2018
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1807.01438
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Small-scale Pedestrian Detection Based on Somatic Topology Localization and Temporal Feature Aggregation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Backbone Reasonable ACF [24] -51.68 Checkerboards [26] -39.67 Vanilla Faster R-CNN [16] VGG-16 20.00 Adapted Faster R-CNN [9] VGG-16 18.81 RPN+BF [29] VGG-16 23.26 SDS-RCNN [7] VGG-16 17.80 TFAN [15] ResNet-50 16.50 EGCL (ours) VGG-16 15.93 part [34], Adapted Faster R-CNN [9], OR-CNN [18], Adaptive-NMS [57], MGAN [11], HGPD [58], TLL [37], R 2 NMS [14], TLL+MRF [37], Replusion loss [17], ALFNet [19], NOH-NMS [60] and CrowdDet [59]. Note that these state-of-theart pedestrian detectors are trained on different backbones (VGG16 or ResNet-50) for feature learning head and different input scales (×1 or ×1.3).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Backbone Reasonable ACF [24] -51.68 Checkerboards [26] -39.67 Vanilla Faster R-CNN [16] VGG-16 20.00 Adapted Faster R-CNN [9] VGG-16 18.81 RPN+BF [29] VGG-16 23.26 SDS-RCNN [7] VGG-16 17.80 TFAN [15] ResNet-50 16.50 EGCL (ours) VGG-16 15.93 part [34], Adapted Faster R-CNN [9], OR-CNN [18], Adaptive-NMS [57], MGAN [11], HGPD [58], TLL [37], R 2 NMS [14], TLL+MRF [37], Replusion loss [17], ALFNet [19], NOH-NMS [60] and CrowdDet [59]. Note that these state-of-theart pedestrian detectors are trained on different backbones (VGG16 or ResNet-50) for feature learning head and different input scales (×1 or ×1.3).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…MS-CNN [36] explores the different depth of feature maps from feature extractor to generate different sizes of proposals, which is followed by a detection network guided by context reasoning. Based on the assumption that different scales of pedestrians bodies can be modeled as 2D Gaussian kernel with various scale variance, TLL [37] designs a unified fully convolutional network to locate the somatic topological line of pedestrians with line annotation for detecting multi-scale pedestrians. Recently, ascribing the poor performance of detect small-scale pedestrians to the problem of inaccurate location, Cao et al [38] proposes a location bootstrap module for re-weighting the regression loss.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Caltech dataset: Fig. 6(a) shows detection performance comparisons under Reasonable setup with state-of-theart methods including FasterRCNN+ATT [39], RPN+BF [35], AdaptFasterRCNN [37], PCN [30], F-DNN+SS [11], GDPL [23], F-DNN2+SS [12], TLL-TFA [27] and SDS-RCNN [3] on Caltech test set. It can be observed that the proposed SSA-CNN achieves the best detection performance with MR of 6.27% which is about 14.8% improvement over current top performing SDS-RCNN [3].…”
Section: Comparisons With State-of-the-art Methods On Benchmarksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PCN [30] utilizes two sub-networks which detects the pedestrians through body parts semantic information and context information respectively, and achieves MR 8.45% on Caltech dataset. In order to detect small-scale pedestrians, TLL+TFA [27] proposes a method that integrates somatic topological line localization (TLL) and temporal feature aggregation. TLL+TFA achieves MR 7.40% on Caltech dataset and obtains better detection performance for pedestrians that are far away from camera.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, we still compare the proposed approach with single segmentation or detection networks. We select several state-of-the-art segmentation networks (PSPNet, ICNet, BiSeNet) and detection networks (SSA-CNN [40], TLL [31], MFR-CNN [35]), and compare them with our network on Cityscape and Cityperson datasets. The results are given in the table 3.…”
Section: Backbonementioning
confidence: 99%