MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159953536 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.11854

Oriented Bounding Boxes for Small and Freely Rotated Objects

2021· preprint· en· W3159953536 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Zand, Ali Etemad, Michael Greenspan

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimum bounding boxComputer scienceBounding overwatchPixelArtificial intelligenceObject detectionComputer visionScalabilityComputationPattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel object detection method is presented that handles freely rotated objects of arbitrary sizes, including tiny objects as small as $2\times 2$ pixels. Such tiny objects appear frequently in remotely sensed images, and present a challenge to recent object detection algorithms. More importantly, current object detection methods have been designed originally to accommodate axis-aligned bounding box detection, and therefore fail to accurately localize oriented boxes that best describe freely rotated objects. In contrast, the proposed CNN-based approach uses potential pixel information at multiple scale levels without the need for any external resources, such as anchor boxes.The method encodes the precise location and orientation of features of the target objects at grid cell locations. Unlike existing methods which regress the bounding box location and dimension,the proposed method learns all the required information by classification, which has the added benefit of enabling oriented bounding box detection without any extra computation. It thus infers the bounding boxes only at inference time by finding the minimum surrounding box for every set of the same predicted class labels. Moreover, a rotation-invariant feature representation is applied to each scale, which imposes a regularization constraint to enforce covering the 360 degree range of in-plane rotation of the training samples to share similar features. Evaluations on the xView and DOTA datasets show that the proposed method uniformly improves performance over existing state-of-the-art methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.121 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207