Cited by 803Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Object Detection via a Multi-region and Semantic Segmentation-Aware CNN Model

Open access
Gidaris, Spyros, Komodakis, Nikos·2015·2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

Abstract

We propose an object detection system that relies on a multi-region deep convolutional neural network (CNN) that also encodes semantic segmentation-aware features. The resulting CNN-based representation aims at capturing a diverse set of discriminative appearance factors and exhibits localization sensitivity that is essential for accurate object localization. We exploit the above properties of our recognition module by integrating it on an iterative localization mechanism that alternates between scoring a box proposal and refining its location with a deep CNN regression model. Thanks to the efficient use of our modules, we detect objects with very high localization accuracy. On the detection challenges of PASCAL VOC2007 and PASCAL VOC2012 we achieve mAP of 78.2% and 73.9% correspondingly, surpassing any other published work by a significant margin.

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.2015.135

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • The simplest way to improve detection with segmentation is to think of the segmentation network as a fixed feature extractor and integrate it into a detector as auxiliary features.

    “To improve detection with segmentation, the simplest way is to think of the segmentation network as a fixed feature extractor and to integrate it into a detector as auxiliary features [83, 192, 193].”

    From Object Detection in 20 Years: A Survey (2023) · cites this paper as [83]

  • Our method does not exploit many popular improvements, such as iterative regression, hard negative mining, context modeling, and stronger data augmentation.

    “Moreover, our method does not exploit many popular improvements, such as iterative regression [9], hard negative mining [35], context modeling [16], stronger data augmentation [22], etc .”

    From Feature Pyramid Networks for Object Detection (2017) · cites this paper as [9]

  • Connections among words can be discerned without reliance on dictionaries or parsers.

    “Through this methodology, connections among words can be discerned sans reliance on dictionaries or parsers (Gidaris and Komodakis 2015).”

    From Large language models (LLMs): survey, technical frameworks, and future challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Gidaris and Komodakis 2015

    The paper’s object-representation discussion (p. 1) concerns image features and object detection, not connections among words. Searches for word connections and for using neither dictionaries nor parsers found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [8][8] P. F. Felzenszwalb, R. B. Girshick, D. McAllester, and D. Ramanan. Object detection with discriminatively trained partbased models. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on , 32(9):1627-1645, 2010. 1, 8 -
  2. [22][22] T.-Y. Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Doll´ ar, and C. L. Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2014 , pages 740-755. Springer, 2014. 12 -
  3. [24][24] D. G. Lowe. Distinctive image features from scaleinvariant keypoints. International journal of computer vision , 60(2):91-110, 2004. 1 -
  4. [27][27] J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi. You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02640 , 2015. 12 - · arXiv
  5. [39][39] C. L. Zitnick and P. Doll´ ar. Edge boxes: Locating object proposals from edges. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2014 , pages 391-405. Springer, 2014. 12 <!-- image --> Figure 9: Examples of multiple adjacent object instances where our approach fails to detect all of them. We use blue bounding boxes to mark the true positive detections and red bounding boxes to mark the false positive detections. The ground truth bounding boxes are drawn with green color. Figure 10: Examples of false positive detections for the class boat due to the fact that the detected bounding boxes do not include inside their borders the mast of the boat (it is worth noting that on same cases also the annotation provided from PASCAL neglects to include them on its ground truth bounding boxes). The false positive bounding boxes are drawn with red color and the ground truth bounding boxes are drawn with green color. <!-- image --> Figure 11 - Missing Annotations: Examples where our proposed detection system have truly detected an object instance, but because of missed annotations it is considered false positive. For those detections we used red bounding boxes. For any true positive detection on those images we use blue bounding boxes and the corresponding ground truth bounding boxes are drawn with green color. <!-- image --> <!-- image --> (g) Car detections. Figure 12: We use blue bounding boxes for the true positive detections and red bounding boxes (if any) for the false positive detections. The ground truth bounding boxes are drawn with green color. <!-- image --> (g) Motorbike detections. Figure 13: We use blue bounding boxes for the true positive detections and red bounding boxes (if any) for the false positive detections. The ground truth bounding boxes are drawn with green color. <!-- image --> (f) Tvmonitor detections. Figure 14: We use blue bounding boxes for the true positive detections and red bounding boxes (if any) for the false positive detections. The ground truth bounding boxes are drawn with green color.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gidaris, S., & Komodakis, N.
Affiliations
École nationale des ponts et chaussées (FR)
Venue
2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2015-12
Pages
1134-1142
OpenAlex
W1932624639
Cited by
801
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 121 · 2019: 126 · 2018: 103 · 2017: 88 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 7
FWCI
33.22
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-13-CORD-0003)
Topics
  • 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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
object detection, iterative localization, appearance features, VOC2007

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