mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Why Existing Multimodal Crowd Counting Datasets Can Lead to Unfulfilled Expectations in Real-World Applications

arXiv 2304.06401 ↗First posted 13 Apr 2023cs.CVcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

More information leads to better decisions and predictions, right? Confirming this hypothesis, several studies concluded that the simultaneous use of optical and thermal images leads to better predictions in crowd counting. However, the way multimodal models extract enriched features from both modalities is not yet fully understood. Since the use of multimodal data usually increases the complexity, inference time, and memory requirements of the models, it is relevant to examine the differences and advantages of multimodal compared to monomodal models. In this work, all available multimodal datasets for crowd counting are used to investigate the differences between monomodal and multimodal models. To do so, we designed a monomodal architecture that considers the current state of research on monomodal crowd counting. In addition, several multimodal architectures have been developed using different multimodal learning strategies. The key components of the monomodal architecture are also used in the multimodal architectures to be able to answer whether multimodal models perform better in crowd counting in general. Surprisingly, no general answer to this question can be derived from the existing datasets. We found that the existing datasets hold a bias toward thermal images. This was determined by analyzing the relationship between the brightness of optical images and crowd count as well as examining the annotations made for each dataset. Since answering this question is important for future real-world applications of crowd counting, this paper establishes criteria for a potential dataset suitable for answering whether multimodal models perform better in crowd counting in general.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Apr 2023.

Builds on

11 of 18 references.

References · 11

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2021PVT v2: Improved Baselines with Pyramid Vision Transformercited by 751
  3. 2021Twins: Revisiting the Design of Spatial Attention in Vision Transformerscited by 565
  4. 2018CSRNet: Dilated Convolutional Neural Networks for Understanding the Highly Congested Scenescited by 267
  5. 2018Composition Loss for Counting, Density Map Estimation and Localization in Dense Crowdscited by 186
  6. 2019Bayesian Loss for Crowd Count Estimation with Point Supervisioncited by 162
  7. 2020NWPU-Crowd: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Crowd Counting and Localizationcited by 151
  8. 2020Cross-Modal Collaborative Representation Learning and a Large-Scale RGBT Benchmark for Crowd Countingcited by 52
  9. 2021CCTrans: Simplifying and Improving Crowd Counting with Transformercited by 30
  10. 2022TAFNet: A Three-Stream Adaptive Fusion Network for RGB-T Crowd Countingcited by 15
  11. 2022A Unified Multi-Task Learning Framework of Real-Time Drone Supervision for Crowd Countingcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.

1 paper.