Activate or Not: Learning Customized Activation

Abstract: We present a simple, effective, and general activation function we term ACON which learns to activate the neurons or not. Interestingly, we find Swish, the recent popular NAS-searched activation, can be interpreted as a smooth approximation to ReLU. Intuitively, in the same way, we approximate the more general Maxout family to our novel ACON family, which remarkably improves the performance and makes Swish a special case of ACON. Next, we present meta-ACON, which explicitly learns to optimize the parameter switching between non-linear (activate) and linear (inactivate) and provides a new design space. By simply changing the activation function, we show its effectiveness on both small models and highly optimized large models (e.g. it improves the ImageNet top-1 accuracy rate by 6.7% and 1.8% on MobileNet-0.25 and ResNet-152, respectively). Moreover, our novel ACON can be naturally transferred to object detection and semantic segmentation, showing that ACON is an effective alternative in a variety of tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/nmaac/acon.

• The analysis outlines stringent CVPR author guidelines, detailing paper specifications like length and formatting, blind review protocols, and standards for technical content including math and graphics.
• Strict adherence to these precise guidelines is critical for authors to ensure successful submission and maintain the high professional standards of CVPR conference proceedings.
• The document highlights the significance of intellectual property through copyright requirements and suggests future developments like automated tools could ease author compliance.

Analysis of CVPR Author Guidelines Document

The provided document is a comprehensive outline of the author guidelines for the Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) proceedings, presented in a LaTeX format. This document does not propose or analyze new research findings but rather serves as an instructional guide for authors interested in submitting their work to CVPR. Therefore, the primary focus of this essay will be an examination of the procedural and formatting requirements detailed in the document with appropriate contextual insights on its implications for the submission process.

Document Overview

The document meticulously covers all stages of document formatting and submission. It begins with basics such as the abstract and introduction, proceeding through elements like dual submissions, paper length, and the inclusion of a ruler for reviewers' reference. The guidelines emphasize the significance of exact formatting dimensions, paper structure, and language requirements.

Key Highlights

1. Paper Specifications:
   • The submission length is strictly limited to eight pages excluding references. This constraint mandates precise articulation of research contributions, encouraging succinct and impactful academic writing.
   • Specific instructions regarding font type (Times Roman), size, and spacing ensure uniformity across submissions, essential for professional presentation and readability.
2. Blind Review Process:
   • The document elucidates the importance of maintaining anonymity during the review process, clearly differentiating between necessary self-citation and disclosing authorship, which could compromise the double-blind review integrity.
3. Mathematical and Technical Content:
   • Sections detailing mathematics and referencing provide guidance on maintaining clarity and precision, aiding in the seamless communication of complex equations and technical analyses.
   • The recommendation to number all equations and sections enhances the document's navigability for reviewers.
4. Graphics, Illustrations, and Additional Material:
   • The document prescribes specifications for including graphical content and highlights the importance of ensuring figures and illustrations remain legible when printed.
   • The emphasis on using scalable vector graphics because of their resolution independence facilitates high-quality rendering in final publications.
5. Final Manuscript Procedures:
   • In addition to content formatting, authors are reminded of the requirement for a signed IEEE copyright release form, underscoring the significance of intellectual property considerations in scholarly dissemination.

Implications and Future Outlook

The precision embodied in these guidelines underscores the professional standards CVPR upholds, contributing to its prestigious reputation within the computer vision community. Adherence to such detailed guidelines not only facilitates fair and efficient review processes but also positively impacts the overall quality of conference proceedings.

Authors must navigate these requirements carefully; new contributors particularly might find mastering these guidelines challenging initially. However, the rigor imposed by these guidelines fosters discipline in scientific reporting—a transferable skill beneficial across scholarly pursuits.

As conference proceedings evolve, one might speculate on future developments that could address emerging needs such as automated submission checkers for adherence to formatting rules and tools to assist authors in preparing conformant documents more efficiently. These enhancements could alleviate some procedural burdens on authors, allowing them to focus more on research content rather than formatting.

In conclusion, the CVPR author guidelines document serves as a crucial instructional resource for maintaining the quality and consistency of submissions to one of the field’s most esteemed conferences. Its detailed prescriptions help balance the tension between uniformity in presentation and the diversity of content—a fundamental challenge in academic publishing.