Made hypothesis and contribution easier to find
Signed-off-by: Jim Martens <github@2martens.de>
This commit is contained in:
@ -117,10 +117,7 @@ be implemented in a performant way. Miller et al have shown
|
||||
some success in using dropout sampling. However, the many forward
|
||||
passes during testing for every image seem computationally expensive.
|
||||
In comparison a single run through a trained auto-encoder seems
|
||||
intuitively to be faster. This leads to the following hypothesis:
|
||||
\emph{Novelty detection using auto-encoders delivers similar or better
|
||||
object detection performance under open-set conditions while
|
||||
being less computationally expensive compared to dropout sampling}.
|
||||
intuitively to be faster. This leads to the hypothesis (see below).
|
||||
|
||||
For the purpose of this thesis, I will
|
||||
use the work of Miller et al as baseline to compare against.
|
||||
@ -133,6 +130,12 @@ using SSD for object detection and the SceneNet RGB-D data set,
|
||||
being equal. With respect to auto-encoders a recent implementation
|
||||
of an adversarial auto-encoder\cite{Pidhorskyi2018} will be used.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Hypothesis} Novelty detection using auto-encoders
|
||||
delivers similar or better object detection performance under open-set
|
||||
conditions while being less computationally expensive compared to
|
||||
dropout sampling.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Contribution}
|
||||
The contribution of this thesis is a comparison between dropout
|
||||
sampling and auto-encoding with respect to the overall performance
|
||||
of both for object detection in the open-set conditions using
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user