Cited by 729Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Flow-Guided Feature Aggregation for Video Object Detection

Open access
Zhu, Xizhou, Wang, Yujie, Dai, Jifeng, Yuan, Lu, Wei, Yichen·2017·2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

Abstract

Extending state-of-the-art object detectors from image to video is challenging. The accuracy of detection suffers from degenerated object appearances in videos, e.g., motion blur, video defocus, rare poses, etc. Existing work attempts to exploit temporal information on box level, but such methods are not trained end-to-end. We present flow-guided feature aggregation, an accurate and end-to-end learning framework for video object detection. It leverages temporal coherence on feature level instead. It improves the per-frame features by aggregation of nearby features along the motion paths, and thus improves the video recognition accuracy. Our method significantly improves upon strong singleframe baselines in ImageNet VID [33], especially for more challenging fast moving objects. Our framework is principled, and on par with the best engineered systems winning the ImageNet VID challenges 2016, without additional bells-and-whistles. The code would be released.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/iccv.2017.52

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Overlooking spatial and temporal correlation of frames, motion blur, occlusion, and posture changes results in a decrease in object detection performance in videos.

    “Indeed, overlooking these factors results in a decrease in the object detection performance in videos.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. yang, 2016, Efficient object detection from videos
  2. tran, 2016, Deep end2end voxe12voxel prediction, CVPR Workshop

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhu, X., Wang, Y., Dai, J., Yuan, L., & Wei, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-10
Pages
408-417
OpenAlex
W2964286567
Cited by
729
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 123 · 2020: 96 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 4
FWCI
17.47
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Video Surveillance and Tracking Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
video object detection, optical flow, temporal feature aggregation, movement paths, end-to-end learning, motion blur, fast-moving objects

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