Learning Feature Fusion in Deep Learning-Based Object Detector
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Object detection in real images is a challenging problem in computer vision. Despite several advancements in detection and recognition techniques, robust and accurate localization of interesting objects in images from real-life scenarios remains unsolved because of the difficulties posed by intraclass and interclass variations, occlusion, lightning, and scale changes at different levels. In this work, we present an object detection framework by learning-based fusion of handcrafted features with deep features. Deep features characterize different regions of interest in a testing image with a rich set of statistical features. Our hypothesis is to reinforce these features with handcrafted features by learning the optimal fusion during network training. Our detection framework is based on the recent version of YOLO object detection architecture. Experimental evaluation on PASCAL-VOC and MS-COCO datasets achieved the detection rate increase of 11.4% and 1.9% on the mAP scale in comparison with the YOLO version-3 detector (Redmon and Farhadi 2018). An important step in the proposed learning-based feature fusion strategy is to correctly identify the layer feeding in new features. The present work shows a qualitative approach to identify the best layer for fusion and design steps for feeding in the additional feature sets in convolutional network-based detectors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it