Added first bit of qualitative analysis
Signed-off-by: Jim Martens <github@2martens.de>
This commit is contained in:
parent
20de5336f0
commit
78fb80ec68
20
body.tex
20
body.tex
|
@ -843,6 +843,26 @@ are included.
|
|||
All plotted variants show a similar behaviour that is in line with previously
|
||||
reported figures, such as the ones in Miller et al.~\cite{Miller2018}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection*{Qualitative Analysis}
|
||||
|
||||
% TODO: expand
|
||||
|
||||
This subsection focuses not on the big picture but compares vanilla SSD
|
||||
with Bayesian SSD with respect to specific images that illustrate
|
||||
similarities and differences between both approaches. For this
|
||||
comparison, 0.2 confidence threshold is applied. Furthermore, Bayesian
|
||||
SSD uses non-maximum suppression and dropout with 0.9 keep ratio.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}[ht]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{COCO_val2014_000000336587}
|
||||
\caption{Image with stop sign and a truck at the right edge. Origin of the image is the top left corner.}
|
||||
\label{fig:stop-sign-truck}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
In the ground truth, only a stop sign and a truck are detected in figure \ref{fig:stop-sign-truck}. The truck is neither detected by vanilla nor Bayesian SSD. Instead both detected a pottet plant and a traffic light.
|
||||
The stop sign is detected by both variants.
|
||||
|
||||
\chapter{Discussion and Outlook}
|
||||
|
||||
\label{chap:discussion}
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue