EN FR
EN FR
STARS - 2017
Overall Objectives
Bilateral Contracts and Grants with Industry
Bibliography
Overall Objectives
Bilateral Contracts and Grants with Industry
Bibliography


Section: New Results

Pedestrian Detection: Training Set Optimization

Participants : Remi Trichet, Javier Ortiz.

keywords: computer vision, pedestrian detection, classifier training, data selection, data generation, data weighting, feature extraction

Figure 5. Training pipeline. The initial training set generation selects data while balancing negative and positive sample cardinalities. A cascade of classifiers is then trained on it, each independent classifier being learnt through bootstrapping. balanced positive and negative sets is sought all along the cascade. Each circle surface is proportional to the set's cardinality that it represents.
IMG/training_pipeline.png
Figure 6. LBP Channel features pipeline.
IMG/Haar-LBP_pipeline.png

This year's work builds on the near real-time pedestrian detector introduced last year. Let's recall that this detector novelty mainly focusses on our training set generation protocol, named FairTrain [39]. The methodology, illustrated in figure 5, decomposes in two distinct parts: The initial training set generation and the classifier training. The initial training set generation carefully selects data from a set of images while balancing negative and positive sample cardinalities. We then train a cascade of 1 to n classifiers. This cascade could consist of a cascade-of-rejectors [57], [143], [48], [118], [122], a soft cascade [99], or both. In addition, each independent classifier is learnt through bootstrapping [59], [69] to improve performance. One key aspect is to seek balanced positive and negative sets at all time. Hence, all along the cascade, the minority class is oversampled to create balanced positive and negative sets. See [39] for details.

This year's improvement on this framework is two-fold: refined experimentation and Local Binary Pattern (LBP) channel descriptor.

In many aspects, the construction of a training set remains similar to what it was at the birth of the domain, some related problems are not well studied, and sometimes still tackled empirically. This work studies the pedestrian classifier training conditions. More than a survey of existing training techniques, our experimentation highlights impactful parameters, potential new research directions, and combination dilemmas. They allowed us to better understand and parametrized our pipeline. Second, we introduce a 12-valued filter representation based on LBP. Indeed, various improvements now allow for this texture feature to provide a very discriminative, yet compact descriptor. This new LBP-based channel descriptor outperforms channel features [65] while requiring a fraction of the original LBP memory footprint. Uniform patterns [100] and Haar-based LBP [56] are employed to shrink the filter dimension in accordance to our needs. Also, cell stacking and new filter combination restriction based on proposal window coverage are successfully applied. Finally, a more reliable feature selection technique is introduced to construct a lower dimension final descriptor without harming its discriminability. Experiments on the Inria and Caltech-USA datasets, respectively presented in tables 1 and 2 validate these progresses.

In the light of these results, combining the FairTrain data selection pipeline with CNN features appears like the obvious next step.

Table 1. Comparison with the state-of-the-art on the Inria dataset. Near real-time methods are separated from others. Ours is in bold. Deep learning techniques are in red. Computation times (CPU/GPU) are calculated according to 640×480 resolution frames. The used metric is the log-average miss rate (the lower the better). Best viewed in color.
Evaluation method Log-average miss rate Speed(CPU/GPU)
HoG [59] 46% 0.5fps
HoG-LBP [127] 39% Not provided
MultiFeatures [129] 36% < 1fps
FeatSynth [45] 31% < 1fps
MultiFeatures+CSS [123] 25% No
Channel Features [65] 21% 0.5fps
FPDW [64] 21% 2-5fps
DPM [70] 20% < 1fps
RF local experts [95] 15.4% 3fps
PCA-CNN [81] 14.24% < 0.1fps
CrossTalk cascades [66] 18.98% 30-60fps
VeryFast [46] 18% 8/135fps
WordChannels [57] 17% 0.5/8fps
SSD [92] 15% 56fps
LBP-Channels full 14.3% 0.5/ 7.5fps
LBP-Channels selected 13.6% 0.7/ 10fps
FRCNN [110] 13% 7fps
RPN+PF [140] 7% 6fps
Table 2. Comparison with the state-of-the-art on the Caltech dataset. Near real-time methods are separated from others. Ours is in bold. Deep learning techniques are in red. Computation times (CPU/GPU) are calculated according to 640×480 resolution frames. The used metric is the log-average miss rate (the lower the better). Best viewed in color.
Evaluation method Log-average miss rate Speed(CPU/GPU)
HoG [59] 69% 0.5fps
DPM [70] 63.26% < 1fps
FeatSynth [45] 60.16% < 1fps
MultiFeatures+CSS [123] 60.89% No
FPDW [64] 57.4% 2-5fps
Channel Features [64] 56.34% 0.5fps
Roerei [46] 48.35% 1 fps
MOCO [54] 45.5% < 1fps
JointDeep [103] 39.32% < 1fps
SquaresChnFtrs [47] 34.8% < 1fps
InformedHaar [137] 34.6% < 0.63fps
Spatial pooling [104] 29.2% < 1fps
Checkboards [138] 24.4% < 1fps
FRCNN [110] 56% 7fps
CrossTalk cascades [66] 53.88% 30-60fps
WordChannels [57] 42.3% 0.5/8fps
LBP-Channels full 39.1% 0.5/ 7.5fps
LBP-Channels selected 35.9% 0.7/ 10fps
SSD [92] 34% 56fps
RPN+PF [140] 10% 6fps