Cited by 179Advanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsImage and Object Detection Techniques

Do We Need More Training Data or Better Models for Object Detection?

Zhu, Xiangxin, Vondrick, Carl, Ramanan, Deva, Fowlkes, Charless·2012·Procedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2012

Abstract

(Work performed while at UC Irvine) Datasets for training object recognition systems are steadily growing in size. This paper investigates the question of whether existing detectors will continue to improve as data grows, or if models are close to saturating due to limited model complexity and the Bayes risk associated with the feature spaces in which they operate. We focus on the popular paradigm of scanning-window templates defined on oriented gradient fea-tures, trained with discriminative classifiers. We investigate the performance of mixtures of templates as a function of the number of templates (complexity) and the amount of training data. We find that additional data does help, but only with correct regularization and treatment of noisy examples or “outliers ” in the training data. Surprisingly, the per-formance of problem domain-agnostic mixture models appears to saturate quickly (∼10 templates and ∼100 positive training examples per template). However, compositional mixtures (implemented via composed parts) give much better performance because they share parameters among templates, and can synthesize new templates not encountered during training. This suggests there is still room to improve performance with linear classifiers and the existing feature space by improved representations and learning algo-rithms. 1

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5244/c.26.80

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhu, X., Vondrick, C., Ramanan, D., & Fowlkes, C.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
Venue
Procedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2012
Published
2012
Pages
80.1-80.11
OpenAlex
W2046875449
Cited by
178
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 1
FWCI
18.62
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC) (publishedVersion)
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 › Image and Object Detection Techniques
Keywords
object detection, training data size, model complexity, Bayes risk, parameter sharing, regularization, linear classifiers, feature space representation

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