MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976931991 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.11123

Global Sum Pooling: A Generalization Trick for Object Counting with\n Small Datasets of Large Images

2018· preprint· en· W2976931991 on OpenAlexaff
Shubhra Aich, Ian Stavness

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingPoolingComputer scienceGeneralizationArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkInferencePattern recognition (psychology)Focus (optics)Object (grammar)Image (mathematics)Property (philosophy)Machine learningArtificial neural networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we explore the problem of training one-look regression models\nfor counting objects in datasets comprising a small number of high-resolution,\nvariable-shaped images. We illustrate that conventional global average pooling\n(GAP) based models are unreliable due to the patchwise cancellation of true\noverestimates and underestimates for patchwise inference. To overcome this\nlimitation and reduce overfitting caused by the training on full-resolution\nimages, we propose to employ global sum pooling (GSP) instead of GAP or fully\nconnected (FC) layers at the backend of a convolutional network. Although\ncomputationally equivalent to GAP, we show through comprehensive\nexperimentation that GSP allows convolutional networks to learn the counting\ntask as a simple linear mapping problem generalized over the input shape and\nthe number of objects present. This generalization capability allows GSP to\navoid both patchwise cancellation and overfitting by training on small patches\nand inference on full-resolution images as a whole. We evaluate our approach on\nfour different aerial image datasets - two car counting datasets (CARPK and\nCOWC), one crowd counting dataset (ShanghaiTech; parts A and B) and one new\nchallenging dataset for wheat spike counting. Our GSP models improve upon the\nstate-of-the-art approaches on all four datasets with a simple architecture.\nAlso, GSP architectures trained with smaller-sized image patches exhibit better\nlocalization property due to their focus on learning from smaller regions while\ntraining.\n

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207