You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
The availability of a large quantity of labelled training data is crucial for the training of modern object detectors. Hand labelling training data is time consuming and expensive while automatic labelling methods inevitably add unwanted noise to the labels. We examine the effect of different types of label noise on the performance of an object detector. We then show how co-teaching, a method developed for handling noisy labels and previously demonstrated on a classification problem, can be improved to mitigate the effects of label noise in an object detection setting. We illustrate our results using simulated noise on the KITTI dataset and on a vehicle detection task using automatically labelled data.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: The construction of appearance-based object detection systems is time-consuming and difficult because a large number of training examples must be collected and manually labeled in order to capture variations in object appearance. Semi-supervised training is a means for reducing the effort needed to prepare the training set by training the model with a small number of fully labeled examples and an additional set of unlabeled or weakly labeled examples. In this work we present a semi-supervised approach to training object detection systems based on self-training. We implement our approach as a wrapper around the training process of an existing object detector and present empirical results. The key contributions of this empirical study is to demonstrate that a model trained in this manner can achieve results comparable to a model trained in the traditional manner using a much larger set of fully labeled data, and that a training data selection metric that is defined independently of the detector greatly outperforms a selection metric based on the detection confidence generated by the detector.

[2]: We consider the problem of using a large unlabeled sample to boost performance of a learning algorit,hrn when only a small set of labeled examples is available. In particular, we consider a problem setting motivated by the task of learning to classify web pages, in which the description of each example can be partitioned into two distinct views. For example, the description of a web page can be partitioned into the words occurring on that page, and the words occurring in hyperlinks t,hat point to that page. We assume that either view of the example would be sufficient for learning if we had enough labeled data, but our goal is to use both views together to allow inexpensive unlabeled data to augment, a much smaller set of labeled examples. Specifically, the presence of two distinct views of each example suggests strategies in which two learning algorithms are trained separately on each view, and then each algorithm’s predictions on new unlabeled examples are used to enlarge the training set of the other. Our goal in this paper is to provide a PAC-style analysis for this setting, and, more broadly, a PAC-style framework for the general problem of learning from both labeled and unlabeled data. We also provide empirical results on real web-page data indicating that this use of unlabeled examples can lead to significant improvement of hypotheses in practice. *This research was supported in part by the DARPA HPKB program under contract F30602-97-1-0215 and by NSF National Young investigator grant CCR-9357793. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. TO copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and or a fee. COLT 98 Madison WI USA Copyright ACM 1998 l-58113-057--0 98 7... 5.00 92 Tom Mitchell School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891 mitchell+@cs.cmu.edu
One option is to attempt to label the unlabelled data during training. The well known co-training algorithm [2] iteratively increases the pool of labelled data by labelling unlabelled examples using a pair of classifiers trained on different views of the data in the previous pool. Another method [1] that, like co-training, pre-dates the deep learning era, iteratively adds unlabelled data to the labelled set by scoring detections based on a detector independent metric.