than the one for the initial stage due to the data augmentation in Sec. 3.2. Note that using more data led to increased
performance.
4.2. Results and Discussion
Comparisons We present comparative results to other approaches. We compare on LSP using PCP metric in Fig. 1.
We show results for the four most challenging limbs – lower
and upper arms and legs – as well as the average value
across these limbs for all compared algorithms. We clearly
outperform all other approaches, especially achieving better estimation for legs. For example, for upper legs we obtain0:78up from 0:74for the next best performing method.
It is worth noting that while the other approaches exhibit
strengths for particular limbs, none of the other dataset consistently dominates across all limbs. In contrary, DeepPose
shows strong results for all challenging limbs.
Using the PDJ metric allows us to vary the threshold for
the distance between prediction and ground truth, which deﬁnes a detection. This threshold can be thought of as a
localization precision at which detection rates are plotted.
Thus one could compare approaches across different desired precisions. We present results on FLIC in Fig. 3 comparing against additional four methods as well is on LSP in
Fig. 4. For each dataset we train and test according the protocol for each dataset. Similarly to previous experiment we
We propose a method for human pose estimation based on Deep Neural Networks
(DNNs). The pose estimation is formulated as a DNN-based regression problem
towards body joints. We present a cascade of such DNN regressors which results
in high precision pose estimates. The approach has the advantage of reasoning
about pose in a holistic fashion and has a simple but yet powerful formulation
which capitalizes on recent advances in Deep Learning. We present a detailed
empirical analysis with state-of-art or better performance on four academic
benchmarks of diverse real-world images.
Alexander Toshev Christian Szegedy