2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) 2017
DOI: 10.1109/iccv.2017.32
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Learning Uncertain Convolutional Features for Accurate Saliency Detection

Abstract: Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have delivered superior performance in many computer vision tasks. In this paper, we propose a novel deep fully convolutional network model for accurate salient object detection. The key contribution of this work is to learn deep uncertain convolutional features (UCF), which encourage the robustness and accuracy of saliency detection. We achieve this via introducing a reformulated dropout (R-dropout) after specific convolutional layers to construct an uncertain ensembl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
284
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 434 publications
(286 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
284
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…We compare our algorithm with 9 state-of-the-art methods, including RFCN [34], DHS [24], UCF [50], Amulet [49], NLDF [26], DSS [14], RAS [3], DGF [38] and DGRL [36]. For a fair comparison, we use either the implementations with recommended parameter settings or the saliency maps provided by the authors.…”
Section: Comparison With the State-of-the-artsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We compare our algorithm with 9 state-of-the-art methods, including RFCN [34], DHS [24], UCF [50], Amulet [49], NLDF [26], DSS [14], RAS [3], DGF [38] and DGRL [36]. For a fair comparison, we use either the implementations with recommended parameter settings or the saliency maps provided by the authors.…”
Section: Comparison With the State-of-the-artsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We compare our method with 16 previous state-of-the-art methods, namely MDF [28], RFCN [18], UCF [20], Amulet [13], NLDF [12], DSS [31], BMPM [21], PAGR [50], PiCANet [51], SRM [16], DGRL [32], MLMS [52], AFNet [53], CapSal [54], BASNet [15], and CPD [55]. For a fair comparison, we use the saliency maps provided by the authors.…”
Section: Comparison With the State-of-the-artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We compare the proposed saliency detection method against previous 18 state-of-the-art methods, namely, MDF [13], RFCN [31], DHS [32], UCF [46], Amulet [34], NLDF [47], DSS [48], RAS [49], BMPM [33], PAGR [50], PiCANet [51], SRM [18], DGRL [17], MLMS [52], AFNet [53], CapSal [54], BASNet [55], and CPD [16]. We perform comparisons on five challenging datasets.…”
Section: Comparison With the State-of-the-artmentioning
confidence: 99%