the fully connected layer before fine-tuning the
left side model. After testing these methods, we found that the
method “3” was the most effective strategy.
For the first one or two epochs, we only trained the fully
connected layer for the 50-class classification. Then, to fit the
model with the preprocessed input, we fine-tuned the entire
model with a low learning rate. The dual-channel model takes
two different input images at the bottom. In this case, we only
fine-tuned the model that takes an outline-enhanced image as the
input, but not the original model.
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A. Dataset
We performed an experiment using our dual-channel model
on the ImageNet 2012 classification dataset to compare with the
competition results of ILSVRC [13]. The classification dataset
of ImageNet 2012 supports 1000 object classes. We randomly
chose 50 out of the 1000 classes for computational efficiency.
This is because our model required preprocessing at the training
stage and we had to repeat the training epoch many times for the
broad experiment. During the training stage, we fed clean
images into the original model and preprocessed images into the
augmented model. Then, during the testing stage, we imposed
four different types of quality distortions previously introduced
in section 3 to measure the performance. Note that we did not
use the distorted image datasets at the training stage.

Figure 7. Dual channel architecture with two inputs. The original model
takes the original unprocessed image. The augmented model has a
preprocessing module at the bottom of the model, and therefore uses a
denoised image as an input.

B. Training the Model
Because our dual-channel architecture consisted of two
models, we trained and fine-tuned each of them. Among the few
different strategies available to train the two models, we

empirically found that method “3” in previous section, training
the fully connected layer first and sequentially fine-tuning the
first model, is the most effective strategy. While training the
entire model made it difficult for the model to converge, it is
interesting that training only the fully connected layer was
almost as effective as our training strategy. Therefore, training
only the final fully connected layer, without fine-tuning the
entire model, is also a second effective strategy.

robust to any types of input image distortions, even if the
distorted image is not used at the training stage.

Using the first strategy, we trained the fully connected layer
for two epochs on a subset of ImageNet 2012 dataset with an
initial learning rate of 0.009. We then exponentially reduced the
training rate by dividing by nine at the end of every epoch. Then
we fine-tuned the entire model for additional epochs until
convergence.

As stated earlier, there are two different ways of merging the

In Figure 9, the preprocessing method "1" produced less
improvement because it removed important details of the object
inconsistently and, unlike the other two methods, diluted the key
edges of an object. The preprocessing method "2" with bilateral
filtering showed the best results as with the sample image.

C. Evaluation Metric
The top-1 accuracy metric is the most common and widely
used metric for image classification. It measures the mean value
of the hit ratio out of the total number of test images. The
ILSVRC dataset supports 1000 classes of objects. This dataset
sometimes includes objects that cannot be defined. Therefore,
we used a top-5 accuracy metric as well as the top-1 accuracy
metric. We also reduced the total number of classes to 50 by
randomly choosing the classes from the 1000 object classes.
Therefore, we used the top-1 metric in our experiment.
D. Results
Firstly, we tried to verify our hypothesis on a single model
fine-tuned with a preprocessed image. Then we performed a
number of experiments with quality-distorted image datasets.
The quality-distorted image datasets were not used at the
training stage. The results of the single model are shown in
Figure 8. We measured the model accuracy on the original
dataset as well as the quality-degraded datasets. The quality
distortions have four levels for the intensity value from one to
four. We abbreviate intensity to ‘Int.’ in Figure 8 and 9 and
preprocessing to ‘Prep.’ in Table 1. Each intensity value is
represented as Int. “1”, “2”, “3”, and “4”. We show a comparison
between the models using the image preprocessing method with
the original model, using accuracy ratio graphs with the original
model. Therefore, the value for original model is always one.
In Figure 8, the preprocessing methods show better accuracy
in several cases. However, the results do not conclusively prove
that preprocessing is the better method. Therefore, we designed
dual-channel architecture and the results are given in Table 1 and
for comparison, the ratio graph is shown in Figure 9. The
standard black line is the original model without any
preprocessing.
The results of the single-model experiment suggest that it is
not an appropriate model to use for image preprocessing of a
noisy image dataset. Moreover, the single model setup reduces
the performance using the original image dataset causing the
model to be underfit. However, the dual-channel model, which
was expected to have additional features from the outlineenhanced image, shows better performance than the original
model on the noisy image dataset. Moreover, the dual channel
model shows a comparable performance on a clean image
dataset. The results of this experiment show that the model is

Figure 8. The result of a single model. The results are shown by ratio to
the accuracy of original model. Single model architecture is only partially
effective against quality distortions. Preprocessing 1 is nonlocal filtering,
2 is bilateral filtering, and 3 is total variation denoising method

Table 1. The results of the dual-channel architecture. We used three models with three image-preprocessing methods against four distortions. Table (a)
has Gaussian noise; (b) has Speckle noise; (c) has Salt-and-pepper noise; and (d) includes JPEG compression.

Intensity

1

2

3

4

Intensity

1

2

3

4

Original

64.74

48.15

35.53

27.59

Original

66.70

57.53

51.36

47.19

Prep.1

64.98

48.48

36.82

27.93

Prep.1

66.71

58.42

53.13

48.21

Prep.2

68.79

53.57

40.84

30.7

Prep.2

69.11

60.55

55.38

49.85

Prep.3

68.44

51.37

38.87

27.7

Prep.3

66.59

58.38

51.89

47.69

(a)

(b)

Intensity

1

2

3

4

Intensity

1

2

3

4

Original

70.95

54.88

40.54

30.36

Original

88.22

87.90

82.61

63.90

Prep.1

71.56

55.15

42.03

32.1

Prep.1

88.46

87.94

83.38

66.15

Prep.2

72.88

58.78

46.16

33.62

Prep.2

89.06

88.46

84.06

67.87

Prep.3

72.92

56.90

43.15

33.74

Prep.3

88.78

87.78

84.34

66.19

(c)

(d)

Figure 9. The result of dual-channel architecture compared to the original model. The ratio graph visualize the performance gain of our
architecture. In general, our dual-channel models with an image preprocessing module records better accuracy compared to the original model.

two sides in our architecture. One is the summation of two
features from the dual-channel; the other is concatenation of the
two features. Table 2 summarizes a comparison of these two.
Table 2. Comparison of two different merging methods. The intensity
level is set to “2” and preprocessing bilateral filtering is applied.

Distortion

Gaussian

Speckle

Impulse

JPEG

Concatenation

53.57

60.55

58.78

88.46

Summation

47.85

52.81

56.82

88.34

The results show that the feature concatenation is far more
effective in our architecture than feature summation.
VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this study, we introduced two different solutions to
enhance the performance of image classification. In a real-world
classification task, a deep neural network often indicates reduced
accuracy. The problem is that real-world images often include
noise or quality loss. We proposed an input image denoising
method and dual-channel architecture to achieve a stable

performance of image classification in a real-world task. We
chose the most common image denoising methods to investigate
the integrity of the input image preprocessing. However, a
preprocessing method on its own did not produce any significant
improvement. The preprocessing method proved successful only
in the form of our dual-channel structure.
The dual-channel model contains extra features from the
outline-enhanced image that are expected to be robust to quality
distortion. Our hypothesis was based on the intuition that
outlines, edges, and color components of the object are enhanced
even after quality loss. Moreover, because our architecture
utilized an outline-enhanced image as an augmented feature as
well as the original image, our dual-channel architecture did not
reduce the accuracy of the original image dataset while
achieving better records of all types of quality distortion. This is
meaningful in that the model did not depend on the type of noise
used in the training phase. Therefore, we interpret our
architecture as a generalized model for any types of quality loss.
Our current dual-channel architecture for image
classification is comprised of a neural network model and a
separate preprocessing module. Therefore, in future, we intend
to design architecture with end-to-end learning structures and
define other preprocessing modules as well. In the current
research, we used well-known denoising methods as a
preprocessing module to emphasize the outlines and edges and
as a method to reinforce the specific features. If we are
successful in developing a customized preprocessing module,
better results are expected. In this study, the target task was the
image classification within the image. In future, we aim to apply
our architecture to semantic segmentation [16] or object
detection [17] for further generalization.

recognition,” in International Conference on Learning
Representations, 2015.
[7]

C. Szegedy et al., “Going deeper with convolutions,”
in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer
vision and pattern recognition, 2015, pp. 1–9.

[8]

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual
learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778.

[9]

Y. Zhou, S. Song, and N.-M. Cheung, “On
classification of distorted images with deep
convolutional neural networks,” eprint
arXiv:1701.01924, 2017.

[10]

A. Buades, B. Coll, and J.-M. Morel, “A non-local
algorithm for image denoising,” in Computer Vision
and Pattern Recognition, 2005. IEEE Computer
Society Conference on, 2005, vol. 2, pp. 60–65.

[11]

C. Tomasi and R. Manduchi, “Bilateral filtering for
gray and color images,” in Computer Vision, 1998.
Sixth International Conference on, 1998, pp. 839–846.

[12]

A. Chambolle, “An algorithm for total variation
minimization and applications,” J. Math. Imaging Vis.,
vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 89–97, 2004.

[13]

O. Russakovsky et al., “Imagenet large scale visual
recognition challenge,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 115,
no. 3, pp. 211–252, 2015.

[14]

C. Szegedy, V. Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, and Z.
Wojna, “Rethinking the inception architecture for
computer vision,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2016, pp. 2818–2826.

[15]

D. Ciregan, U. Meier, and J. Schmidhuber, “Multicolumn deep neural networks for image
classification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2012, pp. 3642–3649.

REFERENCE

[1]

S. Dodge and L. Karam, “Understanding how image
quality affects deep neural networks,” in Quality of
Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), 2016 Eighth
International Conference on, 2016, pp. 1–6.

[2]

G. B. P. da Costa, W. A. Contato, T. S. Nazare, J. E.
S. Neto, and M. Ponti, “An empirical study on the
effects of different types of noise in image
classification tasks,” eprint arXiv:1609.02781, 2016.

[3]

S. Zheng, Y. Song, T. Leung, and I. Goodfellow,
“Improving the robustness of deep neural networks via
stability training,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2016, pp. 4480–4488.

[16]

J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, “Fully
convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer
Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2015, vol. 07–12–
June, pp. 3431–3440.

[4]

S. Diamond, V. Sitzmann, S. Boyd, G. Wetzstein, and
F. Heide, “Dirty pixels: Optimizing image
classification architectures for raw sensor data,” eprint
arXiv:1701.06487, 2017.

[17]

[5]

S. Dodge and L. Karam, “Quality Resilient Deep
Neural Networks,” eprint arXiv1703.08119, 2017.

R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik,
“Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection
and semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2014, pp. 580–587.

[6]

A. Simonyan, Karen and Zisserman, “Very deep
convolutional networks for large-scale image

