Scale Variation for Object Detection

This problem is well discussed in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.01497.pdf. Different schemes for addressing multiple scales and sizes: (a) multi-scale input images (b) multi-scale feature maps (c) multi-scale anchor boxes on one feature map.

  1. The first way is based on image/feature pyramids, e.g., in DPM and CNN-based methods. The images are resized at multiple scales, and feature maps (HOG or deep convolutional features) are computed for each scale. This way is often useful but is time-consuming.

  2. The second way is to use sliding windows of multiple scales (and/or aspect ratios) of the feature maps. For example, in DPM, models of different aspect ratios are trained separately using different filter sizes. If this way is used to address multiple scales, it can be thought of as a “pyramid of filters”. The second way is usually adopted jointly with the first way.

  3. As a comparison, our anchor-based method is built on comparison, our anchor-based method is built on a pyramid of anchors, which is more cost-efficient. Our method classifies and regresses bounding boxes with reference to anchor boxes of multiple scales and aspect ratios. It only relies on images and feature maps of a single scale, and uses filters (sliding windows on the feature map) of a single size. We show by experiments the effects of this scheme for addressing multiple scales and sizes. Because of this multi-scale design based on anchors, we can simply use the convolutional features computed on a single-scale image, as is also done by the Fast R-CNN detector. The design of multi- scale anchors is a key component for sharing features without extra cost for addressing scales.

  4. use different dilation rates to vary receptive fields

  5. use feature pyramid [1]

Reference

[1] Lin, Tsung-Yi, et al. “Feature pyramid networks for object detection.” CVPR, 2017.