REVIEW 2 cited by
Crowd Counting and Density Estimation by Trellis Encoder-Decoder Network
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Crowd counting has recently attracted increasing interest in computer vision but remains a challenging problem. In this paper, we propose a trellis encoder-decoder network (TEDnet) for crowd counting, which focuses on generating high-quality density estimation maps. The major contributions are four-fold. First, we develop a new trellis architecture that incorporates multiple decoding paths to hierarchically aggregate features at different encoding stages, which can handle large variations of objects. Second, we design dense skip connections interleaved across paths to facilitate sufficient multi-scale feature fusions and to absorb the supervision information. Third, we propose a new combinatorial loss to enforce local coherence and spatial correlation in density maps. By distributedly imposing this combinatorial loss on intermediate outputs, gradient vanishing can be largely alleviated for better back-propagation and faster convergence. Finally, our TEDnet achieves new state-of-the art performance on four benchmarks, with an improvement up to 14% in terms of MAE.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Multi-Level Bottom-Top and Top-Bottom Feature Fusion for Crowd Counting
The proposed MBTTBF-SCFB network achieves lower average counting error than several prior methods on ShanghaiTech, UCF_CC_50, and UCF-QNRF, though it trails CAN on two benchmarks.
-
Attend To Count: Crowd Counting with Adaptive Capacity Multi-scale CNNs
A three-part CNN with a count attention mechanism routes dense and sparse image regions to networks of different capacities and reports state-of-the-art counting errors on five benchmarks.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.