Paper detail

Understanding the impact of mistakes on background regions in crowd counting

Every crowd counting researcher has likely observed their model output wrong positive predictions on image regions not containing any person. But how often do these mistakes happen? Are our models negatively affected by this? In this paper we analyze this problem in depth. In order to understand its magnitude, we present an extensive analysis on five of the most important crowd counting datasets. We present this analysis in two parts. First, we quantify the number of mistakes made by popular crowd counting approaches. Our results show that (i) mistakes on background are substantial and they are responsible for 18-49% of the total error, (ii) models do not generalize well to different kinds of backgrounds and perform poorly on completely background images, and (iii) models make many more mistakes than those captured by the standard Mean Absolute Error (MAE) metric, as counting on background compensates considerably for misses on foreground. And second, we quantify the performance change gained by helping the model better deal with this problem. We enrich a typical crowd counting network with a segmentation branch trained to suppress background predictions. This simple addition (i) reduces background error by 10-83%, (ii) reduces foreground error by up to 26% and (iii) improves overall crowd counting performance up to 20%. When compared against the literature, this simple technique achieves very competitive results on all datasets, on par with the state-of-the-art, showing the importance of tackling the background problem.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.