Back to Main page DET LOC VID Scene Team information Per-class results

Legend:
Yellow background = winner in this task according to this metric; authors are willing to reveal the method
White background = authors are willing to reveal the method
Grey background = authors chose not to reveal the method
Italics = authors requested entry not participate in competition

Object detection (DET)^[top]

Task 1a: Object detection with provided training data

Ordered by number of categories won

Team name Entry description Number of object categories won mean AP

MSRA An ensemble for detection. 194 0.620741

Qualcomm Research NeoNet ensemble with bounding box regression. Validation mAP is 54.6 4 0.535745

CUImage Combined multiple models with the region proposals of cascaded RPN, 57.3% mAP on Val2. 2 0.527113

The University of Adelaide 9 models 0 0.514434

MCG-ICT-CAS 2 models on 2 proposals without category information: {[SS+EB]+(SS)}+{[RPN] +(RPN)} 0 0.453622

MCG-ICT-CAS Category aggregation + Co-occurrence reﬁnement with 2 models on 2 proposals: {[SS+EB]+(SS)}+{[RPN] +(RPN)} 0 0.453606

MCG-ICT-CAS Category aggregation with 2 models on 2 proposals: {[SS+EB]+(SS)}+{[RPN] +(RPN)} 0 0.451932

DROPLET-CASIA A combination of 6 models with selective regression 0 0.448598

Trimps-Soushen no extra data 0 0.44635

MCG-ICT-CAS Category aggregation + Co-occurrence reﬁnement with single model on single proposal: [SS+EB] +(SS) 0 0.444896

DROPLET-CASIA A combination of 6 models without regression 0 0.442696

MCG-ICT-CAS Category aggregation + Co-occurrence reﬁnement with single model on single proposal: [RPN] +(RPN) 0 0.440436

Yunxiao A single model, Fast R-CNN baseline 0 0.429423

Trimps-Fudan-HUST Best single model 0 0.421353

HiVision Single detection model 0 0.418474

SYSU_Vision vgg16+edgebox 0 0.402298

SYSU_Vision vgg16+selective search+spl 0 0.394901

FACEALL-BUPT a simple strategy to merge the three results, 38.7% MAP on validation 0 0.386014

FACEALL-BUPT googlenet, fast-rcnn, pretrained on the 1000 classes, selective search, add ROIPooling after inception_5, input size 786(max 1280), pooled size 4x4, the mean AP on validation is 37.8% 0 0.378955

DEEPimagine Fusion step 1 and 2 hybrid 0 0.371965

SYSU_Vision vgg16+selective search 0 0.371149

DEEPimagine Category adaptive multi-model fusion stage 3 0 0.370756

DEEPimagine Category adaptive multi-model fusion stage 2 0 0.369696

ITLab - Inha average ensemble of 2 detection models 0 0.366185

ITLab - Inha single detection model(B) with hierarchical BB 0 0.365423

ITLab - Inha single detection model(B) 0 0.359213

ITLab - Inha weighted ensemble of 2 detection models with hierarchical BB 0 0.359109

DEEPimagine Category adaptive multi-model fusion stage 1 0 0.357192

DEEPimagine No fusion. Single deep depth model. 0 0.351264

FACEALL-BUPT alexnet, fast-rcnn, pretrained on the 1000 classes, selective search, the mean AP on validation is 34.9% 0 0.34843

ITLab - Inha single detection model(A) with hierarchical BB 0 0.346269

FACEALL-BUPT googlenet, fast-rcnn, relu layers replaced by prelu layers, pretrained on the 1000 classes, selective search, add ROIPooling after inception_4d, the mean AP on validation is 34.0% 0 0.343141

JHL Fast-RCNN with Selective Search 0 0.311042

USTC_UBRI --- 0 0.177112

hustvision yolo-balance 0 0.143461

darkensemble A single model but ensembled pipline trained on part of data due to time limit. 0 0.096197

ESOGU MLCV independent test results 0 0.093048

ESOGU MLCV results after mild suppression 0 0.092512

N-ODG Detection results. 0 0.03008

MSRA A single model for detection. --- 0.588451

Qualcomm Research NeoNet ensemble without bounding box regression. Validation mAP is 53.6 --- 0.531957

[top]

Ordered by mean average precision

Team name Entry description mean AP Number of object categories won

MSRA An ensemble for detection. 0.620741 194

MSRA A single model for detection. 0.588451 ---

Qualcomm Research NeoNet ensemble with bounding box regression. Validation mAP is 54.6 0.535745 4

Qualcomm Research NeoNet ensemble without bounding box regression. Validation mAP is 53.6 0.531957 ---

CUImage Combined multiple models with the region proposals of cascaded RPN, 57.3% mAP on Val2. 0.527113 2

The University of Adelaide 9 models 0.514434 0

MCG-ICT-CAS 2 models on 2 proposals without category information: {[SS+EB]+(SS)}+{[RPN] +(RPN)} 0.453622 0

MCG-ICT-CAS Category aggregation + Co-occurrence reﬁnement with 2 models on 2 proposals: {[SS+EB]+(SS)}+{[RPN] +(RPN)} 0.453606 0

MCG-ICT-CAS Category aggregation with 2 models on 2 proposals: {[SS+EB]+(SS)}+{[RPN] +(RPN)} 0.451932 0

DROPLET-CASIA A combination of 6 models with selective regression 0.448598 0

Trimps-Soushen no extra data 0.44635 0

MCG-ICT-CAS Category aggregation + Co-occurrence reﬁnement with single model on single proposal: [SS+EB] +(SS) 0.444896 0

DROPLET-CASIA A combination of 6 models without regression 0.442696 0

MCG-ICT-CAS Category aggregation + Co-occurrence reﬁnement with single model on single proposal: [RPN] +(RPN) 0.440436 0

Yunxiao A single model, Fast R-CNN baseline 0.429423 0

Trimps-Fudan-HUST Best single model 0.421353 0

HiVision Single detection model 0.418474 0

SYSU_Vision vgg16+edgebox 0.402298 0

SYSU_Vision vgg16+selective search+spl 0.394901 0

FACEALL-BUPT a simple strategy to merge the three results, 38.7% MAP on validation 0.386014 0

FACEALL-BUPT googlenet, fast-rcnn, pretrained on the 1000 classes, selective search, add ROIPooling after inception_5, input size 786(max 1280), pooled size 4x4, the mean AP on validation is 37.8% 0.378955 0

DEEPimagine Fusion step 1 and 2 hybrid 0.371965 0

SYSU_Vision vgg16+selective search 0.371149 0

DEEPimagine Category adaptive multi-model fusion stage 3 0.370756 0

DEEPimagine Category adaptive multi-model fusion stage 2 0.369696 0

ITLab - Inha average ensemble of 2 detection models 0.366185 0

ITLab - Inha single detection model(B) with hierarchical BB 0.365423 0

ITLab - Inha single detection model(B) 0.359213 0

ITLab - Inha weighted ensemble of 2 detection models with hierarchical BB 0.359109 0

DEEPimagine Category adaptive multi-model fusion stage 1 0.357192 0

DEEPimagine No fusion. Single deep depth model. 0.351264 0

FACEALL-BUPT alexnet, fast-rcnn, pretrained on the 1000 classes, selective search, the mean AP on validation is 34.9% 0.34843 0

ITLab - Inha single detection model(A) with hierarchical BB 0.346269 0

FACEALL-BUPT googlenet, fast-rcnn, relu layers replaced by prelu layers, pretrained on the 1000 classes, selective search, add ROIPooling after inception_4d, the mean AP on validation is 34.0% 0.343141 0

JHL Fast-RCNN with Selective Search 0.311042 0

USTC_UBRI --- 0.177112 0

hustvision yolo-balance 0.143461 0

darkensemble A single model but ensembled pipline trained on part of data due to time limit. 0.096197 0

ESOGU MLCV independent test results 0.093048 0

ESOGU MLCV results after mild suppression 0.092512 0

N-ODG Detection results. 0.03008 0

[top]

Task 1b: Object detection with additional training data

Ordered by number of categories won

Team name Entry description Description of outside data used Number of object categories won mean AP

Amax remove threshold compared to entry1 pre-trained model from classification task;add training examples for class number <1000 165 0.57848

CUImage Combined models with region proposals of cascaded RPN, edgebox and selective search 3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN 30 0.522833

MIL-UT ensemble of 4 models (by averaging) VGG-16, BVLC GoogLeNet, Multibox and CLS/LOC data 2 0.469762

Amax Cascade region regression pre-trained model from classification task;add training examples for class number <1000 1 0.577374

MIL-UT ensemble of 4 models (using the weights learned separately for each class by Bayesian optimization on the val2 dataset) VGG-16, BVLC GoogLeNet, Multibox and CLS/LOC data 1 0.467786

Trimps-Soushen 2 times merge COCO 1 0.448106

Trimps-Soushen model 29 COCO 0 0.450794

Trimps-Fudan-HUST top5 region merge COCO 0 0.448739

Futurecrew Ensemble 1 of multiple models without contextual modeling. Validation is 44.1% mAP The CNN was pre-trained on the ILSVRC 2014 CLS dataset 0 0.416015

Futurecrew Ensemble 2 of multiple models without contextual modeling. Validation is 44.0% mAP The CNN was pre-trained on the ILSVRC 2014 CLS dataset 0 0.414619

Futurecrew Faster R-CNN based single detection model. Validation is 41.7% mAP The CNN was pre-trained on the ILSVRC 2014 CLS dataset 0 0.39862

1-HKUST run 2 HKUST-object-100 0 0.239854

1-HKUST baseline run 1 HKUST-object-100 0 0.205873

CUImage Single model 3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN --- 0.542021

CUImage Combined multiple models with the region proposals of cascaded RPN 3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN --- 0.531459

CUImage Combined models with region proposals of edgebox and selective search 3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN --- 0.137037

[top]

Ordered by mean average precision

Team name Entry description Description of outside data used mean AP Number of object categories won

Amax remove threshold compared to entry1 pre-trained model from classification task;add training examples for class number <1000 0.57848 165

Amax Cascade region regression pre-trained model from classification task;add training examples for class number <1000 0.577374 1

CUImage Single model 3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN 0.542021 ---

CUImage Combined multiple models with the region proposals of cascaded RPN 3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN 0.531459 ---

CUImage Combined models with region proposals of cascaded RPN, edgebox and selective search 3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN 0.522833 30

MIL-UT ensemble of 4 models (by averaging) VGG-16, BVLC GoogLeNet, Multibox and CLS/LOC data 0.469762 2

MIL-UT ensemble of 4 models (using the weights learned separately for each class by Bayesian optimization on the val2 dataset) VGG-16, BVLC GoogLeNet, Multibox and CLS/LOC data 0.467786 1

Trimps-Soushen model 29 COCO 0.450794 0

Trimps-Fudan-HUST top5 region merge COCO 0.448739 0

Trimps-Soushen 2 times merge COCO 0.448106 1

Futurecrew Ensemble 1 of multiple models without contextual modeling. Validation is 44.1% mAP The CNN was pre-trained on the ILSVRC 2014 CLS dataset 0.416015 0

Futurecrew Ensemble 2 of multiple models without contextual modeling. Validation is 44.0% mAP The CNN was pre-trained on the ILSVRC 2014 CLS dataset 0.414619 0

Futurecrew Faster R-CNN based single detection model. Validation is 41.7% mAP The CNN was pre-trained on the ILSVRC 2014 CLS dataset 0.39862 0

1-HKUST run 2 HKUST-object-100 0.239854 0

1-HKUST baseline run 1 HKUST-object-100 0.205873 0

CUImage Combined models with region proposals of edgebox and selective search 3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN 0.137037 ---

[top]

Object localization (LOC)^[top]

Task 2a: Classification+localization with provided training data

Ordered by localization error

Team name Entry description Localization error Classification error

MSRA Ensemble A for classification and localization. 0.090178 0.03567

MSRA Ensemble B for classification and localization. 0.090801 0.03567

MSRA Ensemble C for classification and localization. 0.092108 0.0369

Trimps-Soushen combined 12 models 0.122907 0.04649

Qualcomm Research Ensemble of 9 NeoNets with bounding box regression. Weighted fusion of classification models with 3 NeoNets used to slightly improve the classification accuracy. Validation top 5 error rate is 4.84% (classification). 0.125542 0.04873

Qualcomm Research Ensemble of 9 NeoNets with bounding box regression. Weighted fusion of classification models. Validation top 5 error rate is 4.86% (classification) and 14.54% (localization) 0.125926 0.04913

Qualcomm Research Ensemble of 9 NeoNets with bounding box regression. Validation top 5 error rate is 5.06% (classification) and 14.76% (localization) 0.128353 0.05068

Trimps-Soushen combined according category, 13 models 0.1291 0.04581

Trimps-Soushen combined 8 models 0.130449 0.04866

Trimps-Soushen single model 0.133685 0.04649

MCG-ICT-CAS [GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN+SEL]OWA-[EB200RPN+SSEB1000EB] 0.14686 0.06314

MCG-ICT-CAS [GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN]-[EB200RPN+SSEB1000EB] 0.147316 0.06407

Lunit-KAIST Class-agnostic AttentionNet, double-pass (original+flipped, fusion weights learnt on the entire validation set). 0.147337 0.07923

MCG-ICT-CAS [GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN+SEL]AVG-[EB200EB+SSEB1000EB] 0.148157 0.06321

MCG-ICT-CAS [GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN]-[EB200RPN+SSEB1000RPN] 0.149526 0.06407

Lunit-KAIST Class-agnostic AttentionNet, double-pass (original+flipped, fusion weights learnt on the half of the validation set). 0.149982 0.07451

Lunit-KAIST Class-agnostic AttentionNet, double-pass (original+flipped). 0.150688 0.07333

Tencent-Bestimage Tune GBDT on validation set 0.15548 0.10786

Qualcomm Research Ensemble of 4 NeoNets, no bounding box regression. 0.155875 0.05068

Tencent-Bestimage Model ensemble of objectness 0.156009 0.10826

MCG-ICT-CAS Baseline: [GoogleNet+VGG]-[EB200EB+EB1000EB] 0.158219 0.06698

Lunit-KAIST Class-agnostic AttentionNet, single-pass. 0.159754 0.07245

Tencent-Bestimage Change SVM to GBDT 0.163198 0.0978

Tencent-Bestimage Given a lot of box proposals(eg. from selective search), the localization task become (a) how to find real boxes that contain ground truth, (b) what is the category lies in the box. Enlightened by fast R-CNN, we propose a classification && localization framework, which combines the global context information and local box information by selecting proper (class, box) pairs. 0.193552 0.1401

ReCeption --- 0.195792 0.03581

CUImage Average multiple models. Validation accuracy is 78.28%. 0.212141 0.05858

CIL Ensemble of multiple regression model: all model 0.231945 0.07446

CIL Ensemble of multiple regression models: base model- simple regression 0.232432 0.07444

CIL Ensemble of multiple regression models:base model-middle feature model 0.232526 0.07453

VUNO A combination of CNN and CLSTM (averaging) 0.252951 0.05034

VUNO A combination of two CNNs (averaging) 0.254922 0.05034

CIL Single regression model: middle and last layer feature are combined 0.271406 0.05477

CIL Single regression model with multi-scale prediction 0.273294 0.05477

KAISTNIA_ETRI CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) I 0.284944 0.07262

KAISTNIA_ETRI CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) IV 0.2854 0.07384

KAISTNIA_ETRI CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) III 0.285452 0.07384

KAISTNIA_ETRI CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) II 0.285608 0.07384

KAISTNIA_ETRI CNN with recursive localization 0.287475 0.073

HiVision Multiple models for classification, single model for localization 0.289653 0.06482

FACEALL-BUPT merge two models to classify the proposals. the top-5 classification error on the validation set is 7.03%, the top-5 localization error on validation is 31.53% 0.314581 0.07502

MIPAL_SNU Localization network finetuned for each class 0.324675 0.08534

FACEALL-BUPT use a multi-scale googlenet model to classify the proposals. the top-5 classification error on the validation set is 7.03%, the top-5 localization error on validation is 32.76% 0.327745 0.07502

FACEALL-BUPT three models, selective search, classify each proposal, merge top-3, the top-5 classification error on the validation set is 7.03%, the top-5 localization error on validation is 32.9% 0.32844 0.07502

MIPAL_SNU Single Localization network 0.355101 0.08534

PCL Bangalore Joint localization and classification 0.422177 0.1294

bioinf@JKU Classification and "split" bboxes 0.455186 0.0918

bioinf@JKU Classification and localization bboxes 0.46808 0.0918

Szokcka Research Group CNN-ensemble, bounding box is fixed + VGG-style network 0.484004 0.06828

Szokcka Research Group CNN-ensemble, bounding box is fixed. 0.484191 0.07338

ITU Hierarchical Google Net Classification + Localization 0.589338 0.11433

Miletos Hierarchical Google Net Classification + Localization 0.589338 0.11433

JHL 5 averaged CNN model (top5) 0.602865 0.0712

APL Multi-CNN Best Network Classifier (Random Forest via Top 5 Guesses) 0.613363 0.13288

Deep Punx Inception6 model trained on image-level annotations (~640K iterations were conducted). 0.614338 0.11104

bioinf@JKU Classification only, no bounding boxes 0.619007 0.0918

bioinf@JKU Classification and bboxes regression 0.62327 0.0918

DIT_TITECH Ensemble of 6 DNN models with 11-16 convolutional and 4-5 pooling layers. 0.627409 0.13893

Deep Punx Inception6 model trained on object-level annotations (~640K iterations were conducted). 0.639183 0.17594

JHL 5 averaged CNN model (top1) 0.668728 0.23944

Deep Punx Model, inspired by Inception7a [2] (~700K iterations were conducted). 0.757796 0.14666

APL Multi-CNN Best Label Classifier (Random Forest via 1000 Class Scores) 0.819291 0.60759

[top]

Ordered by classification error

Team name Entry description Classification error Localization error

MSRA Ensemble A for classification and localization. 0.03567 0.090178

MSRA Ensemble B for classification and localization. 0.03567 0.090801

ReCeption --- 0.03581 0.195792

MSRA Ensemble C for classification and localization. 0.0369 0.092108

Trimps-Soushen combined according category, 13 models 0.04581 0.1291

Trimps-Soushen single model 0.04649 0.133685

Trimps-Soushen combined 12 models 0.04649 0.122907

Trimps-Soushen combined 8 models 0.04866 0.130449

Qualcomm Research Ensemble of 9 NeoNets with bounding box regression. Weighted fusion of classification models with 3 NeoNets used to slightly improve the classification accuracy. Validation top 5 error rate is 4.84% (classification). 0.04873 0.125542

Qualcomm Research Ensemble of 9 NeoNets with bounding box regression. Weighted fusion of classification models. Validation top 5 error rate is 4.86% (classification) and 14.54% (localization) 0.04913 0.125926

VUNO A combination of CNN and CLSTM (averaging) 0.05034 0.252951

VUNO A combination of two CNNs (averaging) 0.05034 0.254922

Qualcomm Research Ensemble of 9 NeoNets with bounding box regression. Validation top 5 error rate is 5.06% (classification) and 14.76% (localization) 0.05068 0.128353

Qualcomm Research Ensemble of 4 NeoNets, no bounding box regression. 0.05068 0.155875

CIL Single regression model with multi-scale prediction 0.05477 0.273294

CIL Single regression model: middle and last layer feature are combined 0.05477 0.271406

CUImage Average multiple models. Validation accuracy is 78.28%. 0.05858 0.212141

MCG-ICT-CAS [GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN+SEL]OWA-[EB200RPN+SSEB1000EB] 0.06314 0.14686

MCG-ICT-CAS [GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN+SEL]AVG-[EB200EB+SSEB1000EB] 0.06321 0.148157

MCG-ICT-CAS [GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN]-[EB200RPN+SSEB1000EB] 0.06407 0.147316

MCG-ICT-CAS [GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN]-[EB200RPN+SSEB1000RPN] 0.06407 0.149526

HiVision Multiple models for classification, single model for localization 0.06482 0.289653

MCG-ICT-CAS Baseline: [GoogleNet+VGG]-[EB200EB+EB1000EB] 0.06698 0.158219

Szokcka Research Group CNN-ensemble, bounding box is fixed + VGG-style network 0.06828 0.484004

JHL 5 averaged CNN model (top5) 0.0712 0.602865

Lunit-KAIST Class-agnostic AttentionNet, single-pass. 0.07245 0.159754

KAISTNIA_ETRI CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) I 0.07262 0.284944

KAISTNIA_ETRI CNN with recursive localization 0.073 0.287475

Lunit-KAIST Class-agnostic AttentionNet, double-pass (original+flipped). 0.07333 0.150688

Szokcka Research Group CNN-ensemble, bounding box is fixed. 0.07338 0.484191

KAISTNIA_ETRI CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) II 0.07384 0.285608

KAISTNIA_ETRI CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) III 0.07384 0.285452

KAISTNIA_ETRI CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) IV 0.07384 0.2854

CIL Ensemble of multiple regression models: base model- simple regression 0.07444 0.232432

CIL Ensemble of multiple regression model: all model 0.07446 0.231945

Lunit-KAIST Class-agnostic AttentionNet, double-pass (original+flipped, fusion weights learnt on the half of the validation set). 0.07451 0.149982

CIL Ensemble of multiple regression models:base model-middle feature model 0.07453 0.232526

FACEALL-BUPT three models, selective search, classify each proposal, merge top-3, the top-5 classification error on the validation set is 7.03%, the top-5 localization error on validation is 32.9% 0.07502 0.32844

FACEALL-BUPT use a multi-scale googlenet model to classify the proposals. the top-5 classification error on the validation set is 7.03%, the top-5 localization error on validation is 32.76% 0.07502 0.327745

FACEALL-BUPT merge two models to classify the proposals. the top-5 classification error on the validation set is 7.03%, the top-5 localization error on validation is 31.53% 0.07502 0.314581

Lunit-KAIST Class-agnostic AttentionNet, double-pass (original+flipped, fusion weights learnt on the entire validation set). 0.07923 0.147337

MIPAL_SNU Single Localization network 0.08534 0.355101

MIPAL_SNU Localization network finetuned for each class 0.08534 0.324675

bioinf@JKU Classification only, no bounding boxes 0.0918 0.619007

bioinf@JKU Classification and "split" bboxes 0.0918 0.455186

bioinf@JKU Classification and localization bboxes 0.0918 0.46808

bioinf@JKU Classification and bboxes regression 0.0918 0.62327

Tencent-Bestimage Change SVM to GBDT 0.0978 0.163198

Tencent-Bestimage Tune GBDT on validation set 0.10786 0.15548

Tencent-Bestimage Model ensemble of objectness 0.10826 0.156009

Deep Punx Inception6 model trained on image-level annotations (~640K iterations were conducted). 0.11104 0.614338

ITU Hierarchical Google Net Classification + Localization 0.11433 0.589338

Miletos Hierarchical Google Net Classification + Localization 0.11433 0.589338

PCL Bangalore Joint localization and classification 0.1294 0.422177

APL Multi-CNN Best Network Classifier (Random Forest via Top 5 Guesses) 0.13288 0.613363

DIT_TITECH Ensemble of 6 DNN models with 11-16 convolutional and 4-5 pooling layers. 0.13893 0.627409

Tencent-Bestimage Given a lot of box proposals(eg. from selective search), the localization task become (a) how to find real boxes that contain ground truth, (b) what is the category lies in the box. Enlightened by fast R-CNN, we propose a classification && localization framework, which combines the global context information and local box information by selecting proper (class, box) pairs. 0.1401 0.193552

Deep Punx Model, inspired by Inception7a [2] (~700K iterations were conducted). 0.14666 0.757796

Deep Punx Inception6 model trained on object-level annotations (~640K iterations were conducted). 0.17594 0.639183

JHL 5 averaged CNN model (top1) 0.23944 0.668728

APL Multi-CNN Best Label Classifier (Random Forest via 1000 Class Scores) 0.60759 0.819291

[top]

Task 2b: Classification+localization with additional training data

Ordered by localization error

Team name Entry description Description of outside data used Localization error Classification error

Trimps-Soushen extra annotations collected by ourselves extra annotations collected by ourselves 0.122285 0.04581

Amax Validate the classification model we used in DET entry1 share proposal procedure with DET for convinence 0.14574 0.04354

CUImage Average multiple models. Validation accuracy is 79.78%. 3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN 0.198272 0.05858

CUImage Combine 6 models 3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN 0.19905 0.05858

[top]

Ordered by classification error

Team name Entry description Description of outside data used Classification error Localization error

Amax Validate the classification model we used in DET entry1 share proposal procedure with DET for convinence 0.04354 0.14574

Trimps-Soushen extra annotations collected by ourselves extra annotations collected by ourselves 0.04581 0.122285

CUImage Average multiple models. Validation accuracy is 79.78%. 3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN 0.05858 0.198272

CUImage Combine 6 models 3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN 0.05858 0.19905

[top]

Object detection from video (VID)^[top]

Task 3a: Object detection from video with provided training data

Ordered by number of categories won

Team name Entry description Number of object categories won mean AP

CUVideo Average of models, no outside training data, mAP 73.8 on validation data 28 0.678216

RUC_BDAI We combine RCNN and video segmentation to get the final result. 2 0.359668

ITLab VID - Inha 2 model ensemble with PLS and POMDP v2 0 0.515045

ITLab VID - Inha 2 model ensemble 0 0.513368

ITLab VID - Inha 2 model ensemble with PLS and POMDP 0 0.511743

UIUC-IFP Faster-RCNN + SEQ-NMS-AVG 0 0.487232

UIUC-IFP Faster-RCNN + SEQ-NMS-MAX 0 0.487232

UIUC-IFP Faster-RCNN + SEQ-NMS-MIX 0 0.487232

Trimps-Soushen Best single model 0 0.461155

Trimps-Soushen Single model with main object constraint 0 0.4577

UIUC-IFP Faster-RCNN + Single-Frame-NMS 0 0.433511

1-HKUST YX_submission2_merge479 0 0.421108

1-HKUST YX_submission1_merge475 0 0.417104

1-HKUST YX_submission1_tracker 0 0.415265

HiVision Detection + multi-object tracking 0 0.375203

1-HKUST RH_test6 0 0.367896

1-HKUST RH_test3_tracker 0 0.366048

NICAL proposals+VGG16 0 0.229714

FACEALL-BUPT merge the two results, 25.3% map on validation 0 0.222359

FACEALL-BUPT object detection based on fast rcnn with GoogLeNet, object tracking based on TLD, 24.6% map on validation 0 0.218363

FACEALL-BUPT object detection based on fast rcnn with Alexnet, object tracking based on TLD, 19.1% map on validation 0 0.162115

MPG_UT We sequentially predict bounding boxes in every frame, and predict object categories for given regions. 0 0.128381

ART Vision Based On Global 0 1e-06

CUVideo Single model, no outside training data, mAP 72.5 on validation data --- 0.664121

HiVision Detection only --- 0.372892

[top]

Ordered by mean average precision

Team name Entry description mean AP Number of object categories won

CUVideo Average of models, no outside training data, mAP 73.8 on validation data 0.678216 28

CUVideo Single model, no outside training data, mAP 72.5 on validation data 0.664121 ---

ITLab VID - Inha 2 model ensemble with PLS and POMDP v2 0.515045 0

ITLab VID - Inha 2 model ensemble 0.513368 0

ITLab VID - Inha 2 model ensemble with PLS and POMDP 0.511743 0

UIUC-IFP Faster-RCNN + SEQ-NMS-AVG 0.487232 0

UIUC-IFP Faster-RCNN + SEQ-NMS-MAX 0.487232 0

UIUC-IFP Faster-RCNN + SEQ-NMS-MIX 0.487232 0

Trimps-Soushen Best single model 0.461155 0

Trimps-Soushen Single model with main object constraint 0.4577 0

UIUC-IFP Faster-RCNN + Single-Frame-NMS 0.433511 0

1-HKUST YX_submission2_merge479 0.421108 0

1-HKUST YX_submission1_merge475 0.417104 0

1-HKUST YX_submission1_tracker 0.415265 0

HiVision Detection + multi-object tracking 0.375203 0

HiVision Detection only 0.372892 ---

1-HKUST RH_test6 0.367896 0

1-HKUST RH_test3_tracker 0.366048 0

RUC_BDAI We combine RCNN and video segmentation to get the final result. 0.359668 2

NICAL proposals+VGG16 0.229714 0

FACEALL-BUPT merge the two results, 25.3% map on validation 0.222359 0

FACEALL-BUPT object detection based on fast rcnn with GoogLeNet, object tracking based on TLD, 24.6% map on validation 0.218363 0

FACEALL-BUPT object detection based on fast rcnn with Alexnet, object tracking based on TLD, 19.1% map on validation 0.162115 0

MPG_UT We sequentially predict bounding boxes in every frame, and predict object categories for given regions. 0.128381 0

ART Vision Based On Global 1e-06 0

[top]

Task 3b: Object detection from video with additional training data

Ordered by number of categories won

Team name Entry description Description of outside data used Number of object categories won mean AP

Amax only half of the videos are tracked due to deadline limits, others are only detected by Faster RCNN (VGG16) without tempor smooth. --- 18 0.730746

CUVideo Outside training data (ImageNet 3000-class data ) to pre-train the detection model, mAP 77.0 on validation data ImageNet 3000-class data to pre-train the model 11 0.696607

Trimps-Soushen Models combine with main object constraint COCO 1 0.480542

Trimps-Soushen Combine several models COCO 0 0.487495

BAD VID2015_trace_merge ILSVRC DET 0 0.4343

BAD combined_VIDtrainval_threshold0.1 ILSVRC DET 0 0.390301

BAD VID2015_merge_test_threshold0.1 ILSVRC DET 0 0.383204

BAD combined_test_DET_threshold0.1 ILSVRC DET 0 0.350286

BAD VID2015_VID_test_threshold0.1 ILSVRC DET 0 0.339721

NECLAMA Faster-RCNN as described above. The model relies on a CNN that is pre-trained with the ImageNet-CLS-2012 data for the classification task. 0 0.326489

[top]

Ordered by mean average precision

Team name Entry description Description of outside data used mean AP Number of object categories won

Amax only half of the videos are tracked due to deadline limits, others are only detected by Faster RCNN (VGG16) without tempor smooth. --- 0.730746 18

CUVideo Outside training data (ImageNet 3000-class data ) to pre-train the detection model, mAP 77.0 on validation data ImageNet 3000-class data to pre-train the model 0.696607 11

Trimps-Soushen Combine several models COCO 0.487495 0

Trimps-Soushen Models combine with main object constraint COCO 0.480542 1

BAD VID2015_trace_merge ILSVRC DET 0.4343 0

BAD combined_VIDtrainval_threshold0.1 ILSVRC DET 0.390301 0

BAD VID2015_merge_test_threshold0.1 ILSVRC DET 0.383204 0

BAD combined_test_DET_threshold0.1 ILSVRC DET 0.350286 0

BAD VID2015_VID_test_threshold0.1 ILSVRC DET 0.339721 0

NECLAMA Faster-RCNN as described above. The model relies on a CNN that is pre-trained with the ImageNet-CLS-2012 data for the classification task. 0.326489 0

[top]

Scene Classification (Scene)^[top]

Task 4a: Scene classification with provided training data

Team name Entry description Classification error

WM Fusion with product strategy 0.168715

WM Fusion with learnt weights 0.168747

WM Fusion with average strategy 0.168909

WM A single model (model B) 0.172876

WM A single model (model A) 0.173527

SIAT_MMLAB 9 models 0.173605

SIAT_MMLAB 13 models 0.174645

SIAT_MMLAB more models 0.174795

SIAT_MMLAB 13 models 0.175417

SIAT_MMLAB 2 models 0.175868

Qualcomm Research Weighted fusion of two models. Top 5 validation error is 16.45%. 0.175978

Qualcomm Research Ensemble of two models. Top 5 validation error is 16.53%. 0.176559

Qualcomm Research Ensemble of seven models. Top 5 validation error is 16.68% 0.176766

Trimps-Soushen score combine with 5 models 0.179824

Trimps-Soushen score combine with 8 models 0.179997

Trimps-Soushen top10 to top5, label combine with 9 models 0.180714

Trimps-Soushen top10 to top5, label combine with 7 models 0.180984

Trimps-Soushen single model, bn07 0.182357

ntu_rose test_4 0.193367

ntu_rose test_2 0.193645

ntu_rose test_5 0.19397

ntu_rose test_3 0.194262

Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories average of VGG16 trained with the standard cross entropy loss and VGG16 trained with weighted cross entropy loss. 0.194346

Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories VGG16 trained with weighted cross entropy loss. 0.199268

HiVision Single model with 5 scales 0.199777

DeepSEU Just one CNN model 0.200572

Qualcomm Research Ensemble of two models, trained with dense augmentation. Top 5 validation error is 19.20% 0.20111

HiVision Single model with 3 scales 0.201796

GatorVision modified VGG16 network 0.20268

SamExynos A Combination of Multiple ConvNets (7 Nets) 0.204197

SamExynos A Combination of Multiple ConvNets ( 6 Nets) 0.205457

UIUCMSR VGG-16 model trained using the entire training data 0.206851

SamExynos A Single ConvNet 0.207594

UIUCMSR Using filter panorama in the very bottom convolutional layer in CNNs 0.207925

UIUCMSR Using filter panorama in the top convolutional layer in CNNs 0.208972

ntu_rose test_1 0.211503

DeeperScene A single deep CNN model tuned on the validation set 0.241738

THU-UTSA-MSRA run4 0.253109

THU-UTSA-MSRA run5 0.254369

THU-UTSA-MSRA run1 0.256104

SIIT_KAIST-TECHWIN averaging three models 0.261284

SIIT_KAIST-TECHWIN averaging two models 0.266788

SIIT_KAIST-ETRI Modified GoogLeNet and test augmentation. 0.269862

THU-UTSA-MSRA run2 0.271185

NECTEC-MOONGDO Alexnet with retrain 2 0.275558

NECTEC-MOONGDO Alexnet with retrain 1 0.27564

SIIT_KAIST-TECHWIN single model 0.280223

HanGil deep ISA network for Places2 recognition 0.282688

FACEALL-BUPT Fine-tune Model 1 for another 1 epoch and correct the output vertor size from 400 to 401; 10 crops, top-5 error 31.42% on validation 0.32725

FACEALL-BUPT GoogLeNet, with input resize to 128*128, removed Incecption_5, 10 crops, top-5 error 37.19% on validation 0.38872

FACEALL-BUPT GoogLeNet, with input resize to 128*128 and reduced kernel numbers and sizes,10 crops, top-5 error 38.99% on validation 0.407011

Henry Machine No deep learning. Traditional practice: feature engineering and classifier design. 0.417073

THU-UTSA-MSRA run3 0.987563

[top]

Task 4b: Scene classification with additional training data

Team name Entry description Description of outside data used Classification error

NEIOP We pretrained a VGG16 model on Places205 database and then finetuned the model on Places2 database. Places205 database 0.203539

Isia_ICT Combination of different models Places1 0.220239

Isia_ICT Combination of different models Places1 0.22074

Isia_ICT Combination of different models Places1 0.22074

ZeroHero Zero-shot scene recognition with 15K object categories 15K object categories from ImageNet, textual data from YFCC100M. 0.572784

[top]

Team information^[top]

Team name Team members Abstract

1-HKUST Yongyi Lu (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)
Hao Chen (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)
Qifeng Chen (Stanford University)
Yao Xiao (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)
Law Hei (University of Michigan)
Chi-Keung Tang(The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)

Our system detects large and small resolution objects using different schemes. The threshold between large and small resolution is 100 x 100. For large-resolution objects, we score the average scores of 4 models (Caffe, NIN, Vgg16, Vgg19) in the bounding box of selective search. For small-resolution objects, scores are generated by fast RCNN on selective search (quality mode). The finally result is the combination of the output of large and small resolution objects after applying NMS. In training, we augment the data with our annotated HKUST-object-100 dataset which consists of 219174 images. HKUST-object-100 will be published after the 2015 competition to benefit the research communities.

1-HKUST *Rui Peng (HKUST),
*Hengyuan Hu (HKUST),
Yuxiang Wu (HKUST),
Yongyi Lu (HKUST),
Yu-Wing Tai (SenseTime Group Limited),
Chi Keung Tang (HKUST)

(* equal contribution) We adapted two image object detection architectures, namely Fast-RCNN[1] and Faster-RCNN[2], for the task of object detection from video. We used Edge Boxes[3] as proposal generation algorithm for Fast-RCNN in our pipeline since we found that it outperformed other methods in blurred, low resolution video data. To exploit temporal information of video, we tried to aggregate proposals from multiple frames to provide better proposals for each single frame. In addition, we also devised a simple post-processing program, with CMT[4] tracker involved, to rectify the predictions.

[1] R. Girshick. "Fast R-CNN." arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.08083
[2] S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick and J. Sun. "Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks." arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.01497
[3] C. L. Zitnick and P. Dollár. "Edge boxes: Locating object proposals from edges." ECCV 2014
[4] G. Nebehay and R. Pflugfelder. "Clustering of Static-Adaptive Correspondences for Deformable Object Tracking." CVPR 2015

AK47 Na Li
Shenzhen Institue of Advanced Technology,Chinese Academy of Sciences
Hongxiang Hu
Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology,Chinese Academy of Sciences Our algorithm is based on fast-rcnn.
We fintuned the fast-rcnn network using the date picked from ILSVRC2015's training set.After that,each testing frames were inputted to the network,then we get the predict result.
We have also tried several kinds of method to using the similiarity of neighboring frames.At begining,we compared object proposals created by different methods(selective search,rigor,edgeboxes,mop,gop)and we choosed edgeboxes finally.
We tried to add the "behind" frame's op and the "before" frame's to the middle one to use their relativity.Our experiments proved it work.
We have also tried kinds of algorithms to tracking object,like optical flow and streamline,it's a pity that we havn't apply any of these algorithms to our model.
Whatever,we have learned a lot from this competition and thanks for your organization!
We will come back!

Amax DET:Jiankang Deng(1,2), Hui Shuai(2), Zongguang Lu(2), Jing Yang(2), Shaoli Huang(1), Yali Du(1), Yi Wu(2), Qingshan Liu(2), Dacheng Tao (1)

CLS-LOC:Jing Yang(2), Shaoli Huang(1), Zhengbo Yu(2), Qiang Ma(2), Jiankang Deng(1,2)

VID: Jiankang Deng(1,2), Jing Yang(2), Shaoli Huang(1), Hui Shuai(2),Yi Wu(2), Qingshan Liu(2), Dacheng Tao(1)

(1)University of Technology, Sydney
(2)Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology Cascade region regression

1.DET:Spatial Cacade region regression
We first set up Faster RCNN[3] as our baseline. (mAP 45.6% for VGG-16;mAP 47.2% for Google-net).

Object detection is to answer "Where" and "What".
We utilize cascade regression regression model to gradually to refine the location of object, which is helpful to answer "what".

Solid tricks including:
Negative example (discriminative feature is inhomogeneous on the objects, response maps is helpful for choosing reasonable positive and negative examples, instead of only using IoU).
Multi-scale(image,joint feature map,inception layer; Answer "where" from former CNN, and "what" from later with high capacity models).
Learn to combine(NMS inter-class, NMS intra-class; exclusive in space).
Learn to rank(hypothesis：the data number distribution between validation set and test set is similar. We can choose class-specific parameters).
Add training samples for classes with little training data.
Design class-specific model for hard classes.
Rank low resolution and dense prediction later.
Model ensemble with multi-view learning.

2.VID: Tempor Cascade region regression

Objectiveness based tracker is designed to track the objects on videos.

Firstly, We train Faster-RCNN[3](VGG-16) with the provided training data (sampling from frames).
The network provides features for tracking.

Secondly,the tracker uses the roi_pooling features from the last conv layer and tempor information, which can be seen as the tempor Fast RCNN[2].
(Take the location-indexed features from current frame to predict the bounding box of object on next frame.)

Tempor information and scence cluster(different video from one scence) are greatly helpful to decide the classes on the videos with high confidence.

[1]Girshick R, Donahue J, Darrell T, et al. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation[C]//Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2014 IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2014: 580-587.
[2]Girshick R. Fast R-CNN[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.08083, 2015.
[3]Ren S, He K, Girshick R, et al. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.01497, 2015.

APL Christopher M. Gifford (JHU/APL)
Pedro A. Rodriguez (JHU/APL)
Ryan J. Amundsen (JHU/APL)
Stefan Awad (JHU/APL)
Brant W. Chee (JHU/APL)
Clare W. Lau (JHU/APL)
Ajay M. Patrikar (JHU/APL) Our submissions leverage multiple pre-trained CNNs and a second stage Random Forest classifier to choose which label or CNN to use for top 5 guesses. The second stage classifier is trained using the validation data set based on the 1000 class scores from each individual network, or based on which network(s) selected the correct label faster (i.e., closer to the top guess). The primary pre-trained CNNs leveraged are VGG VeryDeep-19, VGG VeryDeep-16, and VGG S. The second-stage Random Forest classifier is trained using 1000 trees.

References:
[1] "MatConvNet - Convolutional Neural Networks for MATLAB", A. Vedaldi and K. Lenc, arXiv:1412.4564, 2014
[2] "Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition", Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman, arXiv technical report, 2014
[3] "Return of the Devil in the Details: Delving Deep into Convolutional Networks", Ken Chatfield, Karen Simonyan, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman, BMVC 2014

ART Vision Rami Hagege
Ilya Bogomolny
Erez Farhan
Arkadi Musheyev
Adam Kelder
Ziv Yavo
Elad Meir
Roee Francos The problem of classification and segmentation of objects in videos is one of the biggest challenges in computer vision, demanding simultaneous solutions of several fundamental problems. Most of these fundamental problems are yet to be solved separately. Perhaps the most challenging task in this context, is the task of object detection and classification. In this work, we utilized the feature-extraction capabilities of Deep Neural Network in order to construct robust object classifiers, and accurately localize them in the scene. On top of that, we use time and space analysis in order to capture the tracklets of each detected object in time. The results show that our system is able to localize multiple objects in different scenes, while maintaining track stability over time.

BAD Shaowei Liu, Honghua Dong, Qizheng He @ Tsinghua University Used fast-rcnn framework and some tracking method.

bioinf@JKU Djork-Arne Clevert (Institute of Bioinformatics, Johannes Kepler University Linz)
Thomas Unterthiner (Institute of Bioinformatics, Johannes Kepler University Linz)
Günter Klambauer (Institute of Bioinformatics, Johannes Kepler University Linz)
Andreas Mayr (Institute of Bioinformatics, Johannes Kepler University Linz)
Martin Heusel (Institute of Bioinformatics, Johannes Kepler University Linz)
Karin Schwarzbauer (Institute of Bioinformatics, Johannes Kepler University Linz)
Sepp Hochreiter (Institute of Bioinformatics, Johannes Kepler University Linz) We trained CNNs with a new activation function, called "exponential linear unit" (ELU) [1], which speeds up learning in deep neural networks.

Like rectified linear units (ReLUs) [2, 3], leaky ReLUs (LReLUs) and parametrized ReLUs (PReLUs), ELUs also avoid a vanishing gradient via the identiy for positive values. However ELUs have improved learning characteristics compared to the other activation functions. In contrast to ReLUs, ELUs have negative values which allows them to push mean unit activations closer to zero. Zero means speed up learning because they bring the gradient closer to the unit natural gradient.

The unit natural gradient differs from the normal gradient by a bias shift term, which is proportional to the mean activation of incoming units. Like batch normalization, ELUs push the mean towards zero, but with a significantly smaller computational footprint. While other activation functions like LReLUs and PReLUs also have negative values, they do not ensure a noise-robust deactivation state. ELUs saturate to a negative value with smaller inputs and thereby decrease the propagated variation and information. Therefore ELUs code the degree of presence of particular phenomena in the input, while they do not quantitatively model the degree of their absence. Consequently dependencies between ELU units are much easier to model and distinct concepts are less likely to interfere.

In this challenge ELU networks considerably speed up learning compared to a ReLU network with similar classification performance.

[1] Clevert, Djork-Arné et al, Fast and Accurate Deep Network Learning by Exponential Linear Units (ELUs), arxiv 2015
[2] Clevert, Djork-Arné et al, Rectified Factor Networks, NIPS 2015
[3] Mayr, Andreas et al, DeepTox: Toxicity Prediction using Deep Learning, Frontiers in Environmental Science 2015

CIL Heungwoo Han
Seongmin Kang
Seonghoon Kim
Kibum Bae
Vitaly Lavrukhin
BoundingBox regression models based on Inception [1] and NIN [4].

The network for classfication pre-trained on the ILSVRC 2014 classification dataset is modified for bounding box regression. Then the regressor to predict a bouding box is fine-tuned using the features of middle and last convolutional layer [2]. At inference time, the modified greedy-merge techinque [3] for multi-scale prediction is applied on each scale, and the optimal scale is chosen to determin the final predicted box.

[1] Szegedy et al., Going Deeper with Convolutions, CVPR, 2015.
[2] Long & Shelhamer et al., Fully Convolutional Networks for Semantic Segmentation, CVPR, 2015.
[3] Sermanet et al., OverFeat: Integrated Recognition, Localization and Detection using Convolutional Networks, ICLR, 2014.
[4] Lin et al., Network In Network, ICLR, 2014.

CUImage Wanli Ouyang^1, Junjie Yan^2, Xingyu Zeng^1, Hongyang Li^1, Kai Kang^1, Bin Yang^2, Xuanyi Dong^2, Cong Zhang^1, Tong Xiao^1, Zhe Wang^1, Yubin Deng^1, Buyu Li^2, Sihe Wang^1, Ruohui Wang^1, Hongsheng Li^1, Xiaogang Wang^1

1. The Chinese University of Hong Kong
2. SenseTime Group Limited For the object detection challenge, our submission is based on the combination of two types of models, i.e. DeepID-Net in ILSVRC 2014 and Faster RCNN [a].

Compared with DeepID-Net in ILSVRC 2014, the new components are as follows.
(1) GoogleNet with batch normalization and VGG are pre-trained on 1000-class ImageNet classification/location data (for the entries of using official data only) and 3000-class ImageNet classification data (for the entries of using extra data).
(2) A new cascade method is introduced to generate region proposals. It has higher recall rate with fewer region proposals.
(3) The models are fine-tuned on 200 detection classes with multi-context and multi-crop.
(4) The 200 classes are clustered in a hierarchical way based on their visual similarity. Instead of finetuning with the 200 classes once, the models are finetuned for multiple times when the 200 classes are divided into smaller clusters iteratively. Different clusters share different feature representations. Feature representations gradually adapt to individual classes in this way.

Compared with Faster RCNN, the new components are
(1) We cascade the RPN, where the proposals generated by RPN are fed into a object\background Fast-RCNN. It leads to 93% recall rate with about 126 proposals per image on val2.
(2) We cascade the Fast-RCNN, where a Fast-RCNN with category-wise softmax loss is used in the cascade step for hard negative mining. It leads to about 2% improvement in AP.
Deep-ID models and Faster RCNN models are combined with model averaging.
For the localization task, class labels are predicted with VGG. For each image and each predicted class, candidate regions are proposed by employing a learned saliency map and edge boxes [c] with high recall rate. Candidate regions are assigned with scores by using VGG or GoogLeNet with BN finetuned on candidate regions. The 1000 classes are grouped in multiple clustered in a hierarchical way. VGG and GoogleNet are finetuned for multiple times to adapt to different clusters.
The fastest publicly available multi-GPU caffe code (requires only 6 seconds for 20 iterations when mini-batch size is 256 using GoogleNet using 4 TitanX) is our strong support [d].
[a] W. Ouyang, X. Wang, X. Zeng, S. Qiu, P. Luo, Y. Tian, H. Li, S. Yang, Z. Wang, C. Loy, X. Tang, “DeepID-Net: Deformable Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Object Detection,” CVPR 2015.
[b] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Jian Sun, “Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks,” arXiv:1506.01497.
[c] C. Lawrence Zitnick, Piotr Dollár, “Edge Boxes: Locating Object Proposals from Edges”, ECCV2014
[d] https://github.com/yjxiong/caffe

CUVideo Wanli Ouyang^1, Kai Kang^1, Junjie Yan^2, Xingyu Zeng^1, Hongsheng Li^1, Bin Yang^2, Tong Xiao^1, Cong Zhang^1, Zhe Wang^1, Ruohui Wang^1, Xiaogang Wang^1

1. The Chinese University of Hong Kong
2. SenseTime Group Limited For object detection in video, we first employ CNN based on detectors to detect and classify candidate regions on individual frames. Detectors are based on the combination of two types of models, i.e. DeepID-Net [a] in ILSVRC 2014 and Faster RCNN [b]. The temporal information is employed propagating detection scores. Score propagation is based on optical flow estimation and CNN based tracking [c]. Spatial and temporal pool along tracks is employed. Video context is also used to rescore candidate regions.
[a] W. Ouyang, X. Wang, X. Zeng, S. Qiu, P. Luo, Y. Tian, H. Li, S. Yang, Z. Wang, C. Loy, X. Tang, “DeepID-Net: Deformable Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Object Detection,” CVPR 2015.
[b] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Jian Sun, “Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks,” arXiv:1506.01497.
[c] L. Wang, W. Ouyang, X. Wang, and H. Lu, “Visual Tracking with Fully Convolutional Networks,” ICCV 2015.

darkensemble Hu Yaoquan, Peking University First, around 4000 candidate object proposals are generated from selective search and structure edge. Then we extract 12 different regions' CNN features for each proposal, and concatenate them as part of final object representation as the method in [1]. In detail, region CNN is a 16-layer VGG-version SPPnet modified with some random initialization, a one-level pyramid, very leaky ReLU and a hand-designed two-level label tree for structurally sharing knowledge to defeat class imbalance. Single model but another three deformation layers are also fused for capturing repeated patterns in just 3 regions each proposal. Semantic segmentation-aware CNN extension in [1] is also used and here segmentation model is a mixed model of deconvnet and CRF .
Second, we use RPN[2] with convolution layers initialized by the pre-trained RCNN above to obtain at least 500 proposals each instance. And next retrain a new model as above for better using RPN proposals and excluding trained patterns, but part of data used duo to time limit. Apart from the model above, we add unsupervised segmented features using CPMC, and encode them with shape and fixation maps, to learn a latent SVM.
Third, we use the enlarged candidate box for bounding box regression, iterative localization, and bounding box voting as [1] to do object localization. Finally, thanks for the competition organisers at imagenet and GPU resources from NVIDIA and IBM cloud.

[1] Spyros Gidaris, Nikos Komodakis, "Object detection via a multi-region & semantic segmentation-aware CNN model", arXiv:1505.01749
[2] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Jian Sun," Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks",NIPS, 2015

Deep Punx Evgeny Smirnov,
Denis Timoshenko,
Rasim Akhunzyanov For the Classification+Localization task we trained two neural nets with architectures, inspired by "Inception-6"[1] (but without batch normalization), and one with architecture, inspired by "Inception-7a"[2] (with batch normalization and 3x1 + 1x3 filters instead of 3x3 filters for some layers).

Our modifications (for Inception-7a-like model) include:
1) Using MSRA weight initialization scheme [3].
2) Using Randomized ReLU units [4].
3) More agressive data augmentations: random rotations, random skewing, random stretching, brightness, contrast and color augmentations.
4) Test-time data augmentation: We applied 30 different random data augmentations to 30 copies of each test image, passed them through net and averaged predictions.

Also we trained one of our Inception-6-like models on object-level images (we cut objects from full images by their localization boxes and used them to train the net).

This is still work-in-progress, for now networks haven't finished training yet. We also didn't predict any localization boxes yet.

[1] Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift,
Sergey Ioffe, Christian Szegedy http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03167

[2] Scene Classification with Inception-7, Christian Szegedy with Julian Ibarz and Vincent Vanhoucke http://lsun.cs.princeton.edu/slides/Christian.pdf

[3] Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classification
Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, Jian Sun http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01852

[4] Empirical Evaluation of Rectified Activations in Convolutional Network, Bing Xu, Naiyan Wang, Tianqi Chen, Mu Li, http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.00853

DeeperScene Qinchuan Zhang, Xinyun Chen, Junwen Bai, Junru Shao, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China For the scene classification task, our model is based on a convolutional neural network framework implemented on Caffe. We use parameters of vgg_19 model training on ILSVRC classification task as initialization of our model [1]. Since current deep features learnt by those convolutional neural networks, which are trained from ImageNet, are not competitive enough for scene classification task, due to the fact that ImageNet is an object-centric dataset [3], we further train our model on Places2 [4]. Moreover, according to our experiments, “msra” initialization of filter weights for rectifiers is a more robust method of training extremely deep rectifier networks [2], we use this method for initialization of some fully-connected layers.

[1] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv:1409.1556, 2014.

[2] He K, Zhang X, Ren S, et al. Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification. arXiv:1502.01852, 2015.

[3] B. Zhou, A. Lapedriza, J. Xiao, A. Torralba, and A. Oliva. Learning Deep Features for Scene Recognition using Places Database. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (NIPS), 2014.

[4] B. Zhou, A. Khosla, A. Lapedriza, A. Torralba and A. Oliva. Places2: A Large-Scale Database for Scene Understanding. Arxiv, 2015.

DEEPimagine Sung-soo Park(leader).
Hyoung-jin Moon.

DEEPimagine Co. Ltd. of South Korea 1. Bases
We used the Fast and Faster RCNN object detection framework basically.
And our training model is based on the VGG model and GOOGLENET model.

2. Enhancements
- Detection framework
: Tuning the location of ROI(Region Of Interest) projection, Adding the fixed region proposals.
- Models
: More depth models, More inception models.
We focused on a efficiency of the pooling layers and full connected inner product layers.
So we converted pooling layers and full connected inner product layers to our own custom layers.
- Fusion
: Category adaptive multi-model fusion.

3. References
[1] Ross Girshick. "Fast R-CNN: Fast Region-based Convolutional Networks for object detection", CVPR 2015
[2] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Jian Sun. "Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks", CVPR 2015

DeepSEU Johnny S. Yang, Southeast University
Yongjie Chu, Southeast University
A VGG-like model has been trained for this scene classification task. We only use the resized 256x256 image data to train this model. In training phase, random crops of multi scales are used to do data augmentation. The procedure generally follows the VGG paper, for example, the batch size was set to 128, and the learning rate was initially set to 0.01. The only difference is that we don't use Gaussian method for weight initialization. We proposed a new weight initializing method, which can get a bit faster convergence performance than MSRA weight filler. In test phase, we convert the full connected layers into convolutional layers, and then this fully convolutional network is applied over the whole image. Multi scales images are used to evaluate dense predictions. Finally, the top 5 classification score we got on the validation set is 80.0%.

DIT_TITECH Ikuro Sato, Hideki Niihara, Ryutaro Watanabe (DENSO IT LABORATORY); Hiroki Nishimura (DENSO CORPORATION); Akihiro Nomura, Satoshi Matsuoka (Tokyo Institute of Technology) We used an ensemble of 6 deep neural network models, consisting of 11-16 convolutional and 4-5 maximum pooling layers. No 1x1 convolution is involved, meaning no fully-connected layers are used.
On-line, random image deformation is adopted during training. Test samples are classified under the augmented pattern classification rule according to I. Sato, et al., arXiv:1505.03229.
Models are trained by machine-distributed deep learning software that we developed from scratch on large-scale GPU supercomputer TSUBAME in Tokyo Institute of Technology by taking advantage of the 1 year trial use period and the TSUBAME Ground Challenge in Fall 2015.
Up to 96 GPUs are used to speed up the training.

DROPLET-CASIA Jingyu Liu (CASIA)
Junran Peng (CASIA)
Yongzhen Huang (CASIA)
Liang Wang (CASIA)
Tieniu Tan (CASIA) Our framework is mainly based on RCNN[1], and we make following improvements:
1. Region proposals come from two sources: selective search and region proposal network[3] trained on ILSVRC.
2. The initial models of several googLenets are pretrained on images or bounding boxes following [4].
3. Inspired by [5], an adapted multi-region model is used.
4. Inspired by [2], We train a seperate regression network to correctify the detection positions.
5. Model averaging on the SVM scores of all the used models.

[1]R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, J. Malik, "Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation", CVPR 2014.
[2]R. Girshick, "Fast R-CNN", ICCV 2015.
[3]S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, J. Sun, "Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks", NIPS 2015.
[4]W. Ouyang etal, "DeepID-Net: Deformable Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Object detection", CVPR 2015.
[5]S. Gidaris, N, Komodakis, "Object detection via a multi-region & semantic segmentation-aware CNN model", ICCV 2015.

ESOGU MLCV Hakan Cevikalp
Halil Saglamlar Here we use a short cascade of classifiers for object detection. The first stage includes our novel polyhedral conic classifier (PCC) whereas the second classifier is the kernelized SVM. PCC classifiers can return polyhedral acceptance regions for positive classes with a simple linear dot product, thus they are better suited for object detection tasks compared to linear SVMs. We used LBP+HOG descriptors for image representation and sliding window approach is used to scan images. Our first submission includes independent detector outputs for each class and we apply a non-maximum suppression algorithm between classes for the second submission.

FACEALL-BUPT Yue WU, BUPT, CHINA
Kun HU, BUPT, CHINA
Yuxuan LIU, BUPT, CHINA
Xuankun HUANG, BUPT, CHINA
Jiangqi ZHANG, BUPT, CHINA
Hongliang BAI, Beijing Faceall co., LTD
Wenjian FENG, Beijing Faceall co., LTD
Tao FU, Beijing Faceall co., LTD
Yuan DONG, BUPT, CHINA It is the third time that we participate in ILSVRC. In this year, we start with the GoogLeNet [1] model and apply it to all four tasks. Details are shown below.

Task 1 Object Classification/Localization
===============
We utilize the GoogLeNet with batch normalization and prelu for object classification. Three models are trained. The first one uses the original GoogLeNet architecture but all relu layers are replaced with prelu layers. The second model is the one mentioned in Ref. [2]. The third model is fine-tuned from the second model with multi-scale training. Multi-scale testing and models ensemble is utilized to generate the final classification result. 144 crops of an image [1] are used to evaluate one network. Actually, we also tried the method of 150 crops which is described in Ref. [3]. The performance is almost the same. And merging the results of 144 crops and 150 crops does not bring to much increased performance. The top-5 error of the three models on validation is 8.89%, 8.00% and 7.79%, respectively. And using an ensemble of the three models, we decreased the top-5 error rate to 7.03%. As we all know, ensemble with more models can improve the performance. But we do not have enough time and GPUs to do that.
To generate a bounding box for each label of an image, we firstly fine-tune the second classification model with object-level annotations of 1,000 classes from ImageNet CLS-LOC train data. Moreover, a background class is added into the network. Then test images are segmented into ~300 regions by selective search and these regions are classified by the fine-tuned model into one of 1,001 classes. We select the top-3 regions with the highest possibility classes generated by the classification model. A new bounding box is generated by finding a minimal bounding rectangle of three regions. The localization error is about 32.9% on validation. We also try the third classification model. And the localization error on validation is 32.76%. After merging the two aforementioned results, the localization error decrease to 31.53%.

Task 2 Object Detection
===============
We employ the well-known Fast-RCNN framework [4]. Firstly, we tried the AlexNet model which is pre-trained on the CLS-LOC dataset with image –level annotation. When training on the object detection dataset, we run SDG for 12 epochs, and then lower the learning rate from 0.001 to 0.0001 and train for another 4 epochs. The other setting is the same with the original Fast-RCNN method. This approach achieves 34.9% MAP on validation. Then we apply GoogLeNet with Fast-RCNN framework. The pool layer after inception 4 layers is replaced by a ROI pooling layer. This trial achieves about 34% map on the validation. In another trial, we move the ROI pooling layer from the pool4 to pool5 and enlarge the input size from 600(max 1000) to 786(max 1280). The pooled width and height is set to 4x4 instead of 1x1. The MAP is about 37.8% on validation. It is worth noting that the last model needs about 6g GPU memory to train and 1.5g GPU memory to test. And it has near the same test speed with AlexNet but gains better performance. We employ a simple strategy to merge the three results and gain 38.7% MAP.

Task 3 Scene Classification
===============
The Places2 training set has about 8 million images. We reduce the input size of images from 256x256 to 128x128 and try small network architectures to accelerate the training procedure. However, due to the large amount images, we still cannot finish the training before the submission deadline. We trained two models which architectures are modified from the original GOOGLENET. The first one only removes the inception 5 layers. We only trained the model for about 10 epochs. The top-5 error on validation is about 37.19%. The second model enlarges the stride of the conv1 layer from 2 to 4 and reduces the kernel number of the conv2 layer from 192 to 96. For the remaining inception layers, every kernel number is set as the half of its original number. This model is trained about 12 epochs and achieves 38.99% top-5 error on the validation. Unfortunately, about one week ago, we found that the final output vector was set to 400 instead of 401 due to an oversight. We correct the error and fine-tune the first model for about 1 epoch. The top-5 error on validation of this model is about 31.42%.

Task 4 Object Detection from Video
===============
A simple method for this task is to perform object detection in all frames. But it does not utilize the spatial temporal constraint or context information between continual frames in a video. Thus, we employ object detection and object tracking for this track. First, key frames from a video are selected to detect objects in them using Fast RCNN. There are about 1.3 million frames in training set. Due to temporal continuity, we select one frame every 25 frames to train an object detection model. 52,922 frames are utilized to train the model. Similar to the approach in the Object Detection track, we run SGD for 12 epochs and then lower the learning rate from 0.001 to 0.0001 and train for another 8 epochs. The training procedure takes 1 day and 3 days on a single K40 for AlexNet and GoogLeNet, respectively. More details about the object detection can be found in the instruction of the task 2. During test, if a video has less than 50 frames, we choose two frames in the middle of the video. If a video has more than 50 frames, we choose a frame every 25 frames. This results in 6,861 frames of 176,126 on validation and 12,329 frames of 315,176 on test. We do object detection on these frames and filter out the objects which confident scores are larger than 0.2(AlexNet) and 0.4(GoogLeNet). Then, detected objects are tracked to generate the results of the other frames. The tracking method we used is TLD [5]. After tracking, we generate the final results for evaluation. It is worth noting that we set most of parameters empirically because we have no time to validate them. Three entries are provided. The first one utilizes AlexNet and achieves 19.1% map on validation. The second one uses GoogLeNet and achieves 24.6% map on validation. A simple strategy to merge the two results is employed and results in the third entry. The map of it is 25.3% on validation.

[1] Szegedy C, Liu W, Jia Y, et al. Going Deeper With Convolutions[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2015: 1-9.
[2] Ioffe S, Szegedy C. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03167, 2015.
[3] Simonyan K, Zisserman A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014.
[4] Girshick R. Fast R-CNN[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.08083, 2015.
[5] Kalal, Z.; Mikolajczyk, K.; Matas, J., "Tracking-Learning-Detection," in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on , vol.34, no.7, pp.1409-1422, July 2012

Futurecrew Daejoong Kim
futurecrew@gmail.com Our model is based on R-CNN[1], Fast R-CNN[2] and Faster R-CNN[3].

We used pre-trained Imagenet 2014 classification models (VGG16, VGG19) to train detection models.

For ILSVRC 2015 detection datasets, we trained Fast R-CNN and Faster R-CNN multiple times and the trained models are used for ensemble.

Three algorithms are used for the region proposal: Selective search[4], Region proposal network step_1[3] and Region proposal network step_3[3]. The three kinds of proposals are fed to detection models (VGG16, VGG19) which then are used for ensemble.

Detection results are 41.7% mAP for a single model and 44.1% mAP for the ensemble of multiple models.

References:

[1] Rich Feature Hierarchies for Accurate Object Detection and Semantic Segmentation
R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, J. Malik
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2014

[2] Fast R-CNN
Ross Girshick
IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2015

[3] Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks
Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Jian Sun
Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2015

[4] Selective Search for Object Recognition
Jasper R. R. Uijlings, Koen E. A. van de Sande, Theo Gevers, Arnold W. M. Smeulders
International Journal of Computer Vision, Volume 104 (2), page 154-171, 2013

GatorVision Dave Ojika, University of Florida
Liu Chujia, University of Florida
Rishab Goel, University of Florida
Vivek Viswanath, University of Florida
Arpita Tugave, University of Florida
Shruti Sivakumar, University of Florida
Dapeng Wu, University of Florida We implement a Caffe-based convolutional neural network using the Places2 dataset for a large-scale visual recognition environment. We trained a network based on the VGG ConvNet with 13 weight layers and 3 by 3 kernels, with 3 fully connected layers. All convolutional layers are followed with a ReLU layer. Due to the very large amount of time required to train the model with deeper layers, we deployed Caffe on a multiple GPU cluster environment and leveraged cuDNN libraries to improve training time.

[1] Chen Z, Lam O, Jacobson A, et al. Convolutional neural network-based place recognition[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1509, 2014.
[2] Zhou B, Khosla A, Lapedriza A, et al. Object detectors emerge in deep scene cnns[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6856, 2014.
[3] Simonyan K, Zisserman A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014.

HanGil Gil-Jin Jang, School of Electronics Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea
Han-Gyu Kim, School of Computing, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea The novel deep network architecture is proposed based on independent subspace analysis (ISA). We extract 4096 dimensional features by the baseline Alexnet trained by the Places2 Database, and the proposed architecture is applied on top of the feature extraction network. Every other 4 nodes of the 4096 feature nodes are grouped as a single subspace, resulting in 1024 individual subspaces. The output of the each subspace is generated by the square root of the sum of the squares of the components, and the architecture is repeated 3 times to generate 256 nodes before connecting to the final network output of 401 categories.

Henry Machine Henry Shu (Home)
Jerry Shu (Home) Fundamentally different from deep learning/ConvNet/ANN/representation learning, Henry machine was trained using the traditional methodology: feature engineering --> classifier design --> prediction paradigm. The intent is to encourage continued research interest in many traditional methods in spite of the current popularity of deep learning.

The most recent (as of Nov 14, 2015) top-5 and top-1 accuracies of Henry machine for the Scene401 validation dataset are 68.53% and 36.15%, respectively.

Here are some characteristics of Henry machine.

- The features used are our own modified version of a selection of features in the literature. These are engineered features, not learned features. The feature extraction was done for all the 8.1M training, 380K test, and 20K validation images on their original, high-resolution version with the original aspect ratio left unchanged. I.e., no image resizing or rescaling were applied. The entire feature extraction step using our own implementation took 7 days to complete on a cluster of home-brewed CPU cluster (listed below), which consists of 12 low-end to mid-end computers borrowed from family and friends. Five of the twelve computers are laptops.

- We did not have time to study and implement many strong features in the literature. The accuracy of Henry machine is expected to increase once we include more such features. We believe that the craftsmanship of feature engineering encodes the expertise and ingenuity of the human designer behind it, and cannot be dispensed away (at least not yet) in spite of the current popularity of deep learning and representation learning-based approaches. Our humble goal with Henry machine is to encourage continued research interest in the craftsmanship of feature engineering.

- The training of Henry machine for Scene401 was also done using the home-brewed CPU cluster, and took 21 days to complete (not counting algorithm design/development/debugging time).

- While Henry machine was trained using traditional classification methodology, the classifier itself was devised by us from scratch instead of using conventionally available methods such as SVM. We did not use SVM because it suffers from several drawbacks. For example, SVM is fundamentally a binary classifier, and applying its maximum-margin formulation in a multiclass setting, especially with such a large number of classes (401 and 1000), could be ad hoc. Also, the output of SVM is inherently non-probabilistic, which makes it less convenient to use in a probabilistic setting. The training algorithm behind Henry machine is our attempt to address these and several other issues (not mentioned here), while at the same time to make it efficient to train, with small memory footprint, on mom-and-pop computers at home, using only CPU's. However, Henry machine is still very far from perfect, and our training algorithm still needs a lot of improvement. More details of the training and prediction algorithm will be available in our publication.

- As Nov 13 was fast approaching, we were pressed by time. The delay was mainly due to hardware heat stress from many triple-digit-temperature days in Sep and Oct here in California. In the end of Oct, we bought two GTX 970 graphics card and implemented high-performance CUDA code (driver version 7.5) to help us finish the final prediction phase in time.

- We will also release the performance report of Henry machine on the ImageNet1000 CLS-LOC validation dataset.

- The source code for building Henry machine, including the feature extraction part, was primarily written in Octave (version 4.0.0) and C++ (gcc 4.8.4) on linux machines (Ubuntu x86_64 14.04).

Here is the list of the CPU's of the home-brewed cluster:
* Pentium D 2.8GHz, 3G DDR (2005 Desktop)
* Pentium D 2.8GHz, 3.26G DDR (2005 Desktop)
* Pentium 4 3.0GHz, 3G DDR (2005 Desktop)
* Core 2 Duo T5500 1.66GHz, 3G DDR2 (2006 Laptop)
* Celeron E3200 2.4GHz, 3G DDR2 (2009 Desktop)
* Core i7-720QM 1.6GHz, 20G DDR3 (2009 Laptop)
* Xeon E5620 2.4GHz (x2), 16G DDR3 (2010 Server)
* Core i5-2300 2.8GHz, 6G DDR3 (2011 Desktop)
* Core i7-3610QM 2.3GHz, 16G DDR3 (2012 Laptop)
* Pending info (2012 Laptop)
* Core i7-4770K 3.5GHz, 32G DDR3 (2013 Desktop)
* Core i7-4500U 1.8GHz, 8G DDR3 (2013 Laptop)

HiVision Q.Y. Zhong, S.C. Yang, H.M. Sun, G. Zheng, Y. Zhang, D. Xie and S.L. Pu [DET] We follow the Fast R-CNN [1] framework for detection. EdgeBoxes is used for generating object proposals. A detection model is fine-tuned based on a pre-trained VGG16 [3] model on ILSVRC2012 CLS dataset. During testing, predictions on test images and their flipped version are combined by non-maximum suppression. Validation mAP is 42.3%.

[CLS-LOC] We train different models for classification and localization separately, i.e. GoogLeNet [4,5] for classification and VGG16 for bounding box regression. The final models achieve 28.9% top-5 cls-loc error and 6.62% cls error on the validation set.

[Scene] Due to the limit of time and GPUs, we have just trained one CNN model for the scene classification task, namely VGG19, based on the resized 256x256 image datasets. The top-5 accuracy on the validation set with single center crop is 79.9%. In test phase, a multi-scale dense evaluation is adopted for the prediction, whose accuracy on the validation set is 80.7%.

[VID] First we apply Fast R-CNN with RPN proposals [2] to detect objects frame by frame. Then a Multi-Object Tracking (MOT) [6] method is utilized to associate the detections for each snippet. Validation mAP is 43.1%.

References:
[1] R. Girshick. Fast R-CNN. arXiv 1504.08083, 2015.
[2] Ren S, He K, Girshick R, et al. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. arXiv 1506.01497, 2015.
[3] K. Simonyan, A. Zisserman. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. arXiv 1409.1556, 2014.
[4] C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, et al. Going Deeper with Convolutions. arXiv 1409.4842, 2014.
[5] S. Ioffe, C. Szegedy. Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift. arXiv 1502.03167, 2015.
[6] Bae S H, Yoon K J. Robust online multi-object tracking based on tracklet confidence and online discriminative appearance learning. 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, 2014: 1218-1225.

hustvision Xinggang Wang, Huazhong Univ. of Science and Technology The submitted results were produced by a detection algorithm based yolo detection method [1]. Different from the original yolo detection, I made several changes:
1. Downsize the training/testing image to 224*224 for faster training and testing;
2. Reduce “pooling” layers to improve the detection performance of small objects;
3. Add weight balance method to deal with the unbalanced number of objects in training images.
[1] Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhad, You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection, arXiv:1506.02640

Isia_ICT Xiangyang Li
Xinhang Song
Luis Herranz
Shuqiang Jiang
As the number of images per category for training is non-uniform, we sample 4020 images for each class from the training dataset. We use this uniform distributed subdataset to train our convolutional neural networks. In order to reuse the semantic information in the 205-catogery Places dataset [1], we also use the models trained on this dataset to extract visual features for the classification task. Even though the mid-level representations in convolutional neural networks are rich, but the geometric invariance properties are poor [2]. So we use multi-scale features. Precisely, we convert all the layers in the convolutional neural network to convolution layers and use the full convolution network to extract features with different input sizes. We use max pooling to pool the features to the same size with the fixed size of 227 which is used to train the network. At last, we combine features extracted from models which not only have different architectures, but also are pre-trained on different datasets. We use the concatenated features to classify the scene images. Considering the efficiency, we use a logistic regression classifier composed with two fully-connected layers of 4096 units and 401 units respectively and a softmax layer with the sampled training examples exposed to the model.

[1] B. Zhou, A. Lapedriza, J. Xiao, A. Torralba, And A. Oliva. “Learning deep features for scene recognition using places database”. In NIPS 2014.
[2] D. Yoo, S. Park, J. Lee and I. Kweon. “Multi-scale pyramid pooling for deep convolutional representation”. In CVPR Workshop 2015.

ITLab - Inha Byungjae Lee
Enkhbayar Erdenee
Yoonyoung Kim
Sungyul Kim
Phill Kyu Rhee

Inha University, South Korea A hierarchical data-driven object detection framework is addressed considering deep feature hierarchy of object appearances. We are motivated from the observations that many object detectors are degraded in performance due to ambiguities in inter-class and variations in intra-class appearances; deep features extracted from visual objects show strong hierarchical clustering property. We partition the deep features into unsupervised super-categories in the inter-class level, augmented categories in the object level to discover deep-feature-driven knowledge. We build hierarchical feature model using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) [6] algorithm and constitute hierarchical classification ensemble.

Our method is mainly based on Fast RCNN framework [1]. The region proposal algorithm EdgeBoxes [2] is employed to generate region of interests from an image, and features are generated using 16 layer CNN network [3] which pre-trained on the ILSVRC 2013 CLS dataset and fine-tuned on the detection dataset. We perform the final decision of object localization using the hierarchical ridge regression and the extended bounding box similar to [5], and the weighted non-maximum suppression similarly to [1, 4].

[1] R. Girshick. Fast R-CNN. In CoRR, abs/1504.08083, 2015.
[2] C. L. Zitnick and P. Dollár. Edge boxes: Locating object proposals from edges. In ECCV, pages 391–405, 2014.
[3] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In CoRR, abs/1409.1556, 2014.
[4] S. Gidaris and N. Komodakis. Object detection via a multiregion & semantic segmentation-aware cnn model. In arXiv:1505.01749, 2015.
[5] Y. Zhu, R. Urtasun, R. Salakhutdinov, and S. Fidler. segDeepM: Exploiting segmentation and context in deep neural networks for object detection. In CVPR, 2015.
[6] D. M. Blei, A. Y. Ng, M. I. Jordan. Latent dirichlet allocation. In JMLR, pages 993-1022, 2003.

ITLab VID - Inha Byungjae Lee
Enkhbayar Erdenee
Songguo Jin
Sungyul Kim
Phill Kyu Rhee We purpose an object detection based tracking algorithm. Our method is mainly based on Fast RCNN framework [1]. The region proposal algorithm EdgeBoxes [2] is employed to generate region of interests from a frame, and features are generated using 16 layer CNN network [3] which pre-trained on the ILSVRC 2013 CLS dataset and fine-tuned on the ILSVRC 2015 video dataset. We implemented the tracking algorithm similarly to Partial Least Square Analysis for generating a low-dimensional discriminative subspace in video [4]. For parameter optimization, we adopt POMDP based parameter learning approach which described in our previous work [5]. We perform the final decision of object localization using the bounding box ridge regression and the weighted non-maximum suppression similar to [1].

[1] R. Girshick. Fast R-CNN. In CoRR, abs/1504.08083, 2015.
[2] C. L. Zitnick, and P. Dollár. Edge boxes: Locating object proposals from edges. In ECCV, pages 391-405, 2014.
[3] K. Simonyan, and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In CoRR, abs/1409.1556, 2014.
[4] Q. Wang, F. Chen, W. Xu, and M.-H. Yang. Object tracking via partial least squares analysis. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, pages 4454–4465, 2012.
[5] S. Khim, S. Hong, Y. Kim and P. Rhee. Adaptive visual tracking using the prioritized Q-learning algorithm: MDP-based parameter learning approach. Image and Vision Computing, pages 1090-1101, 2014.

ITU Ahmet Levent Subaşı
Google Net Classification + Localization

JHL Jaehyun Lim (JHL)
John Hyeon Lee (JHL) Our baseline algorithm is Convolutional Neural Network for both detection and classification/localization entries. For detection task, our method is based on Fast R-CNN [1] framework. We trained VGG16 network[2] within proposed regions by Selective Search[3]. Fast-RCNN uses ROI pooling on the top of convolutional feature maps. For classification and localization task, we trained on GoogLeNet network[4] with batch normalization methods.[5] The submitted model averaged 5 models trained on multiple random crops and tested on single center crop without any further data augmentation during training.

[1] R. Girshick, Fast R-CNN, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2015.

[2] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In ICLR, 2015

[3] J. Uijlings, K. van de Sande, T. Gevers, and A. Smeulders. Selective search for object recognition. IJCV, 2013.

[4] C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P. Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V. Vanhoucke, and A. Rabinovich, Going Deeper with Convolutions, Cvpr, 2015.

[5] S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy, Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift, Arxiv, 2015.

KAISTNIA_ETRI Hyungwon Choi*(KAIST)
Yunhun Jang*(KAIST)
Keun Dong Lee*(ETRI)
Seungjae Lee*(ETRI)
Jinwoo Shin*(KAIST)
(* indexes equal contribution, by Alphabets) In this work, we use a variant of GoogLenet [1] for localization task. We further use VGG classification models [2] to boost up the performance of the GoogLenet-based network. The overall training of the baseline localization network follows a similar procedure with [2]. Our CNN model is based on GoogLenet [1]. We first trained our network for minimizing the classification loss using batch normalization [3]. Based on this pre-trained classification network, we further fine-tuned it to minimize the localization loss. Then, we performed recursive localizations to adjust localization outputs utilizing outputs of a VGG-based classification network. For obtaining the VGG-based network, we used pre-trained VGG-16 and VGG-19 models with multiple crops on regular grid, selective crops based on objectness score using a similar method with BING [4] and different image sizes. It is further tuned on validation set.

[1] Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich, “Going deeper with convolutions,” in Proc. CVPR, 2015.
[2] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” in Proc. ICLR, 2015.
[3] Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy, “Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,” in Proc. ICML, 2015.
[4] M.-M. Cheng, Z. Zhang, W.-Y. Lin, and P. H. S. Torr, “BING: Binarized normed gradients for objectness estimation at 300fps,” in Proc. CVPR, 2014.

Lunit-KAIST Donggeun Yoo*, KAIST,
Kyunghyun Paeng*, KAIST,
Sunggyun Park*, KAIST,
Sangheum Hwang, Lunit Inc.,
Hyo-Eun Kim, Lunit Inc.,
Jungin Lee, Lunit Inc.,
Minhong Jang, Lunit Inc.,
Anthony S. Paek, Lunit Inc.,
Kyoung-Kuk Kim, KAIST,
Seong Dae Kim, KAIST,
In So Kweon, KAIST.
(* indicates equal contribution) Given top-5 object classes provided by multiple networks including GoogLeNet [1] and VGG-16 [2], we localize each object with a single class-agnostic AttentionNet, which is a multi-class extension of [3]. In order to improve the localization accuracy, we significantly increased the network depth from 8-layer [3] to 22-layer. In addition, 1,000 class-wise direction layers and a classification layer are stacked on top of the network, sharing the convolutional layers. Starting from an initial bounding-box, AttentionNet predicts quantized weak directions for top-left and bottom-right corners pointing a target object, and aggregates the predictions iteratively to guide the bounding-box to an accurate object boundary. Since AttentionNet is a unified framework for localization, any independent pre/post-processing technique such as the hand-engineered object proposal and the bounding-box regression is not used in this submission.
[1] C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P. Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V. Vanhoucke, and A. Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolutions. In CVPR, 2015.
[2] K. Simonyan, A. Zisserman. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. In ICLR 2015.
[3] D. Yoo, S. Park, J.-Y. Lee, A. S. Paek, and I. S. Kweon. Attentionnet: Aggregating weak directions for accurate object detection. In ICCV, 2015.

MCG-ICT-CAS Tang Sheng, Corresponding leading member: ts@ict.ac.cn, Multimedia Computing Group, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Zhang Yong-Dong, Multimedia Computing Group, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Zhang Rui, Multimedia Computing Group, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Li Ling-Hui, Multimedia Computing Group, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Wang Bin, Multimedia Computing Group, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Li Yu, Multimedia Computing Group, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Deng Li-Xi, Multimedia Computing Group, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Xiao Jun-Bin, Multimedia Computing Group, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Cao Zhi, Multimedia Computing Group, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Li Jin-Tao, Multimedia Computing Group, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Title:
Investigation of Model Sparsity and Category Information on Object Classification, Localization and Detection at ILSVRC 2015

Abstract:
In ILSVRC 2015 challenge, we (team MCG-ICT-CAS) participate in two tasks: object classification/localization (CLS-LOC) and object detection (DET) without using any outside images or annotations.
CLS-LOC: we do object classification and localization sequentially. So we will describe them respectively as follows.
For object classification, we use fusion of VGG [1] and GoogleNet [2] models as our baseline. Although the top-5 accuracy of the GoogleNet used by us which was released by Caffe platform [3] is 90.73 in the validation dataset, much lower than that of the initial unreleased GoogleNet by Google, we can still get the top-5 accuracy of 93.28 after fusion with VGG (92.55). After further fusion with our own 2 models, we can improve the accuracy to final 93.72. Our unique contributions are three-fold:
(1) Sparse CNN model (SPCNN): In the early April of this year, we propose to learn a compact CNN model named SPCNN for reducing computation and memory cost. Since the 4K*1K (4M) number of connections between the 7th and 8th layer is one of the densest connections between the CNN layers, we focus on how to remove most of small connections between them because small connections are often unstable and may cause noise. Actually, for a given category (a neuron in the 8th layer), it is naturally only related with a very few number of category bases (neurons of the 7th layer), i.e., the former can be modelled as sparse linear combinations of a very few number of the latter. Hence, we propose to select only a very few number of connections with large weights between a given category and category bases for retraining, and set other small unstable weights as constant zero without retraining. Experiments on the validation dataset show that only keeping and retraining a very small percentage (about 9.12%) of all the initial 4M connections can still gain 0.32% improvement of top-5 accuracy (92.87%) compared with that (92.55%) of the initial VGG model after removing the 90.88% small unstable connections.
(2) Sparse Ensemble Learning (SEL): Large scale training dataset imposes a great challenge for efficiency of both training and testing. To overcome the low efficiency and unscalability of the classical methods based on global classification such as SVM, we proposed SEL for visual concept detection in [4]. It leverages sparse codes of image features for both partition of large scale training set into small localities for efficient training and coordination of the individual classifiers in each locality for final classification. The sparsity ensures that only a small number of complementary classifiers in the ensemble will fire on a testing sample, which not only gives better AP than other fusion methods like average fusion and Adaboost, but also allows the high efficiency of online detection. In this year’s object classification task, we use the 4K-dim CNN features as the image features instead of traditional bag of words (BoW). After expanding the training dataset from 1.2 million samples to about 6 million samples with through data argumentation, we use 8K-dim sparse codes of CNN features to partition the training dataset into 8K number of small localities for efficient training and use the sparse codes of test sample for fusion. Experiments on the validation dataset show that compared with CaffeNet, SEL with CNN features can improve 3.6% and 1.0% in top-1 and top-5 accuracies respectively.
(3) Additionally, to compare with the widely used average fusion (AVG) method, we try ordered weighted averaging (OWA) [5] in terms of top-5 accuracy for fusion of all the models including GoogleNet, VGG, SPCNN and SEL. Experiments on the validation dataset show that OWA is better than average fusion.
For object localization, we mainly focus on the following three aspects:
(1) We apply the framework of Fast R-CNN [6] into object localization task. Instead of using Non-Maximum-Suppression (NMS) filtering of overlapped detection proposals of standard Fast R-CNN, we propose to fuse the most probable detection proposals with top-N (N=10) scores to get the final localization result.
(2) In order to get more confident proposals, we combine three different region proposals including Selective Search (SS) [7], EdgeBox (EB) [8], Region Proposal Network (RPN) [9] for both training and localization of objects.
(3) We try clustering-based object localization to get more positive training samples in each individual clustering subset besides the complexity reduction of both training and localization.
After the above measures, we can improve our localization accuracy from 83.2% (baseline) to around 84.9% in the validation dataset.
DET: An overwhelming majority of existing object detection methods have focused on how to reduce the number of region proposals while keeping high object recall without consideration of category information, which may lead to a lot of false positives due to the interferences between categories especially when the number of categories is very large. To eliminate such interferences, in this year’s DET task, we propose a novel category aggregation among region proposals based upon our careful observation that more frequently detected categories around an object have the higher probabilities to be present in the image. After further exploiting the co-occurrences relationship between categories, we can determine the most possible categories for an image in advance. Thus, many false positives of region proposals can be greatly filtered out before subsequent classification process. Our experiments on the validation dataset verified the effectiveness of our proposed both category aggregation and co-occurrence refinement approaches.

References:
[1] Karen Simonyan, Andrew Zisserman,“Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition”, CoRR abs/1409.1556 (2014)
[2] Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, Andrew Rabinovich, “Going deeper with convolutions”, CVPR 2015.
[3] http://caffe.berkeleyvision.org/model_zoo.html
[4] Sheng Tang, Yan-Tao Zheng, Yu Wang, Tat-Seng Chua, “Sparse Ensemble Learning for Concept Detection”, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 14 (1): 43-54, February 2012.
[5] Ronald R. Yager, “On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 18(1):183-190 (1988).
[6] R. Girshick, “Fast R-CNN”, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2015.
[7] J. R. R. Uijlings, K. E. A. van de Sande, T. Gevers, and A. W. M. Smeulders, “Selective search for object recognition”, International Journal of Computer Vision, 104(2):154-171, 2013.
[8] C. L. Zitnick and P. Dollar, “Edge boxes: Locating object proposals from edges”, In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014, pages 391-405. Springer, 2014.
[9] S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun. , “Faster R-CNN Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks”, In Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2015.

MIL-UT Masataka Yamaguchi (The Univ. of Tokyo)
Qishen Ha (The Univ. of Tokyo)
Katsunori Ohnishi (The Univ. of Tokyo)
Masatoshi Hidaka (The Univ. of Tokyo)
Yusuke Mukuta (The Univ. of Tokyo)
Tatsuya Harada (The Univ. of Tokyo) We use Fast-RCNN[1] as the base detection system.

Before we train models using the Fast-RCNN framework, we retrain VGG-16[2] with object-level annotations from CLS/LOC and DET data as with [3]. We initialize two models with original VGG-16 and other two models with retrained one.

For all models, we concatenate the whole image features extracted by CNN with the fc7-layer output and use it as the input to the inner product layer before Softmax, while we use original fc7-layer output as the input to the bounding box regressors. We multiply the whole image features by a constant to make the norm of the whole image features smaller compared to that of the fc7-layer output.

We replace pool5 layer of one of the models initialized by original VGG-16 and pool5 layer of one of the models retrained on annotated objects with RoI Pooling layers, and replace pool4 layers of the other models with RoI Pooling layers and then train them on training dataset and the val1 dataset (see [4]) using the Fast-RCNN framework.

During testing, we use object region proposals obtained from Selective Search[5] and Multibox[6], and we test not only original images but also horizontally-flipped ones and combine them.

In our experiments, replacing pool4 layer rather than pool5 layer with RoI Pooling Layer improved mAP on the val2 dataset from 42.9% to 44.2%, and retraining the model with object-level annotation improved mAP from 44.2% to 45.6%.

We submitted two results. One is obtained by model fusion using the same weights for all models and the other is obtained by model fusion using the weights learned separately for each class by Bayesian optimization on the val2 dataset.

[1] Girshick, Ross. "Fast R-CNN." arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.08083 (2015).
[2] Simonyan, Karen, and Andrew Zisserman. "Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition." arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 (2014).
[3] Ouyang, Wanli, et al. "Deepid-net: Deformable deep convolutional neural networks for object detection." Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2015.
[4] Girshick, Ross, et al. "Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation." Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2014 IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2014.
[5] Uijlings, Jasper RR, et al. "Selective search for object recognition." International journal of computer vision 104.2 (2013): 154-171.
[6] Szegedy, Christian, et al. "Scalable, high-quality object detection." arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.1441 (2014).

Miletos 1- Azmi Can Özgen / Miletos Inc - Istanbul Technical University - Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering

2- Berkin Malkoç / Miletos Inc - Istanbul Technical University - Department of Physics

3- Mustafa Can Uslu / Miletos Inc - Istanbul Technical University - Department of Physics

4- Onur Kaplan / Miletos Inc - Istanbul Technical University - Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering # Hierarchical GoogleNet Classification + Localization

* We used GoogleNet architecture for Classification and Localization. We also used Simple Linear Iterative Clustering for Localization.

* For each ground truth label, we selected 3 different nodes based upon WordNet tree structure, hierarchically. Also, we trained the model from scratch with these selected three nodes, one for each output level of the model.

* We tried two different schemes to train the GoogleNet architecture. In first scheme, we separated the architecture into three individual parts such that each part has one of the output layers of GoogleNet architecture and we trained these parts separately. Later, we reconstructed the original GoogleNet architecture from these parts and fine-tuned it by using all of the three output layers.
In second scheme, we trained GoogleNet architecture with three output layers without separating them.

* For each image, we selected multiple crops that are more likely to be possible objects with Simple Linear Iterative Clustering. Then, we selected five of the crops (one for each Top-5 prediction) with GoogleNet Classification model.

References :

1- Going Deeper With Convolutions - arXiv:1409.4842

MIPAL_SNU Sungheon Park, Myunggi Lee, Jihye Hwang, John Yang, Jieun Lee, Nojun Kwak

Machine Intelligence and Pattern Analysis Lab,
Seoul National University, Korea Our method learns bounding box information from the results of classifier rather than from CNN features. The classification score before softmax is used as a feature. The input image is divided into grids with various sizes and locations. Testing is applied to various crops of input images. Only the classifier score from the ground truth class is selected and stacked to generate a feature vector. We used 140 crops for this competition. The localization network is trained with the feature vector as input and bounding box coordinates as output. Euclidean loss is used. The classification is performed by GoogLeNet[1] trained using quick solver in [2]. Once the class is determined, feature vector for localization is extracted and bounding box information is determined by the localization network. We used single network for bounding box estimation, so ensemble of multiple models may improve the performance.

[1] C Szegedy et al, "Going Deeper with Convolutions"
[2] https://github.com/BVLC/caffe/tree/master/models/bvlc_googlenet

Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories Ming-Yu Liu, Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories
Teng-Yok Lee, Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories The submitted result is computed using the VGG16 network, which contains 13 convolutional layers and 3 fully connected layers. After the network is trained for several epochs using the training procedure described in the original paper, we fine-tune the network by using a weighted cross entropy loss, where the weights are determined per class and are based on their fitting errors. During testing time, we conduct a multi-resolution testing. The images are resized to three different resolutions. 10 crops are extracted from each resolution and the final score is the average scores of the 30 crops.

MPG_UT Noriki Nishida,
Jan Zdenek,
Hideki Nakayama

Machine Perception Group
Graduate School of Information Science and Technology
The University of Tokyo Our proposed system consists of two components:
the first component is a deep neural network that predicts bounding boxes in every frame while utilizing contextual information,
and the second component is a convolutional neural network that predicts class categories for given regions.
The first component uses a recurrent neural network ("inner" RNN) to sequentially detect multiple objects in every frame.
Morever, the first component uses an encoding bidirectional RNN ("outer" RNN) to extract temporal dynamics.
To facilitate the learning of the encoding RNN, we develop decoding RNNs to reconstruct the input sequences.
We also use curriculum learning for training the "inner" RNN.
We use The Oxford VGG-Net with 16 layers in Caffe to initialize our ConvNets.

MSRA Kaiming He
Xiangyu Zhang
Shaoqing Ren
Jian Sun We train neural networks with depth of over 150 layers. We propose a "deep residual learning" framework [a] that eases the optimization and convergence of extremely deep networks. Our "deep residual nets" enjoy accuracy gains when the networks are substantially deeper than those used previously. Such accuracy gains are not witnessed for many common networks when going deeper.

Our localization and detection systems are based on deep residual nets and the "Faster R-CNN" system in our NIPS paper [b]. The extremely deep representations generalize well, and greatly improve the results of the Faster R-CNN system. Furthermore, we show that the region proposal network (RPN) in [b] is a generic framework and performs excellent for localization.

We only use the ImageNet main competition data. We do not use the Scene/VID data.

The details will be disclosed in a later technical report of [a].

[a] "Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition", Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, Jian Sun. Tech Report 2015.
[b] "Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks", Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Jian Sun. NIPS 2015.

N-ODG Qi Zheng,
Wenhua Fang,
Da Xiang,
Xiao Wang,
Cheng Tong,
National Engineering Research Center for Multimedia Software(NERCMS), Wuhan University, Wuhan, China Object detection is a very challenging task, due to variety of scales, poses, illuminations, partial occlusions or truncation, especially in Large-Scale dataset [1]. In this condition, traditional shallow feature based approaches cannot work well. To address the above problem, deep convolutional neural networks (CNN)[2] is applied to detect objects like hierarchical visual cortex from image patches, but its computation complexity is very high. To well balance the effectiveness and efficiency, we present a novel object detection from more effective proposals method based on selective search[4]. Inspired by R-CNN[3], we exploit a novel neural network structure for high detection rate as well as low computation complexity can be simultaneously achieved. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method produces high quality detection results both quantitatively and perceptually.
[1] Russakovsky O, Deng J, Su H, et al. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge[J]. International Journal of Computer Vision, 2014:1-42.
[2] Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton G E. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks[J]. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2012, 25:2012.
[3] Girshick R, Donahue J, Darrell T, et al. Rich Feature Hierarchies for Accurate Object Detection and Semantic Segmentation[C]// Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2014 IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2014:580-587.
[4] Uijlings J R R, Sande K E A V D, Gevers T, et al. Selective Searchfor Object Recognition[J]. International Journal of Computer Vision, 2013, 104(2):154-171.

NECLAMA Wongun Choi (NEC-Labs)
Samuel Schulter (NEC-Labs) This is a baseline entry relying on the current state-of-the-art in standard object detection.
We use the Faster-RCNN framework [1] and finetune the network for the 30 classes with the provided training data.
The model is essentially the same as in [1], except that the training data has changed.
We did not experiment much with the hyper-parameters, but we expect better results with more training iterations and proper sampling of the video frames.
This model does not exploit temporal information at all but is a good object detector on static images, which is why this entry should serve as a baseline.

[1] Ren, He, Girshick, Sun. Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks. ArXiv 2015.

NECTEC-MOONGDO Sanparith Marukatat, Ithipan Methasate, Nattachai Watcharapinchai, Sitapa Rujikietgumjorn

IMG Lab, National Electronics and Computer Technology Center, Thailand We first built AlexNet[NIPS2012_4824] model using Caffe[jia2014caffe] on Imagenet’s object classification dataset.
The performance of the our AlexNet on object classification is 55.76 percent of accuracy.
Then we replaced the classification layers (fc6 and fc7) with larger ones.
By comparing the size of training data between object classification dataset and the Place2 dataset, we doubled the number of hidden nodes on these two layers.
We connected this structure with new output layer with 401 nodes for 401 classes in Place2 dataset.
The Place2 training dataset was split into 2 parts.
The first part was used to adjust weights on the new layers.
To train with the first part, the model is trained with 1,000,000 iterations in total.
The learning rate is initialed with 0.001, then decreased 10 times every 200,000 iterations.
This yielded 43.18% accuracy on the validation set.
Then we retrained the whole convolution network using the second part.
We set learning rate of the new layers to be 100 times higher than the lower layers.
This raised the validation accuracy to 43.31%.
We also have trained from Place2 training dataset, since the beginning but the method described above achieved a better result.

@article{jia2014caffe,
Author = {Jia, Yangqing and Shelhamer, Evan and Donahue, Jeff and Karayev, Sergey and Long, Jonathan and Girshick, Ross and Guadarrama, Sergio and Darrell, Trevor},
Journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5093},
Title = {Caffe: Convolutional Architecture for Fast Feature Embedding},
Year = {2014}
}

@incollection{NIPS2012_4824,
title = {ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks},
author = {Alex Krizhevsky and Sutskever, Ilya and Geoffrey E. Hinton},
booktitle = {Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25},
editor = {F. Pereira and C.J.C. Burges and L. Bottou and K.Q. Weinberger},
pages = {1097--1105},
year = {2012},
publisher = {Curran Associates, Inc.},
url = {http://papers.nips.cc/paper/4824-imagenet-classification-with-deep-convolutional-neural-networks.pdf}
}

NEIOP NEIOPs We pretrained a VGG16 model on Places205 database and then finetuned the model on Places2 database. All images are resized to 224 by N. Multi-scale & multi-crop are used at the testing stage.

NICAL Jiang Chunhui, USTC I am a student of USTC, my major is computer vision and deep learning

ntu_rose wang xingxing(NTU ROSE),wang zhenhua(NTU ROSE), yin jianxiong(NTU ROSE), gu jiuxiang(NTU ROSE), wang gang(NTU ROSE), Alex Kot(NTU ROSE), Jenny Chen(Tencent) For the scene task, we first train VGG-16[5], VGG-19[5] and Inception-BN[1] model, after this step, we use CNN Tree to learning Fine-grained Features[6]. After all, we combine CNN Tree model and VGG-16,VGG-19 , Inception-BN model as the final prediction result.

[1]Sergey Ioffe, Christian Szegedy. Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03167
[2]Ren Wu 1 , Shengen Yan, Yi Shan, Qingqing Dang, Gang Sun.Deep Image: Scaling up Image Recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.02876
[3]Andrew G. Howard. Some Improvements on Deep Convolutional Neural Network Based Image Classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5402
[4]Karen Simonyan, Andrew Zisserman. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556
[5]Limin Wang, Yuanjun Xiong, Zhe Wang, Yu Qiao. Towards Good Practices for Very Deep Two-Stream ConvNets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.02159
[6]Zhenhua Wang, Xingxing Wang, Gang Wang. Learning Fine-grained Features via a CNN Tree for Large-scale Classification. arXiv preprint

PCL Bangalore Dipankar Das; Intel Labs
Sasikanth Avancha; Intel Labs
Dheevatsa Mudigere; Intel Labs
Nataraj Jammalamadaka; Intel Labs
Karthikeyan Vaidyanathan; Intel Labs
We jointly train image classification and object localization on a single CNN
using cross entropy loss and L2 regression loss respectively. The network
predicts both the location of the object and a corresponding confidence score.
We use a variant of the network topology (VGG-A) proposed by [1]. This network
is initialized using the weights of classification only network. This network
is used to identify bounding boxes for the objects, while a 144-crop classification
is used to classify the image.

The network has been trained on Intel Parallel Computing Lab’s deep learning library
(PCL-DNN) and all the experiments were performed on 32-node Xeon E5 clusters. A network
of this size typically takes about 30 hrs for training on our deep learning framework.
Multiple experiments for fine-tuning were performed in parallel on NERSC’s Edison and
Cori clusters, as well as Intel’s Endeavor cluster.

[1] Very Deep Convolutional networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. ICLR 2015.
Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman.

Qualcomm Research Daniel Fontijne
Koen van de Sande
Eren Gölge
Blythe Towal
Anthony Sarah
Cees Snoek We present NeoNet, an inception-style [1] deep convolutional neural network ensemble that forms the basis for our work on object detection, object localization and scene classification. Where traditional deep nets in the ImageNet challenge are image-centric, NeoNet is object-centric. We emphasize the notion of objects during pseudo-positive mining, in the improved box proposals [2], in the augmentations, during batch-normalized pre-training of features, and via bounding box regression at run time [3].

[1] S. Ioffe & C. Szegedy. Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift. In ICML 2015.
[2] K.E.A. van de Sande et al. Segmentation as Selective Search for Object Recognition. In ICCV 2011
[3] R. Girshick. Fast R-CNN. In ICCV 2015.

ReCeption Christian Szegedy, Drago Anguelov, Pierre Sermanet, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jianmin Chen (Google) Next generation of inception architecture (ensemble of 4 models), combined with a simple one-shot class agnostic multi-scale multibox.

RUC_BDAI Peng Han, Renmin University of China
Wenwu Yuan, Renmin University of China
Zhiwu Lu, Renmin University of China
Jirong Wen, Renmin University of China The main components of our algorithm are the R-CNN model [1] and the video segmentation algorithm [2]. Given a video, we use the well trained R-CNN model [1] to extract the potential bounding boxes and their object categories for each keyframe. Considering that R-CNN has ignored the temporal context across all the keyframes of the video, we further utilize the results (with temporal context) of the video segmentation algorithm [2] to refine the results of R-CNN. In addition, we also define several local refinement rules using the spatial and temporal context to obtain better object detection results.

[1] R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 2014.
[2] A. Papazoglou and V. Ferrari, Fast object segmentation in unconstrained video. In ICCV, 2013.

SamExynos Qian Zhang(Beijing Samsung Telecom R&D Center)
Peng Liu(Beijing Samsung Telecom R&D Center)
Wei Zheng(Beijing Samsung Telecom R&D Center)
Zhixuan Li(Beijing Samsung Telecom R&D Center)
Junjun Xiong(Beijing Samsung Telecom R&D Center) Our submissions are trained by modified version of [1] and [2]. We use the structure of [1], but remove the batch normalization layers. And Relu is replaced by Prelu[3]. Meanwhile, the modified version of latent Semantic representation learning is integrated into the structure of [1].

[1]Sergey Ioffe, Christian Szegedy, Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift. ICML 2015.
[2]Xin Li,Yuhong Guo, Latent Semantic Representation Learning for Scene Classification.ICML 2014.
[3]Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun,Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classification. ICCV 2015
[4] Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov,
Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich, Going deeper with convolutions. CVPR 2015.

SIAT_MMLAB Limin Wang, Sheng Guo, Weilin Huang, Yu Qiao

Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences We propose a new scene recognition system with deep convolutional models. Specifically, we address this problem from four aspects:

(i) Multi-scale CNNs: we utilize Inception2 architecture as our main exploration network structure due to its performance and efficiency. We propose a multi-scale CNN framework, where we train CNNs from image patches of two resolutions (224 cropped from 256, and 336 cropped from 384). For CNN at low resolution, we use the same network as Inception2. For CNN at high resolution, we design a deeper network based on Inception2.

(ii) Handing Label Ambiguity: As the scene labels are not mutually exclusive with each other and some categories are easily confused, we propose two methods to handle this problem. First, according to the confusion matrix on the validation dataset, we merge some scene categories into one single super-category. Second, we utilize the Places205 scene model to test images and use the soft output as another target to guide the training of CNN.

(iii) Better Optimize CNN: We use a large batch size to train CNN (1024). Meanwhile, we try to set the decrease of learning rate in the exponential form. Moreover, we design a locally-supervised learning method to learn the weight of CNNs.

(iv) Combing CNNs of different architectures: considering the complementarity of networks with different architectures, we also fuse the prediction results of networks: VGGNet13, VGGNet16, VGGNet19 and MSRANet-B.

[1] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In NIPS, 2012.

[2] S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. CoRR, abs/1502.03167, 2015.

[3] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. CoRR, abs/1409.1556, 2014.

[4] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification. CoRR, abs/1502.01852, 2015.

[5] Hinton, Geoffrey, Vinyals, Oriol, and Dean, Jeff. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015.

[6] L. Wang, Y. Xiong, Z. Wang, and Y. Qiao. Towards good practices for very deep two-stream convnets. CoRR, abs/1507.02159, 2015.

SIIT_KAIST-ETRI Youngsoo Kim(KAIST), Heechul Jung(KAIST), Jeongwoo Ju(KAIST), Byungju Kim(KAIST), Yeakang Lee(KAIST), Junmo Kim(KAIST), Joongwon Hwang(ETRI), Young-Suk Yoon(ETRI), Yuseok Bae(ETRI) For this work, we use modified GoogLeNet and test augmentation such as crop, scaling, rotation and projective transformation.
Networks model was pre-trained with localization dataset.

SIIT_KAIST-TECHWIN Youngsoo Kim(KAIST), Heechul Jung(KAIST), Jeongwoo Ju(KAIST), Byungju Kim(KAIST), Sihyeon Seong(KAIST), Junho Yim(KAIST), Gayoung Lee(KAIST), Yeakang Lee(KAIST), Minju Jung(KAIST), Junmo Kim(KAIST), Soonmin Bae(Hanwha Techwin), Jayeong Ku(Hanwha Techwin), Seokmin Yoon(Hanwha Techwin), Hwalsuk Lee(Hanwha Techwin), Jaeho Jang(Hanwha Techwin) Our method for scene classification is based on deep convolutional neural networks.
We used pre-trained networks on ILSVRC2015 localization dataset and retrained the networks with 256x256 size Places2 dataset.
For test, we used ten crop data augmentation and model combination with four slightly different models.
This work was supported by Hanwha Techwin.

SYSU_Vision Liang Lin, Sun Yat-sen University
Wenxi Wu, Sun Yat-sen University
Zhouxia Wang, Sun Yat-sen University
Depeng Liang, Sun Yat-sen University
Tianshui Chen, Sun Yat-sen University
Xian Wu, Sun Yat-sen University
Keze Wang, Sun Yat-sen University
Lingbo Liu, Sun Yat-sen University We design our detection model based on fast RCNN [1], and improve it from the following two aspects. First, we utilize a CNN-based method to re-rank and re-fine the proposals generated by proposal methods. Specifically, we re-rank the proposals to reject the low-confident ones and refine the proposals to get more accurate locations for the corresponding proposals. Second, we incorporate self-pace learning (SPL) in our optimization stage. We first initial a detector with all the annotated training samples and assign a confidence to each candidate with this detector. We further fine tune the detector using the candidates with high-confidence.

[1] Ross Girshick, Fast R-CNN, In ICCV 2015

Szokcka Research Group Dmytro Mishkin Ensemble of cheap (2x2 + 2x2) and (3x1 + 1x3) models, inspired by [1], [2] in Inception-style Convnet[3], trained with Layer-sequential unit-variance orthogonal initialization[4].

[1]Xudong Cao. A practical theory for designing very deep convolutional neural networks, 2014. (unpublished)

[2]Ben Graham. Sparse 3D convolutional neural networks, BMVC 2015

[3]Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, Andrew Rabinovich. Going Deeper with Convolutions, CVPR 2015

[4] D.Mishkin, J. Matas. All you need is a good init, arXiv:1511.06422.

Tencent-Bestimage Hangyu Yan, Tencent
Xiaowei Guo, Tencent
Ruixin Zhang, Tencent
Hao Ye, Tencent Localization task is composed of two parts: indicate the category and point out where is it. As the great progress in image classification[1][2], indicating in the category no longer seems to be the bottlenecks of the localization task. In previous competition, dense box regression[3][2] was used to generalize boundary prediction. However, the image crops of dense prediction is bounded at certain position and scale, and is hard to regress to a single box when more than one object appear in the same image crop.

Given a lot of box proposals(eg. from selective search[5], about 1500 boxes per image), the localization task become (a) how to find real boxes that contain ground truth, (b) what is the category lies in the box. Enlightened by fast R-CNN[4], We propose a classification && localization framework, which combines the global context information and local box information by selecting proper (class, box) pairs: first we pre train a googlenet for classification; and then two kinds of transformations have been made to the network, obtaining objectness and local category within the box; and finally, a SVM classifier is applied to select proper (class, box) pairs.

1. Fine-tuning for Objectness
Similar to fast R-CNN, we train a network to indicate the "objectness" of box. The probability of objectness is computed by a two-class softmax layer over fully-connected layer. A box proposal is positive if it has intersection over union (IoU) at least 0.7, negative if IoU<0.3. No 1000 categories information is used at this stage. Another Box offsets regression layer is also jointly trained with objectness, and ignored when the box is negative, as is standard practice in[4].
At test time, the objectness of all box proposals are verified by the network. Then we perform non-maximum suppression and keep most objectness boxes.

2. Fine-tuning for Local Classification
We acquire the global classification by avarging result of multi crops(eg. 144crops per image[1]) using the pre-trained googlenet model. On the other hand, we finetune the googlenet to indicate the 1000 categories within the box, which we call "local classification". The training sets are sampled around ground truth and resized to the network input.
At test time, we clip images from the regression boundary of the most objectness boxes, and put them into local classification network. Classes with high probability from local and global will be retaining.

3. Combine Information and Pair Select
So far, we have got objectness and offsets regression for some boxes, classification results for both local and global. For each possible pair (class, box), all these information form a feature vector, and is trained by SVM.
At test time, the pairs that reach top5 confidence in SVM would become our final result.

It may be surprising that the simple strategy can be more accurate even without models ensemble. We believe that the object boundary has something to do with low level vision, such as corner, edge, shape. As the network goes deeper, the features become more and more abstract. It is questionable to train a box regression while retaining 1000 categories information, especially when there are only 500 images per category on average. Our solution avoid seeking box directly, but take full advantage of classification capability of deep network.

We train our network models using modified cxxnet[6].

[1]Ioffe S, Szegedy C. Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift. In JMLR, 2015.
[2]Simonyan K, Zisserman A. VGG Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In ICLR, 2015.
[3]Sermanet P, Eigen D, Zhang X, et al. Overfeat: Integrated recognition, localization and detection using convolutional networks. In ICLR, 2014.
[4]Girshick R. Fast R-CNN. In NIPS, 2015.
[5]Uijlings J R R, van de Sande K E A, Gevers T, et al. Selective search for object recognition. International journal of computer vision, 2013, 104(2): 154-171.
[6]cxxnet: https://github.com/dmlc/cxxnet

The University of Adelaide Zifeng Wu, the University of Adelaide
Chunhua Shen, the University of Adelaide
Anton van den Hengel, the University of Adelaide Our method is largely improved upon fast-rcnn. Multiple VGG16 and VGG19 networks are involved, which were pre-trained with the ImageNet CLS-LOC dataset. Each of the models is initialized with different models and/or tuned with different data augmentation strategies. Furthermore, we observe that feature maps obtained by applying the 'hole convolution algorithm' are beneficial. Selective-search proposals are filtered by a pre-trained two-way (object or non-object) classifier. The outputs of each network for the original and flipped images at multiple scales are averaged to obtain the predictions.

THU-UTSA-MSRA Liang Zheng, University of Texas at San Antonio
Shengjin Wang, Tsinghua University
Qi Tian, University of Texas at San Antonio
Jingdong Wang, Microsoft Research Our team submits results on the scene classification task using the Places2 dataset [4].

We trained three CNNs on the Places2 datasets using the GoogleNet [1]. Specifically, Caffe [2] is used for training. Among the three models, the first model is trained on by fine-tuning the GoogleNet model trained on Places dataset [3]. The classification accuracy of this model is: top-1 accuracy = 42.96%, top-5 accuracy = 75.35%. This model is obtained after 3,320,000 mini-batches, and the batch size is 32. Learning rate is set to 0.001, and gamma is set to 0.1, with a step size of 750,000.

The second and the third models are trained using the "quick" and the default solvers provided by GoogleNet, respectively, and both models are trained from scratch. Specifically, for the second model, we use a base learning rate of 0.01, gamma = 0.7, and step size = 320,000. We run this model for 4,500,000 mini-batches, and each mini-batch is of size 32. For this model, our result on the validation set is: top-1 accuracy = 43.41%, top-5 accuracy = 75.37%. In more detail, we only change the architecture of GoogleNet to have 401 blobs in the last fully connected layer. The average operation is done after the softmax calculation.

For submission, we submit results of each model as the first three runs (run 1, run 2, and run 3). Then, run 4 is the averaged result of fine-tuned GoogleNet + quick GoogleNet. Run 5 is the averaged result of all three models.

[1] Szegedy, Christian, et al. "Going deeper with convolutions." arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.4842 (2014).

[2] Jia, Yangqing, et al. "Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding." Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia. ACM, 2014.

[3] Zhou, Bolei, et al. "Learning deep features for scene recognition using places database." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2014.

[4] Places2: A Large-Scale Database for Scene Understanding. B. Zhou, A. Khosla, A. Lapedriza, A. Torralba and A. Oliva, Arxiv, 2015

Trimps-Fudan-HUST Jianying Zhou(1), Jie Shao(1), Lin Mei(1), Chuanping Hu(1), Xiangyang Xue(2), Zheng Zhang(3), Xiang Bai(4)

(1)The Third Research Institute of the Ministry of Public Security, China
(2)Fudan university
(3)New York University Shanghai
(4)Huazhong University of Science & Technology Object detection:
Our models were trained based on Fast R-CNN and Faster R-CNN. 1) More training signal were added, including negative classes and objectness. 2) Replace pooling layers with stride convolutional layers for more accurate localization. 3) Extra data from Microsoft COCO, more anchors. 4) Various models were combined with weighted nms.

Trimps-Soushen Jie Shao*, Xiaoteng Zhang*, Jianying Zhou*, Zhengyan Ding*, Wenfei Wang, Lin Mei, Chuanping Hu (* indicates equal contribution)

(The Third Research Institute of the Ministry of Public Security, P.R. China.) Object detection:
Our models were trained based on Fast R-CNN and Faster R-CNN. 1) More training signal were added, including negative classes and objectness. Some models were trained on 489 subcategories first, then fine-tuning using 200 categories. 2) Replace pooling layers with stride convolutional layers for more accurate localization. 3) Extra data from Microsoft COCO, more anchors. 4) Iterative scheme, which alternates between scoring the proposals and refining their localizations with bounding box regression. 5) Various models were combined with weighted nms.

Object localization:
Different data augmentation methods were used, including random crops, multiple scales, contrast and color jittering. Some models were trained by maintaining the aspect ratio of input images, while others were not. In the test phase, whole uncropped images are densely processed for various scales. Further generate the fusion classification result according to the scores and labels jointly. On the localization side, we refer to the framework of Fast R-CNN. An iterative scheme like detection task is used. Then select top-k regions and averaging their coordinates as output. Results from multiple models are fused in different ways, using the model accuracy as weights.

Object detection from video:
We use same models as object detection task. Part of these models were fine-tuned using VID data. We also try main object constraint by considering whole snippet rather than single frame.

Scene classification:
Based on both MSRA-net and BN-GoogLeNet, and plus several improvements: 1) Choose subset data in a stochastic way at each epoch, which ensures each class has roughly equal images. This can both accelerate training and increase model diversity. 2) To utilize the whole image and part object information simultaneously, three different size patches of image (whole image with 224x224, crop of 160x160, and crop of 112x112) were feed into network and concatenate at the last convolution layer. 3) Enlarge the MSRA-net to 25 layers, and change some BN-net input from 224x224 to 270x270. 4) Use dense sample and multi-crop (50x3) for testing.

UIUC-IFP Pooya Khorrami - UIUC (*)
Tom Le Paine - UIUC (*)
Wei Han - UIUC
Prajit Ramachandran - UIUC
Mohammad Babaeizadeh - UIUC
Honghui Shi - UIUC
Thomas S. Huang - UIUC

* - equal contribution
Our system uses deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for object detection and can be broken up into three distinct phases: (i) object proposal generation (ii) object classification and (iii) post-processing using non-maximum suppression (NMS). The first two phases are based on the faster R-CNN framework presented in [1].

First, we find image regions that may contain objects via bounding boxes (i.e. proposals) using the fully convolutional region-proposal network (RPN) of [1]. The network’s topology is similar to the Zeiler-Fergus (ZF) network [2]. Once the RPN has been trained, we train another neural network (RCNN) [1] that tries to classify the object in a given proposal. For this phase, we use a VGG16-style [3] network that was pre-trained on the ImageNet Classification and Localization Data (CLS) and only fine-tune the last fully-connected layer. Instead of trying to classify 200 objects, the layer has been altered to classify a proposal as being one of 30 classes. Both the RPN and RCNN are trained using the initial training release.

During testing, we pass an image to the RPN which extracts 500 proposals. We then apply the RCNN to each proposal and extract 30 confidence scores and 30 refined bounding boxes. We then consider one of two possible post-processing algorithms: (i) NMS on each frame (ii) sequence-NMS (SEQ-NMS) on each video snippet.

Regular frame-wise NMS operates on a single frame by iteratively selecting a class’ most confident detection in the frame and removes detections in the vicinity that have sufficient overlap. SEQ-NMS, on the other hand, operates on each video snippet. It iteratively selects the sequence of boxes over time that has maximum score and then suppresses detections that overlap with any of the members in the selected sequence. We accomplish this by constructing a graph over the snippet’s frames and doing dynamic programming. We score each sequence using either the average (NMS-AVG) or the max score (NMS-MAX) of the boxes. We then re-score each box in the kept sequence with the overall sequence score. One of our models selects whether to score using the average or the max for each class depending on each method's performance on the initial validation set.

References
[1] – Ren, Shaoqing, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. "Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks." arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.01497 (2015).
[2] - Zeiler, Matthew D., and Rob Fergus. "Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks." In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014, pp. 818-833. Springer International Publishing, 2014.
[3] - Simonyan, Karen, and Andrew Zisserman. "Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition." arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 (2014).

UIUCMSR Yingzhen Yang (UIUC), Wei Han (UIUC), Nebojsa Jojic (Microsoft Research), Jianchao Yang, Honghui Shi (UIUC), Shiyu Chang (UIUC), Thomas S. Huang (UIUC) Abstract:
We develop a new architecture for deep Convolutional Neutral Networks (CNNs), named Filter Panorama Convolutional Neutral Network (FPCNNs) for this scene classification competition. Convolutional layers are essential parts of CNNs and each layer is comprised of a set of trainable filters. To enhance the representation capability of the convolutional layers with more filters while maintaining almost the same parameter size, the filters of one convolutional layer (or possibly several convolutional layers) of FPCNNs are replaced by a filter panorama, wherein each window of the filter panorama serves as a filter. With the densely extracted overlapping windows from the filter panorama, a significantly larger filter set is obtained without the risk of overfitting since the parameter size of the filter panorama is the same as that of the original filters in CNNs.

The idea of filter map is inspired by epitome [1], which is developed in the computer vision and machine learning literature for learning a condensed version of Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs). In epitome, the Gaussian means are represented by a two dimensional matrix wherein each window in this matrix contains parameters of the Gaussian means for a Gaussian component. The same structure is adopted for representing the Gaussian covariances. With almost the same parameter space as GMMs, the epitome possesses significantly more number of Gaussian components than its GMMs counterpart since much more Gaussian means and covariances can be extracted densely from the mean and covariances matrices of the epitome. Therefore, the generalization and representation capability of epitome outshines GMMs with almost the same parameter space, while circumventing the potential overfitting.

The above characteristics of epitome encourage us to arrange filters in a way similar to epitome in the FPCNNs. More precisely, we construct a three dimensional matrix named filter panorama for the convolutional layer of FPCNNs, wherein each window of the filter map plays the same role as the filter in the convolutional layer of CNNs. The filter panorama is designed such that the number of non-overlapping windows in the filter panorama is almost equal to the number of filters in the corresponding convolutional layer of CNNs. By densely extracting overlapping windows from the filter panorama, there are many more filters in the filter panorama that vary smoothly in the spatial domain, and neighboring filters share weights in their overlapping region. These smoothly varying filters tend to activate on more types of features that also exhibit small variations in the input volume, increasing the chance of extracting more robust deformation invariant features by the subsequent max-pooling layer [2].

In addition to the superior representation capability, filter panorama inherently enables a better visualization of the filters by forming a “panorama” of the filters such that adjacent filters changes smoothly across the spatial domain, and similar filters group together. This feature would benefit the design of the networks and make it easier to observe the characteristics of the filters learnt in the convolutional layer.

References:
[1] N. Jojic, B. J. Frey, and A. Kannan. Epitomic Analysis of Appearance and Shape. In Pro-ceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 34-43, 2003.
[2] K. Jarrett, K. Kavukcuoglu, M. Ranzato, and Y. LeCun. What is the best multi-stage archi-tecture for object recognition? In Proc. ICCV, pages 2146–2153, 2009. 1

USTC_UBRI Guiying Li, USTC
Junlong Liu, USTC We are graduate students from USTC, trying to do some research in computer vision and deep learning.

VUNO Yeha Lee (VUNO Inc.)
Kyu-Hwan Jung (VUNO Inc.)
Hyun-Jun Kim (VUNO Inc.)
Sangki Kim (VUNO Inc.) Our localization models are based on deep convolutional neural network

For the classification model which predicts the confidence score of each object class in the viewing window, we ensembled four deep neural networks two which are similar with [1](CNN) and two of which are their variants. The variants models(CLSTM) replaces last two convolution layers of [2] with 2D-LSTM [3] layer, which provides robustness to object warping and contextual information.

For localization model which predicts the location of bounding box, we used per-class-regression(PCR) approach[3] which replaces last 1000D softmax layer with 4000D regression layer. Additionally, we also replaced SPP layer of CNN and CLSTM with max-pooling layer. The results obtained from two combinations of the models are submitted: CNN-CNN, CNN-CLSTM.

For training, we used scale jittering strategy in [3] where the scale is sampled from fixed set of scales. For testing, we used multi-scale testing and merged all bounding boxes obtained from each scale.

All experiments were performed using our own deep learning library called VunoNet on GPU server with 4 NVIDIA Titan X GPUs.

[1] He, Kaiming, Xiangyu Zhang Shaoqing and Ren Jian Sun ”Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classification.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.01852 (2015).

[2] Alex Graves, Santiago Fernandez and Jurgen Schmidhuber. Multidimensional recurrent neural networks. In ´ Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, Porto, Portugal, September (2007).

[3] Simonyan Karen, and Andrew Zisserman. ”Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 (2014).

WM Li Shen (University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)
Zhouchen Lin (Peking University) We exploit partially overlapping optimization strategy to improve the convolutional neural networks, alleviating the optimization difficulty at lower layers and favoring better discrimination at higher layers. We have verified its effectiveness on VGG-like architectures [1]. We also apply two modifications of network architectures. Model A has 22 weight layers in total, adding three 3x3 convolutional layers in VGG-19 [1] and replacing the last max-pooling layer with SPP layer [2]. Model B integrates multi-scale information combination. Moreover, we apply balanced sampling strategy during training to tackle the non-uniform distribution of class samples. The algorithm and architecture details will be described in our arXiv paper (available online shortly).

In this competition, we submit five entries. The first is a single model (model A), which achieved 16.33% top-5 error on validation dataset. The second is a single model (model B), which achieved 16.36% top-5 error on validation dataset. The third is a combination of multiple CNN models with the averaging strategy. The fourth is the combination of these CNN models with a product strategy. The fifth is the combination of multiple CNN models with learnt weights.

[1] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In ICLR 2015
[2] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren and J. Sun. Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition. In ECCV 2014.

Yunxiao --- The model is trained based on the Fast R-CNN framework. The selective search method is applied for object proposals generation. A VGG16 model pre-trained based on the image level classification task is used for initialization. A balanced fine-tuning dataset constructed from the training and validation dataset for the object detection task is utilized for fine-tuning the model. No other data augmentation nor model combination are applied.

ZeroHero Svetlana Kordumova, UvA; Thomas Mensink, UvA; Cees Snoek, UvA; ZeroHero recognizes scenes without using any scene images as training data. Instead of using attributes for the zero-shot recognition, we recognize a scene using a semantic word embedding that is spanned by a skip-gram model of thousands of object categories [1]. We subsample 15K object categories from the 22K ImageNet dataset, for which more than 200 training examples are available. Using those, we train an inception-style convolutional neural network [2]. An unseen test image, is represented as the sparisified set of prediction scores of the last network layer with softmax normalization. For the embedding space, we learn a 500-dimensional word2vec model [3], which is trained on the title description and tag text from the 100M Flickr photos in the YFCC100M dataset [4]. The similarity between object and scene affinities in the semantic space is computed with cosine similarity over their word2vec representations, pooled with Fisher word vectors [1]. For each test image we predict the five highest scoring scenes.

References:

[1] M. Jain, J.C. van Gemert, T. Mensink, and C.G.M. Snoek. Objects2action: Classifying and localizing actions without any video example. In ICCV, 2015.

[2] C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P. Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V. Vanhoucke, A. Rabinovich. Going Deeper with Convolutions. CVPR, 2015.

[3] T. Mikolov, I. Sutskever, K. Chen, G. S. Corrado, and J. Dean. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In NIPS, 2013.

[4] B. Thomee, D. A. Shamma, G. Friedland, B. Elizalde, K. Ni, D. Poland, D. Borth, L.-J. Li. The New Data and New Challenges in Multimedia Research. arXiv:1503.01817, 2015.

[top]

Team name	Entry description	Number of object categories won	mean AP
MSRA	An ensemble for detection.	194	0.620741
Qualcomm Research	NeoNet ensemble with bounding box regression. Validation mAP is 54.6	4	0.535745
CUImage	Combined multiple models with the region proposals of cascaded RPN, 57.3% mAP on Val2.	2	0.527113
The University of Adelaide	9 models	0	0.514434
MCG-ICT-CAS	2 models on 2 proposals without category information: {[SS+EB]+(SS)}+{[RPN] +(RPN)}	0	0.453622
MCG-ICT-CAS	Category aggregation + Co-occurrence reﬁnement with 2 models on 2 proposals: {[SS+EB]+(SS)}+{[RPN] +(RPN)}	0	0.453606
MCG-ICT-CAS	Category aggregation with 2 models on 2 proposals: {[SS+EB]+(SS)}+{[RPN] +(RPN)}	0	0.451932
DROPLET-CASIA	A combination of 6 models with selective regression	0	0.448598
Trimps-Soushen	no extra data	0	0.44635
MCG-ICT-CAS	Category aggregation + Co-occurrence reﬁnement with single model on single proposal: [SS+EB] +(SS)	0	0.444896
DROPLET-CASIA	A combination of 6 models without regression	0	0.442696
MCG-ICT-CAS	Category aggregation + Co-occurrence reﬁnement with single model on single proposal: [RPN] +(RPN)	0	0.440436
Yunxiao	A single model, Fast R-CNN baseline	0	0.429423
Trimps-Fudan-HUST	Best single model	0	0.421353
HiVision	Single detection model	0	0.418474
SYSU_Vision	vgg16+edgebox	0	0.402298
SYSU_Vision	vgg16+selective search+spl	0	0.394901
FACEALL-BUPT	a simple strategy to merge the three results, 38.7% MAP on validation	0	0.386014
FACEALL-BUPT	googlenet, fast-rcnn, pretrained on the 1000 classes, selective search, add ROIPooling after inception_5, input size 786(max 1280), pooled size 4x4, the mean AP on validation is 37.8%	0	0.378955
DEEPimagine	Fusion step 1 and 2 hybrid	0	0.371965
SYSU_Vision	vgg16+selective search	0	0.371149
DEEPimagine	Category adaptive multi-model fusion stage 3	0	0.370756
DEEPimagine	Category adaptive multi-model fusion stage 2	0	0.369696
ITLab - Inha	average ensemble of 2 detection models	0	0.366185
ITLab - Inha	single detection model(B) with hierarchical BB	0	0.365423
ITLab - Inha	single detection model(B)	0	0.359213
ITLab - Inha	weighted ensemble of 2 detection models with hierarchical BB	0	0.359109
DEEPimagine	Category adaptive multi-model fusion stage 1	0	0.357192
DEEPimagine	No fusion. Single deep depth model.	0	0.351264
FACEALL-BUPT	alexnet, fast-rcnn, pretrained on the 1000 classes, selective search, the mean AP on validation is 34.9%	0	0.34843
ITLab - Inha	single detection model(A) with hierarchical BB	0	0.346269
FACEALL-BUPT	googlenet, fast-rcnn, relu layers replaced by prelu layers, pretrained on the 1000 classes, selective search, add ROIPooling after inception_4d, the mean AP on validation is 34.0%	0	0.343141
JHL	Fast-RCNN with Selective Search	0	0.311042
USTC_UBRI	---	0	0.177112
hustvision	yolo-balance	0	0.143461
darkensemble	A single model but ensembled pipline trained on part of data due to time limit.	0	0.096197
ESOGU MLCV	independent test results	0	0.093048
ESOGU MLCV	results after mild suppression	0	0.092512
N-ODG	Detection results.	0	0.03008
MSRA	A single model for detection.	---	0.588451
Qualcomm Research	NeoNet ensemble without bounding box regression. Validation mAP is 53.6	---	0.531957

Team name	Entry description	mean AP	Number of object categories won
MSRA	An ensemble for detection.	0.620741	194
MSRA	A single model for detection.	0.588451	---
Qualcomm Research	NeoNet ensemble with bounding box regression. Validation mAP is 54.6	0.535745	4
Qualcomm Research	NeoNet ensemble without bounding box regression. Validation mAP is 53.6	0.531957	---
CUImage	Combined multiple models with the region proposals of cascaded RPN, 57.3% mAP on Val2.	0.527113	2
The University of Adelaide	9 models	0.514434	0
MCG-ICT-CAS	2 models on 2 proposals without category information: {[SS+EB]+(SS)}+{[RPN] +(RPN)}	0.453622	0
MCG-ICT-CAS	Category aggregation + Co-occurrence reﬁnement with 2 models on 2 proposals: {[SS+EB]+(SS)}+{[RPN] +(RPN)}	0.453606	0
MCG-ICT-CAS	Category aggregation with 2 models on 2 proposals: {[SS+EB]+(SS)}+{[RPN] +(RPN)}	0.451932	0
DROPLET-CASIA	A combination of 6 models with selective regression	0.448598	0
Trimps-Soushen	no extra data	0.44635	0
MCG-ICT-CAS	Category aggregation + Co-occurrence reﬁnement with single model on single proposal: [SS+EB] +(SS)	0.444896	0
DROPLET-CASIA	A combination of 6 models without regression	0.442696	0
MCG-ICT-CAS	Category aggregation + Co-occurrence reﬁnement with single model on single proposal: [RPN] +(RPN)	0.440436	0
Yunxiao	A single model, Fast R-CNN baseline	0.429423	0
Trimps-Fudan-HUST	Best single model	0.421353	0
HiVision	Single detection model	0.418474	0
SYSU_Vision	vgg16+edgebox	0.402298	0
SYSU_Vision	vgg16+selective search+spl	0.394901	0
FACEALL-BUPT	a simple strategy to merge the three results, 38.7% MAP on validation	0.386014	0
FACEALL-BUPT	googlenet, fast-rcnn, pretrained on the 1000 classes, selective search, add ROIPooling after inception_5, input size 786(max 1280), pooled size 4x4, the mean AP on validation is 37.8%	0.378955	0
DEEPimagine	Fusion step 1 and 2 hybrid	0.371965	0
SYSU_Vision	vgg16+selective search	0.371149	0
DEEPimagine	Category adaptive multi-model fusion stage 3	0.370756	0
DEEPimagine	Category adaptive multi-model fusion stage 2	0.369696	0
ITLab - Inha	average ensemble of 2 detection models	0.366185	0
ITLab - Inha	single detection model(B) with hierarchical BB	0.365423	0
ITLab - Inha	single detection model(B)	0.359213	0
ITLab - Inha	weighted ensemble of 2 detection models with hierarchical BB	0.359109	0
DEEPimagine	Category adaptive multi-model fusion stage 1	0.357192	0
DEEPimagine	No fusion. Single deep depth model.	0.351264	0
FACEALL-BUPT	alexnet, fast-rcnn, pretrained on the 1000 classes, selective search, the mean AP on validation is 34.9%	0.34843	0
ITLab - Inha	single detection model(A) with hierarchical BB	0.346269	0
FACEALL-BUPT	googlenet, fast-rcnn, relu layers replaced by prelu layers, pretrained on the 1000 classes, selective search, add ROIPooling after inception_4d, the mean AP on validation is 34.0%	0.343141	0
JHL	Fast-RCNN with Selective Search	0.311042	0
USTC_UBRI	---	0.177112	0
hustvision	yolo-balance	0.143461	0
darkensemble	A single model but ensembled pipline trained on part of data due to time limit.	0.096197	0
ESOGU MLCV	independent test results	0.093048	0
ESOGU MLCV	results after mild suppression	0.092512	0
N-ODG	Detection results.	0.03008	0

Team name	Entry description	Description of outside data used	Number of object categories won	mean AP
Amax	remove threshold compared to entry1	pre-trained model from classification task;add training examples for class number <1000	165	0.57848
CUImage	Combined models with region proposals of cascaded RPN, edgebox and selective search	3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN	30	0.522833
MIL-UT	ensemble of 4 models (by averaging)	VGG-16, BVLC GoogLeNet, Multibox and CLS/LOC data	2	0.469762
Amax	Cascade region regression	pre-trained model from classification task;add training examples for class number <1000	1	0.577374
MIL-UT	ensemble of 4 models (using the weights learned separately for each class by Bayesian optimization on the val2 dataset)	VGG-16, BVLC GoogLeNet, Multibox and CLS/LOC data	1	0.467786
Trimps-Soushen	2 times merge	COCO	1	0.448106
Trimps-Soushen	model 29	COCO	0	0.450794
Trimps-Fudan-HUST	top5 region merge	COCO	0	0.448739
Futurecrew	Ensemble 1 of multiple models without contextual modeling. Validation is 44.1% mAP	The CNN was pre-trained on the ILSVRC 2014 CLS dataset	0	0.416015
Futurecrew	Ensemble 2 of multiple models without contextual modeling. Validation is 44.0% mAP	The CNN was pre-trained on the ILSVRC 2014 CLS dataset	0	0.414619
Futurecrew	Faster R-CNN based single detection model. Validation is 41.7% mAP	The CNN was pre-trained on the ILSVRC 2014 CLS dataset	0	0.39862
1-HKUST	run 2	HKUST-object-100	0	0.239854
1-HKUST	baseline run 1	HKUST-object-100	0	0.205873
CUImage	Single model	3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN	---	0.542021
CUImage	Combined multiple models with the region proposals of cascaded RPN	3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN	---	0.531459
CUImage	Combined models with region proposals of edgebox and selective search	3000-class classification images from ImageNet are used to pre-train CNN	---	0.137037

Team name	Entry description	Localization error	Classification error
MSRA	Ensemble A for classification and localization.	0.090178	0.03567
MSRA	Ensemble B for classification and localization.	0.090801	0.03567
MSRA	Ensemble C for classification and localization.	0.092108	0.0369
Trimps-Soushen	combined 12 models	0.122907	0.04649
Qualcomm Research	Ensemble of 9 NeoNets with bounding box regression. Weighted fusion of classification models with 3 NeoNets used to slightly improve the classification accuracy. Validation top 5 error rate is 4.84% (classification).	0.125542	0.04873
Qualcomm Research	Ensemble of 9 NeoNets with bounding box regression. Weighted fusion of classification models. Validation top 5 error rate is 4.86% (classification) and 14.54% (localization)	0.125926	0.04913
Qualcomm Research	Ensemble of 9 NeoNets with bounding box regression. Validation top 5 error rate is 5.06% (classification) and 14.76% (localization)	0.128353	0.05068
Trimps-Soushen	combined according category, 13 models	0.1291	0.04581
Trimps-Soushen	combined 8 models	0.130449	0.04866
Trimps-Soushen	single model	0.133685	0.04649
MCG-ICT-CAS	[GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN+SEL]OWA-[EB200RPN+SSEB1000EB]	0.14686	0.06314
MCG-ICT-CAS	[GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN]-[EB200RPN+SSEB1000EB]	0.147316	0.06407
Lunit-KAIST	Class-agnostic AttentionNet, double-pass (original+flipped, fusion weights learnt on the entire validation set).	0.147337	0.07923
MCG-ICT-CAS	[GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN+SEL]AVG-[EB200EB+SSEB1000EB]	0.148157	0.06321
MCG-ICT-CAS	[GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN]-[EB200RPN+SSEB1000RPN]	0.149526	0.06407
Lunit-KAIST	Class-agnostic AttentionNet, double-pass (original+flipped, fusion weights learnt on the half of the validation set).	0.149982	0.07451
Lunit-KAIST	Class-agnostic AttentionNet, double-pass (original+flipped).	0.150688	0.07333
Tencent-Bestimage	Tune GBDT on validation set	0.15548	0.10786
Qualcomm Research	Ensemble of 4 NeoNets, no bounding box regression.	0.155875	0.05068
Tencent-Bestimage	Model ensemble of objectness	0.156009	0.10826
MCG-ICT-CAS	Baseline: [GoogleNet+VGG]-[EB200EB+EB1000EB]	0.158219	0.06698
Lunit-KAIST	Class-agnostic AttentionNet, single-pass.	0.159754	0.07245
Tencent-Bestimage	Change SVM to GBDT	0.163198	0.0978
Tencent-Bestimage	Given a lot of box proposals(eg. from selective search), the localization task become (a) how to find real boxes that contain ground truth, (b) what is the category lies in the box. Enlightened by fast R-CNN, we propose a classification && localization framework, which combines the global context information and local box information by selecting proper (class, box) pairs.	0.193552	0.1401
ReCeption	---	0.195792	0.03581
CUImage	Average multiple models. Validation accuracy is 78.28%.	0.212141	0.05858
CIL	Ensemble of multiple regression model: all model	0.231945	0.07446
CIL	Ensemble of multiple regression models: base model- simple regression	0.232432	0.07444
CIL	Ensemble of multiple regression models:base model-middle feature model	0.232526	0.07453
VUNO	A combination of CNN and CLSTM (averaging)	0.252951	0.05034
VUNO	A combination of two CNNs (averaging)	0.254922	0.05034
CIL	Single regression model: middle and last layer feature are combined	0.271406	0.05477
CIL	Single regression model with multi-scale prediction	0.273294	0.05477
KAISTNIA_ETRI	CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) I	0.284944	0.07262
KAISTNIA_ETRI	CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) IV	0.2854	0.07384
KAISTNIA_ETRI	CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) III	0.285452	0.07384
KAISTNIA_ETRI	CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) II	0.285608	0.07384
KAISTNIA_ETRI	CNN with recursive localization	0.287475	0.073
HiVision	Multiple models for classification, single model for localization	0.289653	0.06482
FACEALL-BUPT	merge two models to classify the proposals. the top-5 classification error on the validation set is 7.03%, the top-5 localization error on validation is 31.53%	0.314581	0.07502
MIPAL_SNU	Localization network finetuned for each class	0.324675	0.08534
FACEALL-BUPT	use a multi-scale googlenet model to classify the proposals. the top-5 classification error on the validation set is 7.03%, the top-5 localization error on validation is 32.76%	0.327745	0.07502
FACEALL-BUPT	three models, selective search, classify each proposal, merge top-3, the top-5 classification error on the validation set is 7.03%, the top-5 localization error on validation is 32.9%	0.32844	0.07502
MIPAL_SNU	Single Localization network	0.355101	0.08534
PCL Bangalore	Joint localization and classification	0.422177	0.1294
bioinf@JKU	Classification and "split" bboxes	0.455186	0.0918
bioinf@JKU	Classification and localization bboxes	0.46808	0.0918
Szokcka Research Group	CNN-ensemble, bounding box is fixed + VGG-style network	0.484004	0.06828
Szokcka Research Group	CNN-ensemble, bounding box is fixed.	0.484191	0.07338
ITU	Hierarchical Google Net Classification + Localization	0.589338	0.11433
Miletos	Hierarchical Google Net Classification + Localization	0.589338	0.11433
JHL	5 averaged CNN model (top5)	0.602865	0.0712
APL	Multi-CNN Best Network Classifier (Random Forest via Top 5 Guesses)	0.613363	0.13288
Deep Punx	Inception6 model trained on image-level annotations (~640K iterations were conducted).	0.614338	0.11104
bioinf@JKU	Classification only, no bounding boxes	0.619007	0.0918
bioinf@JKU	Classification and bboxes regression	0.62327	0.0918
DIT_TITECH	Ensemble of 6 DNN models with 11-16 convolutional and 4-5 pooling layers.	0.627409	0.13893
Deep Punx	Inception6 model trained on object-level annotations (~640K iterations were conducted).	0.639183	0.17594
JHL	5 averaged CNN model (top1)	0.668728	0.23944
Deep Punx	Model, inspired by Inception7a [2] (~700K iterations were conducted).	0.757796	0.14666
APL	Multi-CNN Best Label Classifier (Random Forest via 1000 Class Scores)	0.819291	0.60759

Team name	Entry description	Classification error	Localization error
MSRA	Ensemble A for classification and localization.	0.03567	0.090178
MSRA	Ensemble B for classification and localization.	0.03567	0.090801
ReCeption	---	0.03581	0.195792
MSRA	Ensemble C for classification and localization.	0.0369	0.092108
Trimps-Soushen	combined according category, 13 models	0.04581	0.1291
Trimps-Soushen	single model	0.04649	0.133685
Trimps-Soushen	combined 12 models	0.04649	0.122907
Trimps-Soushen	combined 8 models	0.04866	0.130449
Qualcomm Research	Ensemble of 9 NeoNets with bounding box regression. Weighted fusion of classification models with 3 NeoNets used to slightly improve the classification accuracy. Validation top 5 error rate is 4.84% (classification).	0.04873	0.125542
Qualcomm Research	Ensemble of 9 NeoNets with bounding box regression. Weighted fusion of classification models. Validation top 5 error rate is 4.86% (classification) and 14.54% (localization)	0.04913	0.125926
VUNO	A combination of CNN and CLSTM (averaging)	0.05034	0.252951
VUNO	A combination of two CNNs (averaging)	0.05034	0.254922
Qualcomm Research	Ensemble of 9 NeoNets with bounding box regression. Validation top 5 error rate is 5.06% (classification) and 14.76% (localization)	0.05068	0.128353
Qualcomm Research	Ensemble of 4 NeoNets, no bounding box regression.	0.05068	0.155875
CIL	Single regression model with multi-scale prediction	0.05477	0.273294
CIL	Single regression model: middle and last layer feature are combined	0.05477	0.271406
CUImage	Average multiple models. Validation accuracy is 78.28%.	0.05858	0.212141
MCG-ICT-CAS	[GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN+SEL]OWA-[EB200RPN+SSEB1000EB]	0.06314	0.14686
MCG-ICT-CAS	[GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN+SEL]AVG-[EB200EB+SSEB1000EB]	0.06321	0.148157
MCG-ICT-CAS	[GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN]-[EB200RPN+SSEB1000EB]	0.06407	0.147316
MCG-ICT-CAS	[GoogleNet+VGG+SPCNN]-[EB200RPN+SSEB1000RPN]	0.06407	0.149526
HiVision	Multiple models for classification, single model for localization	0.06482	0.289653
MCG-ICT-CAS	Baseline: [GoogleNet+VGG]-[EB200EB+EB1000EB]	0.06698	0.158219
Szokcka Research Group	CNN-ensemble, bounding box is fixed + VGG-style network	0.06828	0.484004
JHL	5 averaged CNN model (top5)	0.0712	0.602865
Lunit-KAIST	Class-agnostic AttentionNet, single-pass.	0.07245	0.159754
KAISTNIA_ETRI	CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) I	0.07262	0.284944
KAISTNIA_ETRI	CNN with recursive localization	0.073	0.287475
Lunit-KAIST	Class-agnostic AttentionNet, double-pass (original+flipped).	0.07333	0.150688
Szokcka Research Group	CNN-ensemble, bounding box is fixed.	0.07338	0.484191
KAISTNIA_ETRI	CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) II	0.07384	0.285608
KAISTNIA_ETRI	CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) III	0.07384	0.285452
KAISTNIA_ETRI	CNN with recursive localization (further tuned in validation set) IV	0.07384	0.2854
CIL	Ensemble of multiple regression models: base model- simple regression	0.07444	0.232432
CIL	Ensemble of multiple regression model: all model	0.07446	0.231945
Lunit-KAIST	Class-agnostic AttentionNet, double-pass (original+flipped, fusion weights learnt on the half of the validation set).	0.07451	0.149982
CIL	Ensemble of multiple regression models:base model-middle feature model	0.07453	0.232526
FACEALL-BUPT	three models, selective search, classify each proposal, merge top-3, the top-5 classification error on the validation set is 7.03%, the top-5 localization error on validation is 32.9%	0.07502	0.32844
FACEALL-BUPT	use a multi-scale googlenet model to classify the proposals. the top-5 classification error on the validation set is 7.03%, the top-5 localization error on validation is 32.76%	0.07502	0.327745
FACEALL-BUPT	merge two models to classify the proposals. the top-5 classification error on the validation set is 7.03%, the top-5 localization error on validation is 31.53%	0.07502	0.314581
Lunit-KAIST	Class-agnostic AttentionNet, double-pass (original+flipped, fusion weights learnt on the entire validation set).	0.07923	0.147337
MIPAL_SNU	Single Localization network	0.08534	0.355101
MIPAL_SNU	Localization network finetuned for each class	0.08534	0.324675
bioinf@JKU	Classification only, no bounding boxes	0.0918	0.619007
bioinf@JKU	Classification and "split" bboxes	0.0918	0.455186
bioinf@JKU	Classification and localization bboxes	0.0918	0.46808
bioinf@JKU	Classification and bboxes regression	0.0918	0.62327
Tencent-Bestimage	Change SVM to GBDT	0.0978	0.163198
Tencent-Bestimage	Tune GBDT on validation set	0.10786	0.15548
Tencent-Bestimage	Model ensemble of objectness	0.10826	0.156009
Deep Punx	Inception6 model trained on image-level annotations (~640K iterations were conducted).	0.11104	0.614338
ITU	Hierarchical Google Net Classification + Localization	0.11433	0.589338
Miletos	Hierarchical Google Net Classification + Localization	0.11433	0.589338
PCL Bangalore	Joint localization and classification	0.1294	0.422177
APL	Multi-CNN Best Network Classifier (Random Forest via Top 5 Guesses)	0.13288	0.613363
DIT_TITECH	Ensemble of 6 DNN models with 11-16 convolutional and 4-5 pooling layers.	0.13893	0.627409
Tencent-Bestimage	Given a lot of box proposals(eg. from selective search), the localization task become (a) how to find real boxes that contain ground truth, (b) what is the category lies in the box. Enlightened by fast R-CNN, we propose a classification && localization framework, which combines the global context information and local box information by selecting proper (class, box) pairs.	0.1401	0.193552
Deep Punx	Model, inspired by Inception7a [2] (~700K iterations were conducted).	0.14666	0.757796
Deep Punx	Inception6 model trained on object-level annotations (~640K iterations were conducted).	0.17594	0.639183
JHL	5 averaged CNN model (top1)	0.23944	0.668728
APL	Multi-CNN Best Label Classifier (Random Forest via 1000 Class Scores)	0.60759	0.819291

Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge 2015 (ILSVRC2015)

Ordered by number of categories won

Ordered by mean average precision

Ordered by number of categories won

Ordered by mean average precision

Ordered by localization error

Ordered by classification error

Ordered by localization error

Ordered by classification error

Ordered by number of categories won

Ordered by mean average precision

Ordered by number of categories won

Ordered by mean average precision