Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Do We Need More Training Data?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1503.01508 v1 pith:W4XI7NFR submitted 2015-03-05 cs.CV

Do We Need More Training Data?

classification cs.CV
keywords performancetrainingtemplatesdatacontinuedatasetsfeaturegrows
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Datasets for training object recognition systems are steadily increasing in size. This paper investigates the question of whether existing detectors will continue to improve as data grows, or saturate in performance due to limited model complexity and the Bayes risk associated with the feature spaces in which they operate. We focus on the popular paradigm of discriminatively trained templates defined on oriented gradient features. We investigate the performance of mixtures of templates as the number of mixture components and the amount of training data grows. Surprisingly, even with proper treatment of regularization and "outliers", the performance of classic mixture models appears to saturate quickly ($\sim$10 templates and $\sim$100 positive training examples per template). This is not a limitation of the feature space as compositional mixtures that share template parameters via parts and that can synthesize new templates not encountered during training yield significantly better performance. Based on our analysis, we conjecture that the greatest gains in detection performance will continue to derive from improved representations and learning algorithms that can make efficient use of large datasets.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.