Review — FCOS: Fully Convolutional One-Stage Object Detection

FCOS: Training Without the Use of Anchor Boxes

FCOS works by predicting a 4D vector (l, t, r, b) encoding the location of a bounding box at each foreground pixel

In this paper, FCOS: Fully Convolutional One-Stage Object Detection, by The University of Adelaide, is reviewed. In this paper:

FCOS is designed in which it is anchor box free, as well as proposal free.

  • FCOS completely avoids the complicated computation related to anchor boxes such as calculating overlapping during training.
  • It also avoids all hyper-parameters related to anchor boxes.
  • FCOS encourages to rethink the need of anchor boxes.

This is a paper in 2019 ICCV with over 1000 citations. (Sik-Ho Tsang @ Medium)

FCOS Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of5qJdwcJhc

Outline

  1. FCOS: Network Architecture
  2. Multi-level Prediction with FPN for FCOS
  3. Ablation Study
  4. SOTA Comparison

1. FCOS: Network Architecture

FCOS: Network Architecture

1.1. Notations, Inputs, Outputs

  • Let Fi (Size of H×W×C) be the feature maps at layer i of a backbone CNN and s be the total stride until the layer.
  • The ground-truth bounding boxes for an input image are defined as {Bi}, where Bi=(x(i)0, y(i)0, x(i)1, y(i)1, c(i)) where {x(i)0, y(i)0}, {x(i)1, y(i)1} are the the coordinates of the left-top and right-bottom corners of the bounding box respectively. c(i) is the object class.
  • C is the total number of classes. e.g.: C=80 in MS COCO.
  • Specifically, location (x, y) is considered as a positive sample if it falls into any ground-truth box and the class label c* of the location is the class label of the ground-truth box. Otherwise it is a negative sample and c*=0 (background class).
  • A 4D real vector t*=(l*, t*, r*, b*) being the regression targets for the location, as shown in the first figure at the top of the story. Here l*, t*, r*, b* are the distances from the location to the four sides of the bounding box.
  • Formally, if location (x, y) is associated to a bounding box Bi, the training regression targets for the location can be formulated as (Eq. (1)):
  • The final layer of our networks predicts an 80D vector p of classification labels and a 4D vector t = (l, t, r, b) bounding box coordinates.
  • C binary classifiers are trained.
  • 4 convolutional layers are added after the feature maps of the backbone networks respectively for classification and regression branches.
  • Since the regression targets are always positive, exp(x) is employed to map any real number to (0,∞) on the top of the regression branch.

It is worth noting that FCOS has 9× fewer network output variables than the popular anchor-based detectors [15, 24] (RetinaNet [15]) with 9 anchor boxes per location.

1.2. Loss Function

  • The loss function is (Eq. (2)):
  • where Lcls is focal loss in RetinaNet. Lreg is the IoU loss. Npos denotes the number of positive samples and λ being 1 in this paper is the balance weight for Lreg.
  • The summation is calculated over all locations on the feature maps Fi. 1{c*i>0} is the indicator function, being 1 if c*i> 0 and 0 otherwise.

1.3. Inference

  • Given an input images, the image goes through the network and obtain the classification scores px,y and the regression prediction tx,y for each location on the feature maps Fi.
  • Following RetinaNet, we choose the location with px,y > 0.05 as positive samples and invert Eq. (1) to obtain the predicted bounding boxes.

2. Multi-level Prediction with FPN for FCOS

2.1. Multi-level Prediction with FPN

  • If a location falls into multiple bounding boxes, it is considered as an ambiguous sample. We simply choose the bounding box with minimal area as its regression target.

Multi-level Prediction with FPN can reduce the number of ambiguous samples significantly.

  • Unlike anchor-based detectors, which assign anchor boxes with different sizes to different feature levels, the range of bounding box regression is directly limited for each level.
  • The range mi is the maximum distance that feature level i needs to regress. In this work, m2, m3, m4, m5, m6 and m7 are set as 0, 64, 128, 256, 512 and ∞, respectively.
  • More specifically, we firstly compute the regression targets l*, t*, r*, b* for each location on all feature levels. Next, if a location satisfies max(l*, t*, r*, b*) > mi or max(l*, t*, r*, b*) < mi−1, it is set as a negative sample and is thus not required to regress a bounding box anymore.
  • If a location, even with multi-level prediction used, is still assigned to more than one ground-truth boxes, the ground-truth box with minimal area is simply chosen as its target.
  • The heads are shared between different feature levels, not only making the detector parameter-efficient but also improving the detection performance.
  • As different feature maps target for different object sizes, exp(si × x) with a trainable scalar si to automatically adjust the base of the exponential function for feature level Pi, instead of exp(x), improve a bit of accuracy performance.

2.2. Center-ness for FCOS

Center-ness is computed by Eq. (3) and decays from 1 to 0 as the location deviates from the center of the object.
  • After using multi-level prediction in FCOS, there is still a performance gap between FCOS and anchor-based detectors. It is due to a lot of low-quality predicted bounding boxes produced by locations far away from the center of an object.
  • Center-ness is used to solve this problem (Eq. (3)):
  • The center-ness depicts the normalized distance from the location to the center of the object that the location is responsible for.
  • The center-ness ranges from 0 to 1 and is thus trained with binary cross entropy (BCE) loss. The loss is added to the loss function Eq. (2).
  • When testing, the final score (used for ranking the detected bounding boxes) is computed by multiplying the predicted center-ness with the corresponding classification score. Thus the center-ness can down-weight the scores of bounding boxes far from the center of an object.

3. Ablation Study

3.1. Multi-level Prediction with FPN

  • COCO trainval35k split (115K images) is used for training and minival split (5K images) is used for validation.

With Multi-level Prediction with FPN, the number of ambiguous sample is largely reduced.

3.2. Center-ness

Ablation study for the proposed center-ness branch on minival split
  • The center-ness+ can also be computed with the predicted regression vector without introducing the extra center-ness branch. But it cannot improve AP.

The center-ness branch can boost AP from 33.5 to 37.1%.

3.3. Other Improvements

FCOS vs. RetinaNet on the minival split with ResNet-50-FPN as the backbone
  • “ctr. on reg.”: moving the center-ness branch to the regression branch.
  • “ctr. sampling”: only sampling the central portion of ground-truth boxes as positive samples.
  • “GIoU”: penalizing the union area over the circumscribed rectangle’s area in IoU Loss.
  • “Normalization”: normalizing the regression targets in Eq. (1) with the strides of FPN levels

The performance of our anchor-free detector can be improved by a large margin by adding other improvements.

Based on this, authors encourage the community to rethink the necessity of anchor boxes in object detection.

  • These improvements are not used in SOTA comparison below. It is found out after the initial submission of the paper.

4. SOTA Comparison

4.1. MS COCO Test-Dev Split

FCOS vs. other state-of-the-art two-stage or one-stage detectors (single-model and single-scale results)
  • FCOS with other state-of-the-art object detectors on test-dev split of MS-COCO benchmark.
  • With ResNet-101-FPN, FCOS outperforms the RetinaNet with the same backbone ResNet-101-FPN by 2.4% AP.

This is the first time that an anchor-free detector, without any bells and whistles outperforms anchor-based detectors by a large margin.

  • FCOS also outperforms other classical two-stage anchor-based detectors such as Faster R-CNN by a large margin.
  • With ResNeXt-64x4d-101-FPN as the backbone, FCOS achieves 43.2% in AP. It outperforms the recent state-of-the-art anchor-free detector CornerNet by a large margin while being much simpler.

FCOS is more likely to serve as a strong and simple alternative to current mainstream anchor-based detectors.

  • Moreover, FCOS with the improvements in Section 3 achieves 44.7% AP with single-model and single scale testing, which surpasses previous detectors by a large margin.

4.2. Extensions on Region Proposal Networks

FCOS as Region Proposal Networks vs. RPNs with FPN

FCOS can be also able to replace the anchor boxes in Region Proposal Networks (RPNs) with FPN.

  • Even without the proposed center-ness branch, FCOS already improves both AR100 and AR1k significantly.
  • With the proposed center-ness branch, FCOS further boosts AR100 and AR1k respectively to 52.8% and 60.3%, which are 18% relative improvement for AR100 and 3.4% absolute improvement for AR1k over the RPNs with FPN.

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store