REVIEW 1 cited by
When Few-Shot Learning Meets Video Object Detection
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
Different from static images, videos contain additional temporal and spatial information for better object detection. However, it is costly to obtain a large number of videos with bounding box annotations that are required for supervised deep learning. Although humans can easily learn to recognize new objects by watching only a few video clips, deep learning usually suffers from overfitting. This leads to an important question: how to effectively learn a video object detector from only a few labeled video clips? In this paper, we study the new problem of few-shot learning for video object detection. We first define the few-shot setting and create a new benchmark dataset for few-shot video object detection derived from the widely used ImageNet VID dataset. We employ a transfer-learning framework to effectively train the video object detector on a large number of base-class objects and a few video clips of novel-class objects. By analyzing the results of two methods under this framework (Joint and Freeze) on our designed weak and strong base datasets, we reveal insufficiency and overfitting problems. A simple but effective method, called Thaw, is naturally developed to trade off the two problems and validate our analysis. Extensive experiments on our proposed benchmark datasets with different scenarios demonstrate the effectiveness of our novel analysis in this new few-shot video object detection problem.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Few-Shot Learning in Video and 3D Object Detection: A Survey
A survey of few-shot learning for video and 3D object detection that reviews architectures, losses, and training strategies, but contains numerous citation errors and unsupported performance claims.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.