Cited by 282Advanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

HOGgles: Visualizing Object Detection Features

Open access
Vondrick, Carl, Khosla, Aditya, Malisiewicz, Tomasz, Torralba, Antonio·2013·2013 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision

Abstract

We introduce algorithms to visualize feature spaces used by object detectors. The tools in this paper allow a human to put on 'HOG goggles' and perceive the visual world as a HOG based object detector sees it. We found that these visualizations allow us to analyze object detection systems in new ways and gain new insight into the detector's failures. For example, when we visualize the features for high scoring false alarms, we discovered that, although they are clearly wrong in image space, they do look deceptively similar to true positives in feature space. This result suggests that many of these false alarms are caused by our choice of feature space, and indicates that creating a better learning algorithm or building bigger datasets is unlikely to correct these errors. By visualizing feature spaces, we can gain a more intuitive understanding of our detection systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/iccv.2013.8

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There is a significant amount of work in understanding the representation of deep neural networks by means of artifact images.

    “There is a significant amount of work in understanding the representation of DNN by means of artifact images, [41,100,105,111].”

    From A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models (2019) · cites this paper as [100]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vondrick, C., Khosla, A., Malisiewicz, T., & Torralba, A.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
2013 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2013-12
Pages
1-8
OpenAlex
W1982428585
Cited by
282
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 1
FWCI
27.65
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0747120)
  • Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (N00014-10-1-0933)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-10-1-0933, MURI N00014-10-1-0933)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
object detection, feature visualization, histogram of oriented gradients, feature space visualization, false positives, augmented reality visualization

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