Quantitative Analysis of Deep Learning-Based Object Detection Models
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
The rise of convolutional networks in computer vision, especially for generic object detection, has led to the emergence of a myriad of efficient and precise object detection models. Typically, deep learning-driven object detectors operate in two phases: initially, they utilize convolutional networks to extract compact feature embeddings from images; subsequently, these embeddings are used to pinpoint localized object positions. Rooted in convolutional networks, these generic object detection models have the capability to learn from vast datasets that comprise hundreds of thousands of images with thousands of objects. This vast data training gives them unparalleled generalization capabilities, setting them apart from traditional methods. With the swift pace of research, new object detection models are frequently unveiled, each striving for state-of-the-art performance on renowned benchmarks. Given the abundance of viable models, selecting the optimal one can be a daunting task. In this paper, we offer a succinct overview of widely recognized object detectors, emphasizing their architectural distinctions, and presenting a quantitative comparison in terms of accuracy and inference speeds using the popular 2017 Common Objects in Context dataset.
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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