Ross Girshick Microsoft Research Guest lecture for UW CSE 455 Nov 24 2014 Outline Object detection the task evaluation datasets Convolutional Neural Networks CNNs overview and history Regionbased Convolutional Networks RCNNs ID: 627568
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Object detection, deep learning, and R-C..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Object detection, deep learning, and R-CNNs
Ross Girshick
Microsoft Research
Guest lecture for UW CSE 455
Nov. 24, 2014Slide2
Outline
Object detection
the task, evaluation, datasets
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)
overview and history
Region-based Convolutional Networks (R-CNNs)Slide3
Image classification
classes
Task: assign correct class label to the whole image
Digit classification (MNIST)
Object recognition (Caltech-101)Slide4
Classification vs. Detection
Dog
Dog
DogSlide5
Problem formulation
person
motorbike
Input
Desired output
{ airplane, bird, motorbike, person, sofa }Slide6
Evaluating a detector
Test image (previously unseen)Slide7
First detection ...
‘person’ detector predictions
0.9Slide8
Second detection ...
0.9
0.6
‘person’ detector predictionsSlide9
Third detection ...
0.9
0.6
0.2
‘person’ detector predictionsSlide10
Compare to ground truth
ground truth ‘person’ boxes
0.9
0.6
0.2
‘person’ detector predictionsSlide11
Sort by confidence
...
...
...
...
...
✓
✓
✓
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.1
true
positive
(high overlap)
false
positive
(no overlap,
low overlap, or
duplicate)
X
X
XSlide12
Evaluation metric
...
...
...
...
...
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.1
✓
✓
✓
X
X
X
✓
✓
+
XSlide13
Evaluation metric
Average Precision (
AP
)
0
% is worst
100% is best
mean AP over classes
(mAP)
...
...
...
...
...
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.1
✓
✓
✓
X
X
XSlide14
Pedestrians
Histograms of Oriented Gradients for Human Detection
,
Dalal
and
Triggs
, CVPR 2005AP ~77%More sophisticated methods: AP ~90%
(a) average gradient image over training examples
(b) each “pixel” shows max positive SVM weight in the block centered on that pixel(c) same as (b) for negative SVM weights
(d) test image(e) its R-HOG descriptor(f) R-HOG descriptor weighted by positive SVM weights(g) R-HOG descriptor weighted by negative SVM weightsSlide15
Why did it work?
Average gradient imageSlide16
Generic categories
Can we detect people, chairs, horses, cars, dogs, buses, bottles, sheep …?
PASCAL Visual Object Categories (VOC) datasetSlide17
Generic categories
Why doesn’t this work (as well)?
Can we detect people, chairs, horses, cars, dogs, buses, bottles, sheep …?
PASCAL Visual Object Categories (VOC) datasetSlide18
Quiz timeSlide19
Warm up
This is an average image of which object class?Slide20
Warm up
pedestrianSlide21
A little harder
?Slide22
A little harder
?
Hint: airplane, bicycle, bus, car, cat, chair, cow, dog, dining table
Slide23
A little harder
b
icycle (PASCAL)Slide24
A little harder, yet
?Slide25
A little harder, yet
?
Hint: white blob on a green backgroundSlide26
A little harder, yet
sheep (PASCAL)Slide27
Impossible?
?Slide28
Impossible?
dog (PASCAL)Slide29
Impossible?
dog (PASCAL)
Why does the mean look like this?
There’s no alignment between the examples!
How do we combat this?Slide30
PASCAL VOC detection history
DPM
DPM,
HOG
+
BOW
DPM,
MKL
DPM++
DPM++,
MKL,
Selective
Search
Selective
Search,
DPM++,
MKL
41%
41%
37%
28%
23%
17%Slide31
Part-based models & multiple features (MKL)
DPM
DPM,
HOG
+
BOW
DPM,
MKL
DPM++
DPM++,
MKL,
Selective
Search
Selective
Search,
DPM++,
MKL
41%
41%
37%
28%
23%
17%
rapid performance improvementsSlide32
Kitchen-sink approaches
DPM
DPM,
HOG
+
BOW
DPM,
MKL
DPM++
DPM++,
MKL,
Selective
Search
Selective
Search,
DPM++,
MKL
41%
41%
37%
28%
23%
17%
increasing complexity & plateauSlide33
Region-based Convolutional Networks (R-CNNs)
DPM
DPM,
HOG
+
BOW
DPM,
MKL
DPM++
DPM++,
MKL,
Selective
Search
Selective
Search,
DPM++,
MKL
41%
41%
37%
28%
23%
17%
53
%
62
%
R-CNN v1
R-CNN v2
[R-CNN. Girshick et al. CVPR 2014]Slide34
~1 year
~5 years
Region-based Convolutional Networks (R-CNNs)
[R-CNN. Girshick et al. CVPR 2014]Slide35
Convolutional Neural Networks
OverviewSlide36
Standard Neural Networks
“Fully connected”Slide37
From NNs to Convolutional NNs
Local connectivity
Shared (“tied”) weights
Multiple feature maps
PoolingSlide38
Convolutional NNs
Local connectivity
Each green unit is only connected to (3)
neighboring
blue units
compareSlide39
Convolutional NNs
Shared (“tied”) weights
All green units
share
the same parameters
Each green unit computes the
same function,
but with a
different input window
Slide40
Convolutional NNs
Convolution with 1-D filter:
All green units
share
the same parameters
Each green unit computes the
same function,
but with a
different input window
Slide41
Convolutional NNs
Convolution with 1-D filter:
All green units
share
the same parameters
Each green unit computes the
same function,
but with a
different input window
Slide42
Convolutional NNs
Convolution with 1-D filter:
All green units
share
the same parameters
Each green unit computes the
same function,
but with a
different input window
Slide43
Convolutional NNs
Convolution with 1-D filter:
All green units
share
the same parameters
Each green unit computes the
same function,
but with a
different input window
Slide44
Convolutional NNs
Convolution with 1-D filter:
All green units
share
the same parameters
Each green unit computes the
same function,
but with a
different input window
Slide45
Convolutional NNs
Multiple feature maps
All orange units compute the
same function
but with a
different input windows
Orange and green units
compute
different functions
Feature map 1
(array of green
units)
Feature map 2
(array of orange
units)Slide46
Convolutional NNs
Pooling (
max
, average)
1
4
0
3
4
3
Pooling area: 2 units
Pooling stride: 2 units
Subsamples
feature mapsSlide47
Image
Pooling
Convolution
2D inputSlide48
1989
Backpropagation
applied to handwritten zip code recognition
,
Lecun
et al., 1989Slide49
Historical perspective – 1980Slide50
Historical perspective – 1980
Hubel and Wiesel
1962
Included basic ingredients of
ConvNets
, but no supervised learning algorithmSlide51
Supervised learning – 1986
Early demonstration that error
backpropagation
can be used
for supervised training of neural nets (including
ConvNets
)
Gradient descent training with error
backpropagationSlide52
Supervised learning – 1986
“T” vs. “C” problem
Simple
ConvNetSlide53
Practical ConvNets
Gradient-Based Learning Applied to Document Recognition
,
Lecun
et al., 1998Slide54
Demo
http
://
cs.stanford.edu/people/karpathy/convnetjs/demo/mnist.html
ConvNetJS
by Andrej Karpathy (Ph.D. student at Stanford)
Software librariesCaffe (C++, python, matlab)
Torch7 (C++, lua)Theano (python)Slide55
The fall of ConvNets
The rise of Support Vector Machines (SVMs)
Mathematical advantages (theory, convex optimization)
Competitive performance on tasks such as digit classification
Neural
nets b
ecame unpopular in the mid 1990sSlide56
The key to SVMs
It’s all about the features
Histograms of Oriented Gradients for Human Detection
,
Dalal
and
Triggs, CVPR 2005
SVM weights
(+) (-)
HOG featuresSlide57
Core idea of “deep learning”
Input: the “
raw
” signal (image, waveform, …)
Features: hierarchy of features is
learned from the raw inputSlide58
If SVMs killed neural nets, how did they come back (in computer vision)?Slide59
What’s new since the 1980s?
More layers
LeNet-3 and LeNet-5 had 3 and 5 learnable layers
Current models have 8 – 20+
“
ReLU” non-
linearities (Rectified Linear Unit)
Gradient doesn’t vanish
“Dropout” regularization
Fast GPU implementations
More data
Slide60
Ross’s Own System: Region CNNsSlide61
Competitive ResultsSlide62
Top Regions for Six Object Classes