FD-MOBILENET: IMPROVED MOBILENET WITH A FAST DOWNSAMPLING STRATEGY
Zheng Qin, Zhaoning Zhang, Xiaotao Chen, Yuxing Peng
Science and Technology on Parallel and Distributed Laboratory,
National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China

arXiv:1802.03750v1 [cs.CV] 11 Feb 2018

ABSTRACT
We present Fast-Downsampling MobileNet (FD-MobileNet), an efficient and accurate network for very limited computational budgets
(e.g., 10-140 MFLOPs). Our key idea is applying a fast downsampling strategy to MobileNet framework. In FD-MobileNet, we
perform 32× downsampling within 12 layers, only half the layers
in the original MobileNet. This design brings three advantages: (i)
It remarkably reduces the computational cost. (ii) It increases the
information capacity and achieves significant performance improvements. (iii) It is engineering-friendly and provides fast actual inference speed. Experiments on ILSVRC 2012 and PASCAL VOC 2007
datasets demonstrate that FD-MobileNet consistently outperforms
MobileNet and achieves comparable results with ShuffleNet under
different computational budgets, for instance, surpassing MobileNet by 5.5% on the ILSVRC 2012 top-1 accuracy and 3.6% on the
VOC 2007 mAP under a complexity of 12 MFLOPs. On an ARMbased device, FD-MobileNet achieves 1.11× inference speedup over
MobileNet and 1.82× over ShuffleNet under the same complexity.
Index Terms— Computer vision, convolutional neural network,
deep learning
1. INTRODUCTION
Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have become one of
the most important methods in computer vision tasks such as image
classification [1, 2, 3, 4], object detection [5, 6, 7, 8] and semantic
segmentation [9, 10]. However, state-of-the-art CNNs require enormous computational resources and huge model sizes, which prevents
them from being deployed on mobile or embedded devices.
For this reason, the inference-time compression and acceleration
of deep neural networks has attracted the attention of the deep learning community in recent years. The related work is conventionally
categorized into four classes. Tensor decomposition methods [11,
12] factorize a convolutional layer into several smaller convolutional
layers, which reduces the overall complexity and the number of parameters. This class of methods conventionally involve a low-rank
estimation process and a fine-tuning process, leading to a slow training procedure. Parameter quantization methods [13, 14] propose to
utilize low-precision parameters in neural networks and provide significant theoretical speedup and enormous memory savings. However, current hardware is not well optimized for low-precision computation so specific hardware is required for quantization methods to
achieve an ideal speedup. Network pruning methods [15, 16] attempt
to discover and alleviate parameter and structure redundancy in deep
neural networks. Early pruning approaches adopt an unstructured
pruning scheme and induces random memory accesses, which is not
Correspondence should be addressed to Zhaoning Zhang (Email:
zzningxp@gmail.com).

well supported by current hardware. Recent research on network
pruning mainly focuses on structured pruning to leverage existing
hardware. At last, compact networks [17, 18, 19] are specifically
designed to employ both accurate and computationally economical
networks on mobile or embedded devices.
Unlike the other methods which are mainly focused on compressing pre-trained models, compact networks can be trained from
scratch. Additionally, compact networks are orthogonal to the other
methods and can be further accelerated. In view of these advantages, various compact network architectures have been proposed.
Among these networks, MobileNet [18] and ShuffleNet [19] achieve
the state-of-the-art performance.
ShuffleNet is composed of a variant of the bottleneck unit [3]
named the ShuffleNet unit. The ShuffleNet unit utilizes bypass
connections for better representation capability. Beneficial from the
powerful ShuffleNet unit, ShuffleNet achieves significant performance improvements over previous architectures [17, 18]. However,
the bypass connection structure introduces multiple information
paths in the computing graph, which induces frequent memory/cache
switches in the engineering implementation on mobile or embedded
devices. Consequently, the actual inference speed of ShuffleNet on
physical devices is not ideal.
On the contrary, MobileNet exploits depthwise separable convolutions as its building blocks in a simple stacking architecture. This
design allows a more efficient utilization of memory and cache, and
MobileNet is significantly faster than ShuffleNet in actual inference
speed under the same complexity. However, MobileNet adopts a
slow downsampling strategy, which induces severe performance
degradation when the computational budget is relatively small, for
instance, 10-140 MFLOPs. In such a slow downsampling strategy,
more layers have large feature maps, so the feature representation
is more detailed. However, the number of channels in the network
is restricted, thus the information capacity is relatively small. If
the width of a network is further shrunk to fit an extremely limited
complexity, the information capacity will become too small and the
performance of the network will collapse.
In this paper, we present a highly efficient and accurate network
named Fast-Downsampling MobileNet (FD-MobileNet) for extremely limited computational resources (e.g., 10 to 140 MFLOPs).
Instead of merely shrinking the width of the network to fit small
computational budgets, we compose FD-MobileNet by adopting
a fast downsampling strategy into the MobileNet framework. In
the proposed FD-MobileNet, we perform 32× downsampling
within the first 12 layers, which is only half of the number in
the original MobileNet. After that, a sequence of depthwise separable convolutions are applied for better representation capability.
Benefiting from the fast downsampling strategy, FD-MobileNet
has the following three advantages: (i) The computational cost
of FD-MobileNet is reduced as the spatial dimensions of the
feature maps are smaller. (ii) FD-MobileNet allows more channels

than the MobileNet counterpart under the same complexity. This
remarkably increases the information capacity of FD-MobileNet,
which is critical to the performance of very small networks. (iii)
FD-MobileNet inherits the simple architecture from MobileNet and
provides a fast inference speed in engineering implementation.
We conduct extensive experiments to examine the effectiveness
of the proposed FD-MobileNet. Firstly, we compare FD-MobileNet
with other state-of-the-art compact networks on the ILSVRC 2012
dataset [20]. Then, we examine the generalization ability of FDMobileNet on the PASCAL VOC 2007 dataset [21]. Experiments
show that the proposed FD-MobileNet significantly outperforms
MobileNet and achieves comparable performance with ShuffleNet
under various computational budgets. For instance, FD-MobileNet
achieves improvements of 5.5% on the ILSVRC 2012 top-1 accuracy
and 3.6% on the VOC 2007 mAP over MobileNet under the
computational budget of 12 MFLOPs. At last, we furthermore
evaluate the actual inference speed of FD-MobileNet on an ARMbased device. Under a complexity of 12 MFLOPs, FD-MobileNet
provides 1.11× speedup over MobileNet and 1.82× over ShuffleNet.
Our code will be made publicly available later.

224 x 224, 3

224 x 224, 3

224 x 224, 3

3x3 Conv x1

3x3 Conv x1
DS Conv x1

3x3 Conv x1

112 x 112, 24

112 x 112, 32

112 x 112, 32

MaxPool

56 x 56, 24

ShuffleNet unit
x4

28 x 28, 240

DS Conv x2

56 x 56, 64

56 x 56, 64

DS Conv x2

DS Conv x2

28 x 28, 128

28 x 28, 128
DS Conv x2

ShuffleNet
unit x8

14 x 14, 480

ShuffleNet
unit x4

DS Conv x6

14 x 14, 256
DS Conv
x2

2. FAST-DOWNSAMPLING MOBILENET
In this section, we present the design of Fast-Downsampling
MobileNet (FD-MobileNet). FD-MobileNet is composed of the
highly efficient depthwise separable convolutions and adopts a fast
downsampling strategy. Benefiting from this design, FD-MobileNet
achieves both high accuracy and high efficiency under very limited
computational budgets.
Depthwise Separable Convolutions. Following MobileNet [18],
FD-MobileNet exploits depthwise separable convolutions [22] as the
building blocks. A k × k depthwise separable convolution factorizes
a k × k standard convolution into a k × k depthwise convolution
and a pointwise convolution with 8∼9 times reduction in FLOPs.
In practice, depthwise separable convolutions can achieve comparable performance with standard convolutions while provide great
efficiency on computation-limited devices.
Fast Downsampling Strategy. Modern CNNs adopt a hierarchical architecture, where the spatial dimensions of the layers within
the same stage is kept identical, and the spatial dimensions in the
next stage is reduced by downsampling. In view of the restricted
computational budgets, compact networks suffer from both the weak
feature representation and the restricted information capacity. Different downsampling strategies provide a trade-off between detailed
feature representation and large information capacity for compact
networks. In a slow downsampling strategy, downsampling is performed in the later layers of the network, thus more layers have large
spatial dimensions. On the contrary, downsampling is performed
at the beginning of the network in a fast downsampling strategy,
which significantly reduces the computational cost. Consequently,
given a fixed computational budget, a slow downsampling strategy
is inclined to generate more detailed features, whereas a fast downsampling strategy can increase the number of channels and allows
more information to be encoded.
When the computational budget is extremely small, the information capacity plays a more important role in the performance of
a network. Conventionally, the number of channels is reduced to
adapt a compact network architecture to a certain complexity. In the
case where a slow downsampling scheme is adopted, the network
becomes too narrow to encode adequate information, which induces
severe performance degradation. For instance, under a complexity of
12 MFLOPs, the original MobileNet architecture only has 128 chan-

DS Conv x1

14 x 14, 256

DS Conv
x5

7 x 7, 960

7 x 7, 512

7 x 7, 1024

Global Avg Poo
1000-d fc, Softmax

Global Avg Pool
1000-d fc, Softmax

Global Avg Pool
1000-d fc, Softmax

ShuﬄeNet 1x

0.5x MobileNet-224

FD-MobileNet 1x

Fig. 1. Comparison of the downsampling strategies of FDMobileNet, MobileNet and ShuffleNet under a complexity of 140
MFLOPs. The width of each block (except the ones at the bottom) represents the spatial dimensions while the height represents
the number of building blocks. Compared with MobileNet and
ShuffleNet, FD-MobileNet adopts a much faster downsampling strategy and leverages more channels, which enlarges the information
capacity and gains performance improvements. DS Conv: depthwise separable convolution. Each depthwise separable convolution
consists of two layers while each ShuffleNet unit has three layers.

nels in the last layer before the global pooling, thus the information
capacity is very limited.
Based on this insight, we propose to adopt a fast downsampling strategy in the architecture of FD-MobileNet and postpone
the feature extraction process to the smallest resolution. The faster
downsampling is implemented by consecutively applying depthwise
separable convolutions with large strides at the beginning of the
network. Here we do not use max pooling because we find it does
not gain performance improvements but introduces extra computation. The proposed FD-MobileNet accepts an image with a size of
224×224 pixels, and performs 4× downsampling within the first 2
layers while performs 32× downsampling within merely 12 layers,
whereas the number of layers performing the same downsampling in
the original MobileNet is 4 and 24, respectively. More specifically,
the 12 layers are composed of 1 standard convolutional layer, 5
depthwise separable convolutions (each has a depthwise convolutional layer and a pointwise convolutional layer), and 1 depthwise
convolutional layer. Fig. 1 illustrates the comparison of the downsampling strategies of FD-MobileNet, MobileNet and ShuffleNet
under the computational budget of 140 MFLOPs. From the figure,
it is observed that FD-MobileNet is significantly shallower than the

Table 1. Fast-Downsampling MobileNet architecture. “/2” indicates
the stride of the layer is 2. DWConv: depthwise convolution.
Output Size Layer
MFLOPs
224 × 224
Image
112 × 112
3 × 3 Conv, 32, /2
10.8
3 × 3 DWConv, 32, /2
56 × 56
7.3
1 × 1 Conv, 64
3 × 3 DWConv, 64, /2
1 × 1 Conv, 128
28 × 28
20.6
3 × 3 DWConv, 128
1 × 1 Conv, 128
3 × 3 DWConv, 128, /2
1 × 1 Conv, 256
14 × 14
19.9
3 × 3 DWConv, 256
1 × 1 Conv, 256
3 × 3 DWConv, 256, /2
1 × 1 Conv, 512
3 × 3 DWConv, 512
7×7
84.7
4×
1 × 1 Conv, 512
3 × 3 DWConv, 512
1 × 1 Conv, 1024
Global Average Pooling
1×1
1.0
1000-d fc, Softmax

other architecture before the feature maps are shrunk to 7×7.
Remaining Layers. The utilization of the fast downsampling strategy significantly reduces the computation cost of the layers before
the smallest spatial dimensions (7×7). Under the computational
budget of 140 MFLOPs, MobileNet spends about 129 MFLOPs on
the largest 4 resolutions, whereas FD-MobileNet only spends about
59 MFLOPs, as shown in Table 1. Consequently, more layers and
more channels can be leveraged in the proposed architecture. Here
we exploit 6 depthwise separable convolutions to improve the representation capability of generated features. The output channels of the
first 5 depthwise separable convolutions are 512, while the last one is
1024, which is twice the number in the MobileNet counterpart (0.5×
MobileNet-224). The increase in the number of channels contributes
to larger information capacity, which is critical to the performance
of the networks under extremely limited computational resources.
Overall Architecture. The overall architecture of FD-MobileNet
is demonstrated in Table 1. FD-MobileNet adopts a simple stacking
architecture with 24 layers, including 1 standard convolutional layer,
11 depthwise separable convolutions, and 1 fully-connected layer.
Following [18], a batch normalization [23] and a ReLU activation
is applied after each convolutional layer. To conveniently adapt FDMobileNet to different computational budgets, we introduce a hyperparameter α termed width multiplier as in [18] to uniformly adjust the width of FD-MobileNet. We use a simple notation “FDMobileNet α×” to represent a network with a width multiplier α,
and the network in Table 1 is denoted as “FD-MobileNet 1×”.
Inference Efficiency. Current deep learning frameworks accomplish the inference of a neural network by building an acyclic computing graph. For mobile or embedded devices, memory and cache
resources are limited. As a result, complicated computing graphs can
induce frequent memory/cache switches, which slows down the actual inference speed. FD-MobileNet inherits the simple architecture
of the original MobileNet, and there is only one information path in
the computing graph. This makes FD-MobileNet very friendly to
engineering implementation and efficient on physical devices.

Table 2. Top-1 Accuracy (%, larger is better) on ILSVRC 2012
dataset. We re-implement MobileNet under a complexity of 12
MFLOPs as no results are reported in [18]
Models
MFLOPs Top-1 Acc.
ShuffleNet 1× [19]
137
65.9
0.5× MobileNet-224 [18]
149
63.7
FD-MobileNet 1× (ours)
144
65.3
ShuffleNet 0.5× [19]
38
57.3
0.25× MobileNet-224 [18]
41
50.6
FD-MobileNet 0.5× (ours)
40
56.2
ShuffleNet 0.25× [19]
13
46.7
0.125× MobileNet-224 [18]
12
39.6
FD-MobileNet 0.25× (ours)
12
45.1

3. EXPERIMENTS
3.1. Results on ILSVRC 2012 dataset
We first evaluate the effectiveness of FD-MobileNet on the ILSVRC
2012 dataset [20]. The ILSVRC 2012 dataset is composed of 1.2
million training images and 50,000 validation images. In the experiments, the networks are trained on the training set using PyTorch
[24] with four GPUs for 90 epochs. Following [3], the batch size is
set to 256 and a momentum of 0.9 is used. The learning rate starts
from 0.1 and decays by an order of magnitude every 30 epochs. As
the networks are relatively small, a weight decay of 4e-5 is utilized
as recommended in [19]. For data augmentation, we adopt a slightly
less aggressive multi-scale augmentation scheme without using color
jittering. On evaluation, the center-crop top-1 accuracy rates on the
validation set are reported. Each validation image is first resized with
its shorter edge to 256 pixels, and then evaluated using the center
224 × 224 pixels crop. Table 2 demonstrated the comparison of the
top-1 accuracy of FD-MobileNet, MobileNet and ShuffleNet under
three computational budgets.
From the table, FD-MobileNet achieves substantial improvements over MobileNet under different computational budgets. It is
observed that FD-MobileNet surpasses MobileNet by a margin of
1.6% under a complexity of 140 MFLOPs, and performs 5.6% and
5.5% better when the computational budget is 40 and 12 MFLOPs,
respectively. It is noteworthy that FD-MobileNet provides significantly improvements over MobileNet when the computational budget is very small (e.g., 40 and 12 MFOPs). We attribute these improvements to the effectiveness of the fast downsampling strategy
in FD-MobileNet. The original MobileNet adopts a slow downsampling strategy, thus more layers have relatively large feature maps
and are more computationally intensive. Consequently, MobileNet is
relatively narrow to maintain computational efficiency, which limits
the information capacity. On the other side, FD-MobileNet exploits
a much faster downsampling strategy, which allows more channels
to be leveraged and alleviates the information capacity degradation.
For instance, under 12 MFLOPs, the last layer of MobileNet outputs
only 128 channels, whereas the number in FD-MobileNet is doubled.
The increase in the information capacity significantly improves the
performance of FD-MobileNet.
Compared with ShuffleNet, FD-MobileNet achieves comparable
or slightly worse results. We conjecture that these differences are
owed to the effectiveness of the bypass connection structure of
the ShuffleNet unit. The bypass connection structure has proven
powerful in various computer vision tasks [3, 5, 8]. However, on
low-power mobile or embedded devices, the bypass connection

Table 3. mAP (%, larger is better) and AP (%, larger is better) on PASCAL VOC 2007 test set (600× resolution).
Backbone
0.5× MobileNet-224 [18]
FD-MobileNet 1× (ours)
0.25× MobileNet-224 [18]
FD-MobileNet 0.5× (ours)
0.125× MobileNet-224 [18]
FD-MobileNet 0.25× (ours)

mAP
53.8
55.4
42.3
45.1
29.1
32.7

areo
59.0
58.1
47.5
46.4
33.4
40.6

bike
66.8
67.1
53.8
53.2
38.6
43.6

bird
52.3
49.4
35.0
38.2
20.7
21.4

boat bottle bus car cat chair cow table dog horse mbike person plant sheep sofa train tv
33.5 29.8 56.9 71.4 61.5 29.8 59.2 51.3 59.3 69.9
64.6
63.5
29.5 48.9 51.8 65.0 52.1
32.7 28.8 62.2 71.1 67.2 32.6 59.4 58.0 63.0 72.3
65.7
65.8
26.9 53.5 51.9 65.0 56.7
24.0 18.5 43.9 60.2 51.3 17.5 47.6 47.5 47.4 60.0
58.7
55.5
19.2 38.3 36.3 48.9 34.2
29.3 16.8 47.1 63.0 56.2 22.3 48.8 49.4 47.3 66.9
60.6
56.8
20.0 44.5 40.9 57.0 38.0
16.0 2.9 31.4 48.5 42.7 13.2 26.8 28.2 34.5 46.9
45.4
42.3
13.4 29.3 21.7 29.6 16.1
16.2 8.2 33.7 50.7 41.2 15.6 37.2 33.4 36.2 54.7
50.4
41.4
8.1
29.6 25.3 47.7 18.2

structure induces frequent memory/cache switches and harms the
actual inference speed. On the contrary, the simple architecture of
FD-MobileNet contributes to an efficient utilization of memory and
cache. Details are discussed in Section 3.3.
3.2. Results on PASCAL VOC 2007 dataset
We furthermore conduct extensive experiments on PASCAL VOC
2007 detection dataset [21] to examine the generalization ability of
the proposed FD-MobileNet. PASCAL VOC 2007 dataset consists
of about 10,000 images split into three (train/val/test) sets. In the
experiments, the detectors are trained on VOC 2007 trainval set,
and the single-model results on VOC 2007 test set are reported.
We adopt the Faster R-CNN detection pipeline [5] and compare the
performance of FD-MobileNet and MobileNet on 600× resolution
under three computational budgets (140, 40 and 12 MFLOPs). The
detectors are trained for 15 epochs with a batch size of 1. The learning rate starts from 1e-3, and is divided by 10 every 5 epochs. The
weight decay is set to 4e-5. Other hyper-parameter settings follow
the original Faster R-CNN in [5]. During testing, 300 proposals are
sent to the R-CNN subnet to generate the final predictions.
The comparison of the results are demonstrated in Table 3. It is
observed that FD-MobileNet achieves significant improvements over
MobileNet under different computational budgets. Under the computational budget of 140 MFLOPs, the FD-MobileNet detector surpasses the MobileNet detector by a margin of 1.6% on mAP. The gap
is enlarged when the complexity is lower. When the complexity is restricted to 40 and 12 MFLOPs, FD-MobileNet outperforms MobileNet by 2.8% and 3.6% on mAP, respectively. More specifically,
on single class results, FD-MobileNet performs better than MobileNet on most classes. From Table 3, FD-MobileNet provides more
significant improvements over MobileNet when the computational
budget is smaller. For instance, when the computational budget is 12
MFLOPs, FD-MobileNet achieves consistent improvements on the
classes which are hard for MobileNet, such as bottle (5.3%), chair
(2.4%) and boat (0.2%). These improvements have proven that FDMobileNet have strong generalization ability for transfer learning.
3.3. Actual Inference Time Evaluation
To investigate the performance on physical devices, we further compare the actual inference time of FD-MobileNet, MobileNet and
ShuffleNet on an ARM-based platform. The experiments are conducted using an optimized NCNN framework [25] on an i.MX 6
series CPU (single-core, 800 MHz).
Table 4 shows the inference time of the three compact networks
under computational budgets of 140, 40 and 12 MFLOPs, respectively. Compared with MobileNet, FD-MobileNet achieves about
1.1× speedup over MobileNet under the three computational budgets. These improvements are attributed to the effectiveness of the
fast downsampling architecture of FD-MobileNet. Compared with
ShuffleNet, FD-MobileNet provides significantly faster inference
speed. When the computational budgets are 140 and 40 MFLOPs,

Table 4. Actual inference time (ms, smaller is better) on an ARMbased device with NCNN.
Models
MFLOPs
Time
ShuffleNet 1× [19]
137
522.27
0.5× MobileNet-224 [18]
149
431.73
FD-MobileNet 1× (ours)
144
391.66
ShuffleNet 0.5× [19]
38
204.97
0.25× MobileNet-224 [18]
41
155.84
FD-MobileNet 0.5× (ours)
40
139.47
ShuffleNet 0.25× [19]
13
103.79
0.125× MobileNet-224 [18]
12
63.73
FD-MobileNet 0.25× (ours)
12
57.17

FD-MobileNet gains 1.33× and 1.47× speedup over ShuffleNet,
respectively. The speedup is elevated under a complexity of 12
MFLOPs: FD-MobileNet is 1.82× faster than ShuffleNet. It is
noteworthy that under 140 and 40 MFLOPs, the ShuffleNet models
have fewer FLOPs than the FD-MobileNet counterparts, but they
are much slower. This slowdown is caused by the inefficiency of the
bypass connection structure of the ShuffleNet unit. On low-power
devices, the bypass connection structure leads to frequent memory
and cache switch, which slows down the actual inference speed. On
the contrary, the simple stacking architecture allows FD-MobileNet
to leverage memory and cache more efficiently, which contributes
to a faster actual inference speed. These results indicate that FDMobileNet is effective in actual mobile or embedded applications.
4. CONCLUSION
In this work, we present Fast-Downsampling MobileNet (FDMobileNet), a highly efficient and accurate network for very limited
computational budgets. FD-MobileNet is built by adopting a fast
downsampling strategy in the state-of-the-art MobileNet framework.
Compare with the original MobileNet, the utilization of the fast
downsampling scheme allows more channels, which increases the
information capacity of the network and contributes to significant
performance improvements. Experiments on the ILSVRC 2012
classification dataset and the PASCAL VOC 2007 detection dataset
show that FD-MobileNet consistently outperforms MobileNet
under different computational budgets. Evaluations of the actual
inference time demonstrate that FD-MobileNet achieves significant
speedup over ShuffleNet on an ARM-based device under the same
complexity. For future work, we plan to adopt the fast downsampling
strategy in other compact networks such as ShuffleNet for better
performance.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFB1000100).

6. REFERENCES
[1] Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton, “Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,”
in Advances in neural information processing systems, 2012,
pp. 1097–1105.
[2] Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” arXiv
preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014.
[3] Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun,
“Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern
recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778.
[4] Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Laurens
van der Maaten, “Densely connected convolutional networks,”
arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.06993, 2016.
[5] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun,
“Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region
proposal networks,” in Advances in neural information processing systems, 2015, pp. 91–99.
[6] Wei Liu, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Christian
Szegedy, Scott Reed, Cheng-Yang Fu, and Alexander C Berg,
“Ssd: Single shot multibox detector,” in European conference
on computer vision. Springer, 2016, pp. 21–37.
[7] Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi, “Yolo9000: better, faster,
stronger,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.08242, 2016.
[8] Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick, “Mask r-cnn,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.06870, 2017.
[9] Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell, “Fully
convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition, 2015, pp. 3431–3440.
[10] Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos,
Kevin Murphy, and Alan L Yuille, “Deeplab: Semantic image
segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution,
and fully connected crfs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.00915,
2016.
[11] Max Jaderberg, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman,
“Speeding up convolutional neural networks with low rank
expansions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.3866, 2014.
[12] Xiangyu Zhang, Jianhua Zou, Kaiming He, and Jian Sun,
“Accelerating very deep convolutional networks for classification and detection,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and
machine intelligence, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 1943–1955, 2016.
[13] Vincent Vanhoucke, Andrew Senior, and Mark Z Mao, “Improving the speed of neural networks on cpus,” in Proc. Deep
Learning and Unsupervised Feature Learning NIPS Workshop,
2011, vol. 1, p. 4.
[14] Matthieu Courbariaux, Itay Hubara, Daniel Soudry, Ran ElYaniv, and Yoshua Bengio, “Binarized neural networks:
Training deep neural networks with weights and activations
constrained to +1 or -1,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.02830,
2016.
[15] Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William Dally, “Learning
both weights and connections for efficient neural network,” in
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2015, pp.
1135–1143.

[16] Zhuang Liu, Jianguo Li, Zhiqiang Shen, Gao Huang,
Shoumeng Yan, and Changshui Zhang, “Learning efficient
convolutional networks through network slimming,” arxiv
preprint, vol. 1708, 2017.
[17] Forrest N Iandola, Song Han, Matthew W Moskewicz, Khalid
Ashraf, William J Dally, and Kurt Keutzer, “Squeezenet:
Alexnet-level accuracy with 50x fewer parameters and < 0.5
mb model size,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.07360, 2016.
[18] Andrew G Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry
Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam, “Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications,” arXiv
preprint arXiv:1704.04861, 2017.
[19] Xiangyu Zhang, Xinyu Zhou, Mengxiao Lin, and Jian Sun,
“Shufflenet: An extremely efficient convolutional neural network for mobile devices,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01083,
2017.
[20] Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy,
Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al., “Imagenet large
scale visual recognition challenge,” International Journal of
Computer Vision, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 211–252, 2015.
[21] Mark Everingham, Luc Van Gool, Christopher KI Williams,
John Winn, and Andrew Zisserman, “The pascal visual object
classes (voc) challenge,” International journal of computer
vision, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 303–338, 2010.
[22] François Chollet, “Xception: Deep learning with depthwise
separable convolutions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02357,
2016.
[23] Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy, “Batch normalization:
Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015, pp. 448–456.
[24] Ronan Collobert, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Clément Farabet,
“Torch7: A matlab-like environment for machine learning,”
in BigLearn, NIPS Workshop, 2011, number EPFL-CONF192376.
[25] Hui Ni, “Ncnn: A high-performance neural network inference
framework optimized for the mobile platform,” https://
github.com/Tencent/ncnn, 2017.

