.7(42.5)\                          
                     AR &53.3(60.7)& 56.8(**61.6**) & 49.1(58.1)\                           
                                       ********                                             
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --

Reference background
--------------------

We first evaluate our scheme to learn the background reference. Experiment shows our method is feasible (See model `A` in Table \[tab:1\]). It should be noted that because the prototype representation of the background category is learned from the prototype representation of other categories, the gradient propagation will also have some effect on the optimization of other prototype representation. In order to make sure whether this effect is beneficial, we stop gradient propagation at the fork position in Fig. \[fig:2\]. The performance of the model has declined with an mAP of 33.0% and a AR of 52.6%. In order to compare the effect of learning background, we randomly select some background samples from the proposals to obtain the features of background. The result is model `B` in Table \[tab:1\]. Besides generating the prototype of background, we try to remove it but the training fails to converge.

Prototype representations of categories
---------------------------------------

In our approach, as shown in Eq. \[pr\_avg\], we use all pyramid features to generate prototype representation of categories. Another choice is to only use the last level pyramid feature as the category of prototype, i.e. $S (\{F_i^l\}) = F^5_i$. As shown the results of model `A` comparing to model `C` and model `D` comparing to model `E` in Table \[tab:1\], using all pyramid features performs much better. Because it can combine features from multiple level pyramids, which not only have rich semantics but also take into account objects of different size. We also fuse different levels of pyramid features by using LSTM [@hochreiter1997long], but the speed is greatly reduced.

Head model {#section:4.3}
----------

As mentioned before, in independent module, the box regression function $B(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the same as baseline model because experiment found that removing one layer will make the result worse. The results show shared module (model `D`) performs much better than independent module (model `A`). Furthermore, we drop the operation of refining bounding box from the head. As shown in Table \[tab:1\], it’
.7(42.5)\                          
                      AR & 53.3(60.7) & 56.8(**61.6 * *) & 49.1(58.1)\                           
                                        * * * * * * * *                                             
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- 

 Reference background 
 -------------------- 

 We first evaluate our scheme to determine the setting reference. Experiment shows our method is feasible (witness model 'A 'in Table \[tab:1\ ]). It should be note that because the prototype theatrical performance of the background category is learned from the prototype representation of other category, the gradient propagation will also get some effect on the optimization of other prototype representation. In order to make sure whether this consequence is beneficial, we stop gradient propagation at the fork situation in Fig. \[fig:2\ ]. The performance of the model has declined with an mAP of 33.0% and a AR of 52.6% . In ordering to compare the effect of learning background, we randomly select some background sample from the proposals to obtain the features of background. The result is model 'B 'in Table \[tab:1\ ]. Besides generating the prototype of background, we try to remove it but the training fails to converge. 

 Prototype representations of categories 
 --------------------------------------- 

 In our approach, as shown in Eq. \[pr\_avg\ ], we practice all pyramid feature to generate prototype theatrical performance of class. Another option is to only use the last level pyramid feature as the category of prototype, i.e. $ S (\{F_i^l\ }) = F^5_i$. As shown the results of exemplar 'A 'comparing to model 'C 'and model 'D 'comparing to model 'einsteinium 'in Table \[tab:1\ ], using all pyramid features performs much good. Because it can combine feature of speech from multiple level pyramids, which not only have rich semantics but besides take into account objects of different size. We also fuse different levels of pyramid features by use LSTM [ @hochreiter1997long ], but the speed is greatly reduce. 

 Head model { # section:4.3 } 
 ---------- 

 As mention before, in autonomous module, the box regression function $ B(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the like as baseline model because experiment found that take out one layer will reach the result bad. The results show shared module (model 'D `) perform much better than autonomous module (model 'A `). Furthermore, we drop the operation of refining bounding box from the head. As shown in Table \[tab:1\ ], it ’
.7(42.5)\                          
                     AR &53.3(60.7)& 56.8(**61.6**) & 49.1(58.1)\                           
                                       ********                                             
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --

Reyecence backgrounc
--------------------

We first avaluate our swhdmz to learn the background reference. Qxperimrnh shows our mejhod ps feaapboe (See model `A` in Table \[tab:1\]). If shoulv be noted that because the prototype repgesejtation of the bacnground catgforr is learned wrom the pgmtotype rekresentation of other categories, the yradient pripqgahhon will alwo hane some effecb on tha optimozation of othcr prmtorype representation. Ii order to make sure whether dhns effect is beneficiql, we sjop gsadidbt orokagetikn at hhe fork posifion in Fig. \[fig:2\]. The performanct os the model haa declynqd with an mAP of 33.0% and a AR of 52.6%. In ordeg to compare the effect of oearning background, wg randomly select some background samples from the proposalv to kctank gye features of background. The result is model `B` jn Tsble \[tab:1\]. Besidcs generating the lrltpjype of backgruund, wz tdy to remove it buh the ttainint fails tj comverge.

Prototype representatuons of cateyorues
---------------------------------------

In our approach, as shown iu Eq. \[pt\_avg\], wr use all pyramid featuxes to generate pgototype ddpresentation of canegosies. Anoufer choice is to jnly use vhe lcst leveu pytamid fqature as hhe category of prototypf, i.e. $D (\{X_i^l\}) = F^5_i$. As shown the results of model `A` comparing to mocen `C` and modzl `D` cpmparing to mjdel `E` in Tablg \[tab:1\], usiug all pyramid fvatures pxrforms much better. Becauvg it can combmne featuwes drom multipud level pyramics, which ujt obly have rich semaktics gut also take iuuo qccount objects of disfvreit sisa. We also fuve dkffdtent uevels of pnraoid geatures by using LSDM [@hkchreiter1997long], but yhc speed iw greatlr reduced.

Head model {#section:4.3}
----------

As mtntionxd befure, im igdependent module, the box regrsssion fujctlon $B(\cdot,\cdot)$ is bhe fame as baxeline model because experiment found tiat removing one layer qill make the resulj wprse. The rexults show shased module (model `D`) pwrforms much betttr than independent modhle (mogel `A`). Furthermore, we drop the operation of refining bounding box from the head. As shown in Table \[tab:1\], it’
.7(42.5)\ AR &53.3(60.7)& 56.8(**61.6**) & 49.1(58.1)\ ******** -- Reference background We first evaluate background Experiment shows our is feasible (See `A` in Table \[tab:1\]). It should noted that because the prototype representation of the background category is learned from prototype representation of other categories, the gradient propagation will also have some effect the of prototype In order to make sure whether this effect is beneficial, we stop gradient propagation at the position in Fig. \[fig:2\]. The performance of the has declined with an of 33.0% and a AR 52.6%. order to the of background, we randomly some background samples from the proposals to obtain the features of background. The result is model `B` Table \[tab:1\]. the prototype background, try remove it but fails to converge. Prototype representations of our approach, as shown in Eq. \[pr\_avg\], we all pyramid to generate prototype representation of categories. choice is to only use the last level feature as the category of prototype, i.e. $S (\{F_i^l\}) = F^5_i$. As shown the results `A` comparing to model and model `D` to `E` Table using all features performs much better. Because it can combine features from multiple pyramids, which not only have rich semantics but also take objects different size. We fuse different levels of features using LSTM [@hochreiter1997long], but is reduced. ---------- mentioned in independent module, the regression function $B(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the as baseline model because layer will make the result worse. The results shared module (model `D`) performs much better independent module (model `A`). Furthermore, we drop the operation of refining bounding from the shown in Table \[tab:1\], it’
.7(42.5)\                          
                     AR &53.3(60.7)& 56.8(**61.6**) & 49.1(58.1)\                           
                                       ********                                             
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --

Reference background
--------------------

We fiRst evaluatE our sCheMe tO lEarn The bAckground referENce. EXperiment shows our methoD is feAsIBle (SEE mOdel `A` In Table \[TAb:1\]). iT ShoUlD bE noTeD ThAt becAusE the proTotype reprEseNtAtion of the baCKgRound categOry Is learned froM thE protoTyPe rEPreseNtaTion oF other CAtegorIes, the graDiENt propAGation wILL aLso hAve some effect on thE OpTImization of othEr protOtYPe REPreSenTation. In orDeR to maKE sure whEThER THis EFfect is benefiCial, we stop gRAdiEnt proPaGatIOn at thE fork PoSItiOn in Fig. \[fig:2\]. THe peRformance Of the mODel has dEClined wIth an maP oF 33.0% anD a AR OF 52.6%. IN oRdeR tO ComPArE thE EffEct of leaRnInG backGrouND, WE RandOmlY selEct soMe background sAmpLes fROm tHe proPosalS to oBtAin thE featuRes of BaCkground. The resuLt is Model `B` in TAblE \[tAb:1\]. BEsIdes gENeratiNg tHe pRototypE of backGRouNd, WE TRy To remove it but the trAiNINg Fails to cOnvergE.

prOtOType reprEsEntAtioNS Of catEgorIEs
---------------------------------------

in our appRoach, aS ShOwN in Eq. \[pr\_AvG\], we use AlL pyRamId feaTUres To geneRate protOtype REpresentation oF Categories. AnoTHeR CHoICe is To oNly use the laSt leVEl pyRamiD FeAtuRE as thE cateGoRY oF Prototype, i.e. $S (\{F_i^l\}) = F^5_i$. As ShOwn the ResulTs of model `A` comParing to moDEL `c` and modeL `D` coMPaRIng to model `E` in TAble \[tAb:1\], using all PYramid feAtureS performS much bettER. because iT caN coMbiNe fEATuRes from multipLE LeveL pYramids, WhiCh not onLy hAve RicH seMaNtics but aLso take iNtO aCcOuNt oBjectS Of differEnT siZe. we aLso fuSE diffeRent lEvelS oF pYRamId featuREs BY UsinG LsTm [@hocHreItEr1997lonG], but THe sPeed is gReatly redUceD.

head MoDeL {#sectioN:4.3}
----------

As mentioned bEfOre, in indepEnDenT modulE, THe box regRession function $B(\cdot,\cdoT)$ Is the saMe aS baseLine Model becaUse ExperiMenT Found tHat remOving OnE laYER will MAKe The ReSult worse. THE ResUlts sHoW shaRed moduLe (model `D`) performs muCH beTter than indepEndEnt mODUlE (moDEl `a`). furThERmoRE, We drop the operatIon of refinInG BoUnding box fROm tHe Head. As sHown in TAble \[tAB:1\], it’
.7(42.5)\                                        AR &53.3(60.7) &  56. 8(**61.6**) & 49.1(58. 1)\                                             ** *** ** *                                      
 -- --- - ----- --- ----- ------ - ------ --------- -- - ------ - ------- - - -- ---- ----------------- -- -- --

Referen ce bac kg r ou n d 
-- --- ---------- -- ---
W e first ev a l u ate our scheme to  learn theb ack ground  r efe r ence.Exper im e ntshows our m etho d is feas ible ( S ee mode l  `A` in  Table  \[ tab :1\] ) .It  sh ou l d b e  n ote d  th at becau se  t he pr otot y p e repr ese ntat ion o f the backgro und  cat e gor y islearn ed f ro m the  proto typere presentation of  oth er catego rie s,  th egradi e nt pro pag ati on will  also h a veso m e ef fect on the optimi za t i on  of othe r prot o ty pe represen ta tio n. I n order  tom ak e sure w hether th is  effect  i s bene fi cia l,we st o p gr adient  propaga tiona t the fork pos i tion in Fig.\ [f i g :2 \ ]. T heperformance  oft he m odel ha s d e cline d wit ha nm AP of 33.0% and a A Rof 52. 6%. I n order to co mpare thee f f ect of l earn i ng background, we  rand omly selec t  some ba ckgro und samp les fromt h e propos als  to  ob tai n th e features of b ackg ro und. Th e r esult i s m ode l ` B`in  Table \[ tab:1\].  B es id es  ge nerat i ng the p ro tot yp e o f bac k ground , wetryto  r e mov e it bu t  t h e  tra in in g fa ils  t o con verg e .
Prototy pe repres ent a tion sof  catego ries
-------- -- ---------- -- --- ------ - - ------
In our approach, as sho w n in Eq . \ [pr\_ avg\ ], we use  al l pyra mid featur es togener at e p r o totyp e re pre se ntation of c ate gorie s.  Ano ther ch oice is to only us e  th e last levelpyr amid f ea tur e  a s  th ec ate g o ry of prototype , i.e. $S(\ { F_ i^l\}) = F ^ 5_i $.  As sho wn theresul t s of mo del `A` c omparingto  mod e l  `C ` and mode l `D` co mparing t o  mode l  ` E` in  Ta ble \[ ta b:1 \], u sing a l l p yrami d feat ur es per forms  m uch bett er. Because it can comb ine fe ature s f rom multi ple lev el pyrami ds,which notonl y h ave r ich seman tics bu t a l so ta ke i n to accoun t  o bje c t sof differen t s ize . Weals o  fusediff erent levels of p y ramid features  byu s ing  LS T M [@ ho chreiter1997lo ng] ,b u t the sp ee d is greatl y reduce d. 
Head  model  {#sec tion:4. 3 } 
- - ------ --
Asmentioned  be fo r e, in i nd ep e ndentmodu le , thebox re g ress i o n function $B(\c dot,\ c d ot)$i s t he sa me  as bas e line  model bec ause experi ment f ound  that  removi ng  one l aye rwill maket he result  wors e. There sult s s how sh ared m odule  (mo de l ` D`) perfo r m sm uc hb ett er t han i nd epen dent modu l e (model  `A ` ). Furt he rmo r e , we d r op t he operati onof re f i ning bound i ng b o xf rom t he hea d. Asshown i n  Ta bl e \[tab :1\ ] ,  it’
.7(42.5)\ _ _   _ __ __  _  _   _  
__             __ ___AR &53.3(60.7)& 56.8(**61.6**) & 49.1(58.1)\_    _ _       __  _       
 _     _  ___   _     _     _      _   ********  _    _ _    _  _ _  _     _  _     __  ___ 
_ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --_--_--

Reference background
--------------------

We_first_evaluate our scheme to learn the_background_reference. Experiment shows our method is feasible_(See model `A` in_Table_\[tab:1\]). It should be_noted that because the prototype_representation of the background category is_learned from_the prototype_representation of other categories, the gradient propagation will also have some_effect on the optimization of other_prototype representation. In order_to make_sure_whether this effect_is_beneficial, we_stop gradient propagation at the fork position_in Fig._\[fig:2\]. The performance of the model_has declined with an_mAP_of 33.0% and a AR of_52.6%. In order to compare the_effect of learning background, we_randomly_select_some background samples from the_proposals to obtain the features of_background. The result_is model `B` in Table \[tab:1\]. Besides_generating_the prototype of background, we try_to_remove it but the training fails_to_converge.

Prototype_representations of categories
---------------------------------------

In our approach,_as shown in Eq. \[pr\_avg\], we_use all pyramid features to generate prototype representation of_categories. Another choice_is to only use the_last_level_pyramid feature as the category of prototype, i.e. $S (\{F_i^l\})_= F^5_i$._As shown the_results of model `A` comparing to model `C` and model_`D` comparing to model `E` in Table_\[tab:1\], using all pyramid features performs much better. Because it can_combine features from multiple level pyramids, which not_only have rich semantics but also take_into account objects of_different_size. We also fuse different levels of_pyramid_features_by_using LSTM [@hochreiter1997long],_but the speed_is greatly reduced.

Head_model {#section:4.3}
----------

As_mentioned before, in_independent module,_the box regression_function_$B(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the same as baseline model because experiment found that removing one layer will make the result_worse. The results show shared module_(model `D`) performs much better_than_independent module (model_`A`). Furthermore, we drop_the operation of refining bounding box from the_head. As shown in Table \[tab:1\], it’