Unbiased Mean Teacher for Cross-domain Object Detection
Open accessAbstract
Cross-domain object detection is challenging, because object detection model is often vulnerable to data variance, especially to the considerable domain shift between two distinctive domains. In this paper, we propose a new Unbiased Mean Teacher (UMT) model for cross-domain object detection. We reveal that there often exists a considerable model bias for the simple mean teacher (MT) model in cross-domain scenarios, and eliminate the model bias with several simple yet highly effective strategies. In particular, for the teacher model, we propose a cross-domain distillation method for MT to maximally exploit the expertise of the teacher model. Moreover, for the student model, we alleviate its bias by augmenting training samples with pixel-level adaptation. Finally, for the teaching process, we employ an out-of-distribution estimation strategy to select samples that most fit the current model to further enhance the cross-domain distillation process. By tackling the model bias issue with these strategies, our UMT model achieves mAPs of 44.1%, 58.1%, 41.7%, and 43.1% on benchmark datasets Clipart1k, Watercolor2k, Foggy Cityscapes, and Cityscapes, respectively, which outperforms the existing state-of-the-art results in notable margins. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/kinredon/umt.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Several UDA approaches are not specifically designed for UDA in satellite pose estimation because the domain-agnostic geometrical constraints are not fully explored.
“Nonetheless, these methods are not specifically designed for UDA in satellite pose estimation, since the domain-agnostic geometrical constraints are not fully explored.”
From Bridging the Domain Gap in Satellite Pose Estimation: A Self-Training Approach Based on Geometrical Constraints (2024) · cites this paper as [21]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 401
- Authors
- Deng, J., Li, W., Chen, Y., & Duan, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN)
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- Venue
- 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2021-06
- Pages
- 4089-4099
- ISSN
- 1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3166409449
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 49 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 109 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 10
- FWCI
- 30.78
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
- Keywords
- cross-domain object detection, mean teacher, model bias, domain shift, knowledge distillation, sample selection, domain adaptation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review