Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Empirical Upper Bound in Object Detection and More

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

arxiv 1911.12451 v3 pith:6DVPOZW3 submitted 2019-11-27 cs.CV

Empirical Upper Bound in Object Detection and More

classification cs.CV
keywords objectdetectionmodelserrorswhenbenchmarksbettercoco
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Object detection remains as one of the most notorious open problems in computer vision. Despite large strides in accuracy in recent years, modern object detectors have started to saturate on popular benchmarks raising the question of how far we can reach with deep learning tools and tricks. Here, by employing 2 state-of-the-art object detection benchmarks, and analyzing more than 15 models over 4 large scale datasets, we I) carefully determine the upperbound in AP, which is 91.6% on VOC (test2007), 78.2% on COCO (val2017), and 58.9% on OpenImages V4 (validation), regardless of the IOU. These numbers are much better than the mAP of the best model1 (47.9% on VOC, and 46.9% on COCO; IOUs=.5:.95), II) characterize the sources of errors in object detectors, in a novel and intuitive way, and find that classification error (confusion with other classes and misses) explains the largest fraction of errors and weighs more than localization and duplicate errors, and III) analyze the invariance properties of models when surrounding context of an object is removed, when an object is placed in an incongruent background, and when images are blurred or flipped vertically. We find that models generate boxes on empty regions and that context is more important for detecting small objects than larger ones. Our work taps into the tight relationship between recognition and detection and offers insights for building better models.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Differences in Detection: Explainability Where it Matters

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    DnD uses set operations on matched ground-truth detections to compare two object detectors more directly than separate mAP or TIDE scores.