Bounding Box Stability against Feature Dropout Reflects Detector Generalization across Environments

Published: 16 Jan 2024, Last Modified: 20 Mar 2024ICLR 2024 spotlightEveryoneRevisionsBibTeX
Code Of Ethics: I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
Keywords: Object Detection, Model Generalization
Submission Guidelines: I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on
TL;DR: Predict the accuracy of detectors on various real-world test sets without accessing test ground truths.
Abstract: Bounding boxes uniquely characterize object detection, where a good detector gives accurate bounding boxes of categories of interest. However, in the real-world where test ground truths are not provided, it is non-trivial to find out whether bounding boxes are accurate, thus preventing us from assessing the detector generalization ability. In this work, we find under feature map dropout, good detectors tend to output bounding boxes whose locations do not change much, while bounding boxes of poor detectors will undergo noticeable position changes. We compute the box stability score (BS score) to reflect this stability. Specifically, given an image, we compute a normal set of bounding boxes and a second set after feature map dropout. To obtain BS score, we use bipartite matching to find the corresponding boxes between the two sets and compute the average Intersection over Union (IoU) across the entire test set. We contribute to finding that BS score has a strong, positive correlation with detection accuracy measured by mean average precision (mAP) under various test environments. This relationship allows us to predict the accuracy of detectors on various real-world test sets without accessing test ground truths, verified on canonical detection tasks such as vehicle detection and pedestrian detection.
Anonymous Url: I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors' identity.
No Acknowledgement Section: I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
Primary Area: unsupervised, self-supervised, semi-supervised, and supervised representation learning
Submission Number: 4908