Active Learning for Deep Detection Neural Networks

  • 2019-11-20 20:57:44
  • Hamed H. Aghdam, Abel Gonzalez-Garcia, Joost van de Weijer, Antonio M. López
  • 23

Abstract

The cost of drawing object bounding boxes (i.e. labeling) for millions ofimages is prohibitively high. For instance, labeling pedestrians in a regularurban image could take 35 seconds on average. Active learning aims to reducethe cost of labeling by selecting only those images that are informative toimprove the detection network accuracy. In this paper, we propose a method toperform active learning of object detectors based on convolutional neuralnetworks. We propose a new image-level scoring process to rank unlabeled imagesfor their automatic selection, which clearly outperforms classical scores. Theproposed method can be applied to videos and sets of still images. In theformer case, temporal selection rules can complement our scoring process. As arelevant use case, we extensively study the performance of our method on thetask of pedestrian detection. Overall, the experiments show that the proposedmethod performs better than random selection. Our codes are publicly availableat www.gitlab.com/haghdam/deep_active_learning.

 

Quick Read (beta)

Active Learning for Deep Detection Neural Networks
(Supplementary Materials)

Hamed H. Aghdam1, Abel Gonzalez-Garcia1, Joost van de Weijer1, Antonio M. López1,2
Computer Vision Center (CVC)1 and Computer Science Dpt.2, Univ. Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB)
{haghdam,agonzalez,joost,antonio}@cvc.uab.es

1 Caltech Pedestrian dataset

Lower-bound error.

𝒳u is the set of unlabeled images that must be partially labeled by following our active learning method. In our experiments, 𝒳u corresponds to either Caltech Pedestian dataset or BDD100K. This section focuses on the former, next section in the later.

In order to estimate a lower-bound error for our active learning method, we trained our detection network on the Caltech Pedestrian dataset using all labeled training frames and evaluated on its test set. Specifically, the network is trained using different negative-to-positive (N2P) ratios. For each N2P, we trained the network three times. Figure 1 illustrates the mean false positive per image (FPPI) vs. the miss rate [Dollar2012PAMI].

Figure 1: Pedestrian detection performance of our base neural network on the Caltech Pedestrian dataset, using different N2Ps (negative to positive ratios).
Figure 2: Statistics of 𝒳al at each cycle in terms of number of pedestrian instances (top) and number of images containing at least one pedestrian instance (bottom) when 𝒳u is the Caltech Pedestrian dataset. Bars correspond to cycles.

We observe that the N2P affects the overall performance of the network. The minimum FPPI is greater than one when the N2P is fixed to 4. Moreover, as the N2P increases, the minimum FPPI is reduced. However, the maximum FPPIs are comparable when the N2P is greater than 10. Another way to compare these curves is to study their miss rates at FPPI=100. This way, the network trained using N2P=15 produces the best results (lower miss rate) 11 1 The high value for N2P also depends on our implementation which is available at www.gitlab.com/haghdam/deep_active_learning.

Per cycle comparison.

In the main submission, we compared our method and its variants of MC-Dropout and binary entropy with the guided random selection at specific cycles. In Figure 5, we compared these method at all cycles. We see how our active learning method and the guided random one select images which give rise to detectors of similar accuracy at 1st cycle. However, starting from the 2nd cycle, our method selects images which turn out in a more accurate detector.

Statistics of 𝒳al.

We showed in our experiments that the number of pedestrian instances selected by our method is higher than for the guided random method. At each cycle, we also computed the number of frames in 𝒳al that contains at least one pedestrian instance, both for our active learning method and guided random. Figure 2 shows the results.

At the end of cycle 14th, 2895 out of 7K frames (41% of frames) have at least one pedestrian instance when 𝒳al is selected using our method. In contrast, 1460 out of 7K frames (21%) contain pedestrian instances using the guided random method.

2 BDD100K dataset

Lower-bound error.

Figure 3 illustrates the performance of our network on the BDD100K dataset using different N2Ps. The results show that our method is less accurate on the BDD100K dataset compared to the Caltech Pedestrian dataset. We think this is due to the fact that our network is too lightweight for BDD100K complexity. Thus, our immediate future work is to use a network with higher capacity for this case.

Figure 3: Pedestrian detection performance of our base neural network on the BDD100K dataset, using different N2Ps (negative to positive ratios).

Per cycle comparison.

For BDD100K, Figure 6 compares the detection performance based on the images selected by our active learning method vs. the ones selected by the guided random method, at each cycle. The results indicate that our method performs slightly better than the random selection. However, the improvement is not as significant as for the Caltech Pedestrian dataset. We think this is because for this dataset it is required a more complex network architecture able to reduce the bias.

Statistics of 𝒳al.

We also computed the statistics of 𝒳al for each cycle on the BDD100K dataset. Figure 4 illustrates the results. Similar to the Caltech Pedestrian datasets, our method selects frames with more pedestrian instances compared to the random selection. Moreover, the number of frames containing at least one pedestrian instance is higher using our method.

Figure 4: Statistics of 𝒳al at each cycle in terms of number of pedestrian instances (top) and number of images containing at least one pedestrian instance (bottom) when 𝒳u is the BDD100K dataset. Bars correspond to cycles.
Figure 5: Comparing our method and its MC-Dropout and Entropy variants with the guided random selection at each cycle, for Caltech Pedestrian dataset.
Figure 6: Comparing our method with random selection at each cycle, for BDD100K.

References