Skip to main content
. 2021 May 4;21(9):3185. doi: 10.3390/s21093185

Table 4.

SSL (co-training) results on vehicle (V) and pedestrian (P) detection, reporting mAP. From a training set Xtr{Ktr,Wtr}, we preserve the labeling information for a randomly chosen p% of its images, while it is ignored for the rest. We report results for p = 100 (all labels are used), p = 5 and p = 10. If Xtt=Ktt, then Xtr=Ktr; analogously, when Xtt=Wtt, then Xtr=Wtr, i.e., there is no domain shift in these experiments. Co-T (RGB) and Co-T (RGB/D) stand for single and multi modal co-training, respectively. UP and LB stand for upper bound and lower bound, respectively. Bold results indicate best performing within the block, where blocks are delimited by horizontal lines. Second best is underlined, but if the difference with the best is below 0.5 points, we use bold too. Δ{ϕF1vs.ϕF2} stands for mAP of ϕF1 minus mAP of ϕF2.

Training Set Xtt=Ktt Xtt=Wtt
V P V&P V P V&P
100% Labeled (RGB)/UB 83.43 67.77 75.60 61.71 57.74 59.73
100% Labeled (D)/UB 80.80 53.43 67.12 55.14 37.67 46.41
5% Labeled (RGB)/LB 65.20 46.08 55.64 51.69 41.92 46.81
5% Labeled (D)/LB 64.45 26.70 45.58 45.21 29.98 36.70
5% Labeled + Co-T (RGB) 74.26 55.41 64.84 54.00 56.34 55.17
5% Labeled + Co-T (RGB/D) 78.64 57.40 68.02 58.42 56.98 57.70
10% Labeled (RGB)/LB 72.31 45.51 58.91 49.53 49.83 49.68
10% Labeled (D)/LB 69.54 46.31 57.93 47.93 33.98 40.96
10% Labeled + Co-T (RGB) 78.63 60.99 69.81 56.15 60.20 58.18
10% Labeled + Co-T (RGB/D) 79.68 60.55 70.12 59.54 57.17 58.36
Δ{(5%L.+CoT(RGB/d))vs.(5%L.(RGB)/LB)} +13.44 +11.32 +12.38 +6.73 +15.06 +10.89
Δ{(5%L.+CoT(RGB/d))vs.(100%L.(RGB)/UB)} −4.79 −10.37 −7.58 −3.29 −0.76 −2.03
Δ{(10%L.+CoT(RGB/d))vs.(10%L.(RGB)/LB)} +7.37 +15.04 +11.21 +10.01 +7.34 +8.68
Δ{(10%L.+CoT(RGB/d))vs.(100%L.(RGB)/UB)} −3.75 −7.22 −5.48 −2.17 −0.57 −1.37