| Literature DB >> 31366022 |
Zhongyuan Wu1,2, Jun Sang3,4, Qian Zhang1,2, Hong Xiang1,2, Bin Cai1,2, Xiaofeng Xia5,6.
Abstract
Vehicle detection is a challenging task in computer vision. In recent years, numerous vehicle detection methods have been proposed. Since the vehicles may have varying sizes in a scene, while the vehicles and the background in a scene may be with imbalanced sizes, the performance of vehicle detection is influenced. To obtain better performance on vehicle detection, a multi-scale vehicle detection method was proposed in this paper by improving YOLOv2. The main contributions of this paper include: (1) a new anchor box generation method Rk-means++ was proposed to enhance the adaptation of varying sizes of vehicles and achieve multi-scale detection; (2) Focal Loss was introduced into YOLOv2 for vehicle detection to reduce the negative influence on training resulting from imbalance between vehicles and background. The experimental results upon the Beijing Institute of Technology (BIT)-Vehicle public dataset demonstrated that the proposed method can obtain better performance on vehicle localization and recognition than that of other existing methods.Entities:
Keywords: YOLOv2; anchor box; focal loss; multi-scale; vehicle detection
Year: 2019 PMID: 31366022 PMCID: PMC6696385 DOI: 10.3390/s19153336
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The network of YOLOv2.
Figure 2The detection boxes generated by YOLOv2.
Figure 3The computing procedures of k-means++ and Rk-means++. (a) k-means++; (b) Rk-means++. The anchor boxes obtained by Rk-means++ ensures that each size of the vehicle with different scale can be matched with one of the anchor boxes. In other words, the proposed anchor box generation method can enhance the robustness of YOLOv2 for different scales of vehicles and improve the localization accuracy.
Figure 4Some images in BIT-Vehicle dataset.
Experimental results for different methods.
| Method | The Class AP (%) | mAP | IoU | Speed | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bus | Microbus | Minivan | Sedan | SUV | Truck | ||||
| YOLOv2 [ | 98.34 | 95.03 | 91.11 | 97.42 | 93.62 | 98.41 | 95.65 | 90.44 | 0.0496 |
| YOLOv2_Vehicle [ | 98.42 | 97.04 | 95.02 | 97.37 | 93.73 | 97.80 | 96.56 | 91.06 | 0.0486 |
| YOLOv3 [ | 98.65 | 96.98 | 94.04 | 97.65 | 94.36 | 98.17 | 96.64 | 88.50 | 0.1100 |
| SSD300 VGG16 [ | 97.97 |
| 90.28 | 97.15 | 91.25 | 97.75 | 93.75 | 91.60 |
|
| Faster R-CNN VGG16 [ |
| 93.75 | 91.38 | 98.14 | 94.75 | 98.17 | 95.87 | 92.19 | 0.4257 |
| Our Method | 98.86 | 96.63 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.0522 |
Figure 5Examples of detection results.
Experimental results on comparing different anchor box generation methods.
| Method | The Class AP (%) | mAP | IoU | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bus | Microbus | Minivan | Sedan | SUV | Truck | ||||
| YOLOv2 | k-means | 98.34 | 95.03 | 91.11 | 97.42 | 93.62 | 98.41 | 95.65 | 90.44 |
| k-means++ | 98.60 | 96.29 | 93.16 | 97.47 | 93.72 | 98.15 |
| 91.05 | |
| Rk-means++ | 98.68 | 96.66 | 91.50 | 97.48 | 93.59 | 97.33 | 95.88 |
| |
| YOLOv3 | k-means | 98.65 | 96.98 | 94.04 | 97.65 | 94.36 | 98.17 |
| 88.50 |
| k-means++ | 98.70 | 96.44 | 93.80 | 97.66 | 94.76 | 97.78 | 96.52 | 88.86 | |
| Rk-means++ | 98.32 | 97.08 | 92.65 | 97.70 | 94.27 | 97.96 | 96.33 |
| |
Experimental result on comparing YOLOv2 with Focal Loss (FL).
| YOLOv2 | The Class AP (%) | mAP | IoU | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bus | Microbus | Minivan | Sedan | SUV | Truck | ||||
| k-means | Wo FL | 98.34 | 95.03 | 91.11 | 97.42 | 93.62 | 98.41 | 95.65 | 90.44 |
| With FL | 98.34 | 96.80 | 94.81 | 98.20 | 95.34 | 99.32 |
|
| |
| k-means++ | Wo FL | 98.60 | 96.29 | 93.16 | 97.47 | 93.72 | 98.15 | 96.23 | 91.05 |
| With FL | 98.48 | 97.44 | 96.03 | 98.24 | 95.68 | 99.17 |
|
| |
| Rk-means++ | Wo FL | 98.68 | 96.66 | 91.50 | 97.48 | 93.59 | 97.33 | 95.88 | 92.18 |
| With FL | 98.86 | 96.63 | 95.90 | 98.23 | 94.86 | 99.30 |
|
| |