Weakly supervised object detector learning with model drift detection
By Parthipan Siva, Tao A. Xiang. 2011
159 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Media Technology
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Artificial Intelligence
- Luc Van Gool
- Trevor Darrell
- Abhinav Kumar Gupta
- Bernt Schiele
- Li Fei-Fei
- Cordelia Schmid
- Mohit Bansal
- Dacheng Tao
In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
- Luc Van Gool
- Dacheng Tao
- Ming-Hsuan Yang
- Trevor Darrell
- Xiaogang Wang
- Yi Yang
- Jitendra Malik
- Andrea Vedaldi
In Media Technology
- Gong Cheng
- Junwei Han
- Peicheng Zhou
- Luc Van Gool
- Cordelia Schmid
- Yong Jae Lee
- Vittorio Ferrari
- Shuhui Bu
Citations in the corpus
- Extreme Clicking for Efficient Object Annotation (2017, background): “Weakly-supervised object localization techniques (WSOL) can be used to train object detectors from image-level labels only (without bounding boxes) [5, 11, 14, 55, 59].”
- Weakly Supervised Object Localization with Multi-Fold Multiple Instance Learning (2015, neutral): “Siva and Xiang [45] propose to initially select one of the candidate windows sampled using the objectness method at each image such that an objective function based on intra-class and inter-class pairwise similarities is maximized.”
- Unsupervised object discovery and localization in the wild: Part-based matching with bottom-up region proposals (2015, methodology): “We first report separate-class results, and compare our results to those of the state of the arts in weakly-supervised localization [9, 36, 43, 47, 45, 46, 56] and colocalization [27] in Table 6.”
- Weakly-supervised Discovery of Visual Pattern Configurations (2014, result): “Table 1 compares our detection results against two baseline methods [23, 27] which report the result on the full dataset.”
- Large-Scale Weakly Supervised Object Localization via Latent Category Learning (2015, methodology): “Among these methods, the one popularly used in many weakly supervised localization methods [3], [7], [8] is the one proposed by Alexe et al. [37], who present a generic objectness measure by combining multiple image cues in a Bayesian framework.”
- Multi-fold MIL Training for Weakly Supervised Object Localization (2014, unknown): “’12 [23] 30.8 25.0 — 3.6 — 26.0 — — — — — — 21.3 29.9 — — — — — — 15.0 Siva and Xiang’11 [29] 13.4 44.0 3.1 3.1 0.0 31.2 43.9 7.1 0.1 9.3 9.9 1.5 [22] are based on external video data for training.”
- C-MIL: Continuation Multiple Instance Learning for Weakly Supervised Object Detection (2019, background): “WSOD approaches only require image category annotations indicating the presence or absence of a category of objects in images, significantly reducing human involvement by omitting labor-intensive bounding-box annotations [6,12,27–29,40].”
- From Discriminant to Complete: Reinforcement Searching-Agent Learning for Weakly Supervised Object Detection (2020, background): “For example, Siva and Xiang [25] introduce the objectness, intraimage similarity, and interimage variance to mine informative object regions for learning the object detector.”
- ConceptLearner: Discovering visual concepts from weakly labeled image collections (2014, methodology): “Another two most relevant comparison methods are the webly supervised method [10] and video supervised method [30].”
- Weakly Supervised Object Localization Using Things and Stuff Transfer (2017, unknown): “As in most previous WSOL methods [8, 9, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 28], our scheme returns exactly one bounding-box per class per training image.”
- Weakly Supervised Object Localization and Detection: A Survey (2021, unknown): “In [136], Siva et al. propose an intra-class metric and an inter-class metric to initialize the potential object locations.”
- Sampling Techniques for Large-Scale Object Detection From Sparsely Annotated Objects (2018, methodology): “Prediction results of a network are used to train an object detector with limited annotation in many previous works [20, 22, 2, 3, 23].”
- Edge Boxes: Locating Object Proposals from Edges (2014, background): “Another popular use is for weakly supervised learning [20,21], where by limiting the number of candidate regions, learning with less supervision becomes feasible.”
- On learning to localize objects with minimal supervision (2014, unknown): “More recent work, such as (Siva & Xiang, 2011; Siva et al., 2012), attempts to learn detectors, or simply automatically generate bounding box annotations from much more challenging datasets such as PASCAL VOC (Everingham et al., 2010).”
- Revisiting Knowledge Transfer for Training Object Class Detectors (2017, methodology): “Our scheme improves over previous usage of manually engineered object proposals and their associated objectness score [1, 10] in WSOL in two ways: (1) by using trained proposals and objectness scoring function trained on source classes; (2) generalizing the common use of a single classagnostic objec”
- Learning Everything about Anything: Webly-Supervised Visual Concept Learning (2014, methodology): “Weakly-supervised object localization: The idea of training detection models from images and videos without bounding boxes has received renewed attention [2, 36, 39, 45] due to the recent success of the DPM detector [18].”
- Unconstrained Salient Object Detection via Proposal Subset Optimization (2016, background): “in applications like weakly supervised localization [15, 44]), how proposals are filtered can greatly affect the hit rate.”
- Weakly Supervised Object Localization with Latent Category Learning (2014, methodology): “, exhaustive search [20, 21], multiple instance learning [13,28,34], inter-intra-class modeling [5,9,23,28,29] and topic model [25,30].”
- Weakly Supervised Cascaded Convolutional Networks (2016, methodology): “Weakly supervised detection: In the last decade, several weakly supervised object detection methods have been studied using multiple instance learning algorithms [4, 5, 29, 30].”