Should All Proposals be Treated Equally in Object Detection?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The complexity-precision trade-off of an object detector is a critical problem for resource constrained vision tasks. Previous works have emphasized detectors implemented with efficient backbones. The impact on this trade-off of proposal processing by the detection head is investigated in this work. It is hypothesized that improved detection efficiency requires a paradigm shift, towards the unequal processing of proposals, assigning more computation to good proposals than poor ones. This results in better utilization of available computational budget, enabling higher accuracy for the same FLOPS. We formulate this as a learning problem where the goal is to assign operators to proposals, in the detection head, so that the total computational cost is constrained and the precision is maximized. The key finding is that such matching can be learned as a function that maps each proposal embedding into a one-hot code over operators. While this function induces a complex dynamic network routing mechanism, it can be implemented by a simple MLP and learned end-to-end with off-the-shelf object detectors. This 'dynamic proposal processing' (DPP) is shown to outperform state-of-the-art end-to-end object detectors (DETR, Sparse R-CNN) by a clear margin for a given computational complexity.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jul 2022.
Builds on
27 of 34 references.
References · 27
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
- 2015Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networkscited by 9,639
- 2020End-to-End Object Detection with Transformerscited by 7,414
- 2016Feature Pyramid Networks for Object Detectioncited by 5,036
- 2018MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottleneckscited by 4,795
- 2017Squeeze-and-Excitation Networkscited by 4,789
- 2020Deformable DETR: Deformable Transformers for End-to-End Object Detectioncited by 3,422
- 2015SSD: Single Shot MultiBox Detectorcited by 3,130
- 2016Categorical Reparameterization with Gumbel-Softmaxcited by 2,739
- 2019FCOS: Fully Convolutional One-Stage Object Detectioncited by 1,577
- 2017Cascade R-CNN: Delving into High Quality Object Detectioncited by 1,276
15 more
- 2018ShuffleNet V2: Practical Guidelines for Efficient CNN Architecture Designcited by 1,136
- 2021DynamicViT: Efficient Vision Transformers with Dynamic Token Sparsificationcited by 864
- 2018CornerNet: Detecting Objects as Paired Keypointscited by 763
- 2019Bridging the Gap Between Anchor-based and Anchor-free Detection via Adaptive Training Sample Selectioncited by 540
- 2020Sparse R-CNN: End-to-End Object Detection with Learnable Proposalscited by 495
- 2016R-FCN: Object Detection via Region-based Fully Convolutional Networkscited by 414
- 2019GhostNet: More Features from Cheap Operationscited by 410
- 2019Dynamic Convolution: Attention over Convolution Kernelscited by 356
- 2019CondConv: Conditionally Parameterized Convolutions for Efficient Inferencecited by 273
- 2021Coordinate Attention for Efficient Mobile Network Designcited by 241
- 2020Generalized Focal Loss V2: Learning Reliable Localization Quality Estimation for Dense Object Detectioncited by 104
- 2019Dynamic Convolutions: Exploiting Spatial Sparsity for Faster Inferencecited by 91
- 2016A Unified Multi-scale Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Fast Object Detectioncited by 83
- 2021Dynamic Slimmable Networkcited by 83
- 2021Revisiting Dynamic Convolution via Matrix Decompositioncited by 35
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1.
1 paper.