Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Off-the-shelf single-stage multi-person pose regression methods generally leverage the instance score (i.e., confidence of the instance localization) to indicate the pose quality for selecting the pose candidates. We consider that there are two gaps involved in existing paradigm: 1) The instance score is not well interrelated with the pose regression quality. 2) The instance feature representation, which is used for predicting the instance score, does not explicitly encode the structural pose information to predict the reasonable score that represents pose regression quality. To address the aforementioned issues, we propose to learn the pose regression quality-aware representation. Concretely, for the first gap, instead of using the previous instance confidence label (e.g., discrete {1,0} or Gaussian representation) to denote the position and confidence for person instance, we firstly introduce the Consistent Instance Representation (CIR) that unifies the pose regression quality score of instance and the confidence of background into a pixel-wise score map to calibrates the inconsistency between instance score and pose regression quality. To fill the second gap, we further present the Query Encoding Module (QEM) including the Keypoint Query Encoding (KQE) to encode the positional and semantic information for each keypoint and the Pose Query Encoding (PQE) which explicitly encodes the predicted structural pose information to better fit the Consistent Instance Representation (CIR). By using the proposed components, we significantly alleviate the above gaps. Our method outperforms previous single-stage regression-based even bottom-up methods and achieves the state-of-the-art result of 71.7 AP on MS COCO test-dev set. |
Year | Venue | Keywords |
|---|---|---|
2022 | AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence | Computer Vision (CV) |
DocType | Citations | PageRank |
Conference | 0 | 0.34 |
References | Authors | |
0 | 6 | |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yabo Xiao | 1 | 0 | 0.68 |
| Dongdong Yu | 2 | 63 | 7.07 |
| Xiao-Juan Wang | 3 | 22 | 8.34 |
| Lei Jin | 4 | 7 | 1.55 |
| Guoli Wang | 5 | 221 | 21.26 |
| Qian Zhang | 6 | 257 | 19.15 |