Histograms of Oriented Gradients for Human Detection
Navneet Dalal and Bill Triggs
INRIA Rhône-Alps, 655 avenue de l’Europe, Montbonnot 38334, France{Navneet.Dalal,Bill.Triggs}@inrialpes.fr, http://lear.inrialpes.fr
Abstract

We briefly discuss previous work on human detection in§2, give an overview of our method §3, describe our data
sets in §4 and give a detailed description and experimental
evaluation of each stage of the process in §5–6. The main
conclusions are summarized in §7.

We study the question of feature sets for robust visual object recognition, adopting linear SVM based human detection as a test case. After reviewing existing edge and gradient based descriptors, we show experimentally that gridsof Histograms of Oriented Gradient (HOG) descriptors significantly outperform existing feature sets for human detection. We study the influence of each stage of the computationon performance, concluding that fine-scale gradients, fineorientation binning, relatively coarse spatial binning, andhigh-quality local contrast normalization in overlapping descriptor blocks are all important for good results. The new
approach gives near-perfect separation on the original MIT
pedestrian database, so we introduce a more challenging
dataset containing over 1800 annotated human images witha large range of pose variations and backgrounds.

2

Previous Work

There is an extensive literature on object detection, buthere we mention just a few relevant papers on human detection [18,17,22,16,20]. See [6] for a survey. Papageorgiou etal [18] describe a pedestrian detector based on a polynomial
SVM using rectified Haar wavelets as input descriptors, witha parts (subwindow) based variant in [17]. Depoortere et algive an optimized version of this [2]. Gavrila & Philomen[8] take a more direct approach, extracting edge images andmatching them to a set of learned exemplars using chamferdistance. This has been used in a practical real-time pedestrian detection system [7]. Viola et al [22] build an efficientmoving person detector, using AdaBoost to train a chain ofprogressively more complex region rejection rules based on
Haar-like wavelets and space-time differences. Ronfard etal [19] build an articulated body detector by incorporating
SVM based limb classifiers over 1st and 2nd order Gaussian
filters in a dynamic programming framework similar to thoseof Felzenszwalb & Huttenlocher [3] and Ioffe & Forsyth[9]. Mikolajczyk et al [16] use combinations of orientationposition histograms with binary-thresholded gradient magnitudes to build a parts based method containing detectors forfaces, heads, and front and side profiles of upper and lower
body parts. In contrast, our detector uses a simpler architecture with a single detection window, but appears to givesignificantly higher performance on pedestrian images.

1 Introduction
Detecting humans in images is a challenging task owing
to their variable appearance and the wide range of poses thatthey can adopt. The first need is a robust feature set thatallows the human form to be discriminated cleanly, even in
cluttered backgrounds under difficult illumination. We study
the issue of feature sets for human detection, showing that locally normalized Histogram of Oriented Gradient (HOG) descriptors provide excellent performance relative to other existing feature sets including wavelets [17,22]. The proposed
descriptors are reminiscent of edge orientation histograms[4,5], SIFT descriptors [12] and shape contexts [1], but they
are computed on a dense grid of uniformly spaced cells andthey use overlapping local contrast normalizations for improved performance. We make a detailed study of the effectsof various implementation choices on detector performance,
taking “pedestrian detection” (the detection of mostly visible
people in more or less upright poses) as a test case. For simplicity and speed, we use linear SVM as a baseline classifier
throughout the study. The new detectors give essentially perfect results on the MIT pedestrian test set [18,17], so we havecreated a more challenging set containing over 1800 pedestrian images with a large range of poses and backgrounds.
Ongoing work suggests that our feature set performs equallywell for other shape-based object classes.

3

Overview of the Method

This section gives an overview of our feature extraction
chain, which is summarized in fig. 1. Implementation details
are postponed until §6. The method is based on evaluatingwell-normalized local histograms of image gradient orientations in a dense grid. Similar features have seen increasinguse over the past decade [4,5,12,15]. The basic idea is that
local object appearance and shape can often be characterized
rather well by the distribution of local intensity gradients or1

Inputimage

Normalize
gamma &
colourComputegradients

Weighted voteinto spatial &orientation cells

Contrast normalize
over overlapping
spatial blocks

Collect HOG’sover detection
window

Linear
SVM

Person /non−personclassification

Figure 1. An overview of our feature extraction and object detection chain. The detector window is tiled with a grid of overlapping blocks
in which Histogram of Oriented Gradient feature vectors are extracted. The combined vectors are fed to a linear SVM for object/non-object
classification. The detection window is scanned across the image at all positions and scales, and conventional non-maximum suppression
is run on the output pyramid to detect object instances, but this paper concentrates on the feature extraction process.

edge directions, even without precise knowledge of the corresponding gradient or edge positions. In practice this is implemented by dividing the image window into small spatial
regions (“cells”), for each cell accumulating a local 1-D histogram of gradient directions or edge orientations over the
pixels of the cell. The combined histogram entries form therepresentation. For better invariance to illumination, shadowing, etc., it is also useful to contrast-normalize the local
responses before using them. This can be done by accumulating a measure of local histogram “energy” over somewhat
larger spatial regions (“blocks”) and using the results to normalize all of the cells in the block. We will refer to the normalized descriptor blocks as Histogram of Oriented Gradient (HOG) descriptors. Tiling the detection window witha dense (in fact, overlapping) grid of HOG descriptors andusing the combined feature vector in a conventional SVM
based window classifier gives our human detection chain(see fig. 1).
The use of orientation histograms has many precursors[13,4,5], but it only reached maturity when combined withlocal spatial histogramming and normalization in Lowe’s
Scale Invariant Feature Transformation (SIFT) approach towide baseline image matching [12], in which it provides
the underlying image patch descriptor for matching scaleinvariant keypoints. SIFT-style approaches perform remarkably well in this application [12,14]. The Shape Context
work [1] studied alternative cell and block shapes, albeit initially using only edge pixel counts without the orientation
histogramming that makes the representation so effective.
The success of these sparse feature based representations has
somewhat overshadowed the power and simplicity of HOG’s
as dense image descriptors. We hope that our study will help
to rectify this. In particular, our informal experiments suggest that even the best current keypoint based approaches arelikely to have false positive rates at least 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than our dense grid approach for human detection, mainly because none of the keypoint detectors that weare aware of detect human body structures reliably.
The HOG/SIFT representation has several advantages. It
captures edge or gradient structure that is very characteristicof local shape, and it does so in a local representation withan easily controllable degree of invariance to local geometricand photometric transformations: translations or rotations
make little difference if they are much smaller that the local
spatial or orientation bin size. For human detection, rather

coarse spatial sampling, fine orientation sampling and strong
local photometric normalization turns out to be the best strategy, presumably because it permits limbs and body segments
to change appearance and move from side to side quite a lot
provided that they maintain a roughly upright orientation.

4

Data Sets and Methodology

Datasets. We tested our detector on two different data sets.
The first is the well-established MIT pedestrian database[18], containing 509 training and 200 test images of pedestrians in city scenes (plus left-right reflections of these). It contains only front or back views with a relatively limited rangeof poses. Our best detectors give essentially perfect resultson this data set, so we produced a new and significantly morechallenging data set, ‘INRIA’, containing 1805 64×128 images of humans cropped from a varied set of personal photos. Fig. 2 shows some samples. The people are usually
standing, but appear in any orientation and against a wide
variety of background image including crowds. Many are
bystanders taken from the image backgrounds, so there is no
particular bias on their pose. The database is available fromhttp://lear.inrialpes.fr/data for research purposes.
Methodology. We selected 1239 of the images as positive
training examples, together with their left-right reflections(2478 images in all). A fixed set of 12180 patches sampled
randomly from 1218 person-free training photos provided
the initial negative set. For each detector and parameter combination a preliminary detector is trained and the 1218 negative training photos are searched exhaustively for false positives (‘hard examples’). The method is then re-trained using
this augmented set (initial 12180 + hard examples) to produce the final detector. The set of hard examples is subsampled if necessary, so that the descriptors of the final training
set fit into 1.7 Gb of RAM for SVM training. This retraining process significantly improves the performance of eachdetector (by 5% at 10−4 False Positives Per Window tested(FPPW) for our default detector), but additional rounds ofretraining make little difference so we do not use them.
To quantify detector performance we plot Detection Error Tradeoff (DET) curves on a log-log scale, i.e. miss rate
FalseNeg( 1−Recall or TruePos+FalseNeg) versus FPPW. Lower values are better. DET plots are used extensively in speech andin NIST evaluations. They present the same information as
Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC’s) but allow small

Figure 2. Some sample images from our new human detection database. The subjects are always upright, but with some partial occlusions
and a wide range of variations in pose, appearance, clothing, illumination and background.

probabilities to be distinguished more easily. We will often
use miss rate at 10−4 FPPW as a reference point for results.
This is arbitrary but no more so than, e.g. Area Under ROC.
In a multiscale detector it corresponds to a raw error rate ofabout 0.8 false positives per 640×480 image tested. (The full
detector has an even lower false positive rate owing to nonmaximum suppression). Our DET curves are usually quite
shallow so even very small improvements in miss rate are
equivalent to large gains in FPPW at constant miss rate. For
example, for our default detector at 1e-4 FPPW, every 1%
absolute (9% relative) reduction in miss rate is equivalent to
reducing the FPPW at constant miss rate by a factor of 1.57.

5 Overview of Results
Before presenting our detailed implementation and performance analysis, we compare the overall performance of
our final HOG detectors with that of some other existing
methods. Detectors based on rectangular (R-HOG) or circular log-polar (C-HOG) blocks and linear or kernel SVM
are compared with our implementations of the Haar wavelet,
PCA-SIFT, and shape context approaches. Briefly, these approaches are as follows:
Generalized Haar Wavelets. This is an extended set of oriented Haar-like wavelets similar to (but better than) that usedin [17]. The features are rectified responses from 9×9 and12×12 oriented 1st and 2nd derivative box filters at 45◦ intervals and the corresponding 2nd derivative xy filter.
PCA-SIFT. These descriptors are based on projecting gradient images onto a basis learned from training images using
PCA [11]. Ke & Sukthankar found that they outperformed
SIFT for key point based matching, but this is controversial[14]. Our implementation uses 16×16 blocks with the same
derivative scale, overlap, etc., settings as our HOG descriptors. The PCA basis is calculated using positive training images.
Shape Contexts. The original Shape Contexts [1] used binary edge-presence voting into log-polar spaced bins, irrespective of edge orientation. We simulate this using our CHOG descriptor (see below) with just 1 orientation bin. 16
angular and 3 radial intervals with inner radius 2 pixels andouter radius 8 pixels gave the best results. Both gradient-

strength and edge-presence based voting were tested, withthe edge threshold chosen automatically to maximize detection performance (the values selected were somewhat variable, in the region of 20–50 graylevels).
Results. Fig. 3 shows the performance of the various detectors on the MIT and INRIA data sets. The HOG-based detectors greatly outperform the wavelet, PCA-SIFT and ShapeContext ones, giving near-perfect separation on the MIT test
set and at least an order of magnitude reduction in FPPW
on the INRIA one. Our Haar-like wavelets outperform MIT
wavelets because we also use 2nd order derivatives and contrast normalize the output vector. Fig. 3(a) also shows MIT’sbest parts based and monolithic detectors (the points are interpolated from [17]), however beware that an exact comparison is not possible as we do not know how the database in[17] was divided into training and test parts and the negative images used are not available. The performances of the
final rectangular (R-HOG) and circular (C-HOG) detectors
are very similar, with C-HOG having the slight edge. Augmenting R-HOG with primitive bar detectors (oriented 2ndderivatives – ‘R2-HOG’) doubles the feature dimension but
further improves the performance (by 2% at 10−4 FPPW).
Replacing the linear SVM with a Gaussian kernel one improves performance by about 3% at 10−4 FPPW, at the costof much higher run times1 . Using binary edge voting (ECHOG) instead of gradient magnitude weighted voting (CHOG) decreases performance by 5% at 10−4 FPPW, while
omitting orientation information decreases it by much more,even if additional spatial or radial bins are added (by 33% at
10−4 FPPW, for both edges (E-ShapeC) and gradients (GShapeC)). PCA-SIFT also performs poorly. One reason isthat, in comparison to [11], many more (80 of 512) principal
vectors have to be retained to capture the same proportion of
the variance. This may be because the spatial registration is
weaker when there is no keypoint detector.

6

Implementation and Performance Study

We now give details of our HOG implementations andsystematically study the effects of the various choices on de1 We use the hard examples generated by linear R-HOG to train the kernel R-HOG detector, as kernel R-HOG generates so few false positives thatits hard example set is too sparse to improve the generalization significantly.

DET − different descriptors on MIT database

0.5

Lin. R−HOG
Lin. C−HOG
Lin. EC−HOG
Wavelet
PCA−SIFT
Lin. G−ShaceC
Lin. E−ShaceC
MIT best (part)MIT baseline

0.1

0.1
0.05

0.05
0.02
0.02
0.01
−6

10

−5

10

−4

−3

−2

10
10
10
false positives per window (FPPW)DET − different descriptors on INRIA database

0.2

miss rate

miss rate

0.2

−1

10

0.01 −6
10

Ker. R−HOG
Lin. R2−HOG
Lin. R−HOG
Lin. C−HOG
Lin. EC−HOG
Wavelet
PCA−SIFT
Lin. G−ShapeC
Lin. E−ShapeC
−5

10

−4

−3

−2

10
10
10
false positives per window (FPPW)−1

10Figure 3. The performance of selected detectors on (left) MIT and (right) INRIA data sets. See the text for details.

tector performance. Throughout this section we refer results
to our default detector which has the following properties,
described below: RGB colour space with no gamma correction; [−1, 0, 1] gradient filter with no smoothing; linear
gradient voting into 9 orientation bins in 0◦ –180◦ ; 16×16
pixel blocks of four 8×8 pixel cells; Gaussian spatial window with σ = 8 pixel; L2-Hys (Lowe-style clipped L2 norm)
block normalization; block spacing stride of 8 pixels (hence
4-fold coverage of each cell); 64×128 detection window;
linear SVM classifier.
Fig. 4 summarizes the effects of the various HOG parameters on overall detection performance. These will be examined in detail below. The main conclusions are that for good
performance, one should use fine scale derivatives (essentially no smoothing), many orientation bins, and moderately
sized, strongly normalized, overlapping descriptor blocks.

6.1 Gamma/Colour Normalization

We evaluated several input pixel representations including grayscale, RGB and LAB colour spaces optionally withpower law (gamma) equalization. These normalizations have
only a modest effect on performance, perhaps because thesubsequent descriptor normalization achieves similar results.
We do use colour information when available. RGB and
LAB colour spaces give comparable results, but restricting
to grayscale reduces performance by 1.5% at 10−4 FPPW.
Square root gamma compression of each colour channel improves performance at low FPPW (by 1% at 10−4 FPPW)
but log compression is too strong and worsens it by 2% at
10−4 FPPW.

6.2 Gradient Computation

Detector performance is sensitive to the way in which
gradients are computed, but the simplest scheme turns out
to be the best. We tested gradients computed using Gaussian smoothing followed by one of several discrete deriva-

tive masks. Several smoothing scales were tested including σ=0 (none). Masks tested included various 1-D point
derivatives (uncentred [−1, 1], centred [−1, 0, 1] and cubiccorrected [1, −8, 0, 8, −1]) as well as 3×3 Sobel masks and−1 0
0 1
2×2 diagonal ones −10 ,0 1 (the most compact centred 2-D derivative masks). Simple 1-D [−1, 0, 1] masks at
σ=0 work best. Using larger masks always seems to decrease performance, and smoothing damages it significantly:
for Gaussian derivatives, moving from σ=0 to σ=2 reduces
the recall rate from 89% to 80% at 10−4 FPPW. At σ=0,
cubic corrected 1-D width 5 filters are about 1% worse than[−1, 0, 1] at 10−4 FPPW, while the 2×2 diagonal masks are
1.5% worse. Using uncentred [−1, 1] derivative masks also
decreases performance (by 1.5% at 10−4 FPPW), presumably because orientation estimation suffers as a result of thex and y filters being based at different centres.
For colour images, we calculate separate gradients foreach colour channel, and take the one with the largest norm
as the pixel’s gradient vector.

6.3 Spatial / Orientation Binning

The next step is the fundamental nonlinearity of the descriptor. Each pixel calculates a weighted vote for an edge
orientation histogram channel based on the orientation of thegradient element centred on it, and the votes are accumulated into orientation bins over local spatial regions that wecall cells. Cells can be either rectangular or radial (log-polar
sectors). The orientation bins are evenly spaced over 0◦ –180◦ (“unsigned” gradient) or 0◦ –360◦ (“signed” gradient).
To reduce aliasing, votes are interpolated bilinearly between
the neighbouring bin centres in both orientation and position. The vote is a function of the gradient magnitude at the
pixel, either the magnitude itself, its square, its square root,
or a clipped form of the magnitude representing soft presence/absence of an edge at the pixel. In practice, using the

0.5

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.02
0.01 −6
10

σ=0
σ=0.5
σ=1
σ=2
σ=3
σ=0, c−cor
−5

0.05

0.02
−4

−3

−2

10
10
10
10
false positives per window (FPPW)−1

100.01 −610

0.1
bin= 9 (0−180)
bin= 6 (0−180)
bin= 4 (0−180)
bin= 3 (0−180)
bin=18 (0−360)
bin=12 (0−360)
bin= 8 (0−360)
bin= 6 (0−360)
−5

−4

−3

−2

10
10
10
10
false positives per window (FPPW)

−1

10

0.05

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.01 −6
10

−5

−4

−3

−2

10
10
10
10
false positives per window (FPPW)−1

10

miss rate

0.5

0.05

0.02

overlap = 3/4, stride = 4
overlap = 1/2, stride = 8
overlap = 0, stride =160.01 −610(d)64x12856x12048x112
−5

−4

−4

−3

−2

−2

10

DET − effect of kernel width,γ, on kernel SVM

0.05

0.02

10
10
10
10
false positives per window (FPPW)

−3

10
10
false positives per window (FPPW)(c)

DET − effect of window size

0.5

0.02

L2−HysL2−norm
L1−Sqrt
L1−norm
No norm
Window norm

0.02 −5
10

(b)

0.05

DET − effect of normalization methods

0.2

DET − effect of overlap (cell size=8, num cell = 2x2, wt=0)
0.5

miss rate

miss rate(a)

DET − effect of number of orientation bins β

miss rate

DET − effect of gradient scale σmiss rate

miss rate

0.5

−1

10

0.01 −610(e)Linearγ=8e−3γ=3e−2γ=7e−2
−5

−4

−3

−2

10
10
10
10
false positives per window (FPPW)

−1

10

(f)

Figure 4. For details see the text. (a) Using fine derivative scale significantly increases the performance. (‘c-cor’ is the 1D cubic-corrected
point derivative). (b) Increasing the number of orientation bins increases performance significantly up to about 9 bins spaced over 0 ◦ –180◦ . (c) The effect of different block normalization schemes (see §6.4). (d) Using overlapping descriptor blocks decreases the miss rateby around 5%. (e) Reducing the 16 pixel margin around the 64×128 detection window decreases the performance by about 3%. (f) Usinga Gaussian kernel SVM, exp(−γkx1 − x2 k2 ), improves the performance by about 3%.

6.4 Normalization and Descriptor Blocks

Gradient strengths vary over a wide range owing to local
variations in illumination and foreground-background contrast, so effective local contrast normalization turns out tobe essential for good performance. We evaluated a num-

20

Miss Rate (%)

magnitude itself gives the best results. Taking the square root
reduces performance slightly, while using binary edge presence voting decreases it significantly (by 5% at 10−4 FPPW).
Fine orientation coding turns out to be essential for good
performance, whereas (see below) spatial binning can berather coarse. As fig. 4(b) shows, increasing the numberof orientation bins improves performance significantly up to
about 9 bins, but makes little difference beyond this. Thisis for bins spaced over 0◦ –180◦ , i.e. the ‘sign’ of the gradient is ignored. Including signed gradients (orientation range0◦ –360◦, as in the original SIFT descriptor) decreases theperformance, even when the number of bins is also doubled
to preserve the original orientation resolution. For humans,
the wide range of clothing and background colours presumably makes the signs of contrasts uninformative. Howevernote that including sign information does help substantiallyin some other object recognition tasks, e.g. cars, motorbikes.

15
10
5
0
12x12

10x10

8x8

6x6

Cell size (pixels) 4x4

3x3

2x2

1x1

4x4 Block size (Cells)

Figure 5. The miss rate at 10−4 FPPW as the cell and block sizeschange. The stride (block overlap) is fixed at half of the block size.
3×3 blocks of 6×6 pixel cells perform best, with 10.4% miss rate.

ber of different normalization schemes. Most of them arebased on grouping cells into larger spatial blocks and contrast normalizing each block separately. The final descriptor
is then the vector of all components of the normalized cell
responses from all of the blocks in the detection window.

In fact, we typically overlap the blocks so that each scalarcell response contributes several components to the final descriptor vector, each normalized with respect to a different
block. This may seem redundant but good normalization is
critical and including overlap significantly improves the performance. Fig. 4(d) shows that performance increases by 4%
at 10−4 FPPW as we increase the overlap from none (stride16) to 16-fold area / 4-fold linear coverage (stride 4).
We evaluated two classes of block geometries, square orrectangular ones partitioned into grids of square or rectangular spatial cells, and circular blocks partitioned into cells in
log-polar fashion. We will refer to these two arrangements
as R-HOG and C-HOG (for rectangular and circular HOG).
R-HOG. R-HOG blocks have many similarities to SIFT descriptors [12] but they are used quite differently. They arecomputed in dense grids at a single scale without dominantorientation alignment and used as part of a larger code vector
that implicitly encodes spatial position relative to the detection window, whereas SIFT’s are computed at a sparse setof scale-invariant key points, rotated to align their dominantorientations, and used individually. SIFT’s are optimized forsparse wide baseline matching, R-HOG’s for dense robust
coding of spatial form. Other precursors include the edge
orientation histograms of Freeman & Roth [4]. We usually
use square R-HOG’s, i.e. ς×ς grids of η×η pixel cells eachcontaining β orientation bins, where ς, η, β are parameters.
Fig. 5 plots the miss rate at 10−4 FPPW w.r.t. cell size andblock size in cells. For human detection, 3×3 cell blocksof 6×6 pixel cells perform best, with 10.4% miss-rate at
10−4 FPPW. In fact, 6–8 pixel wide cells do best irrespective of the block size – an interesting coincidence as humanlimbs are about 6–8 pixels across in our images. 2×2 and3×3 blocks work best. Beyond this, the results deteriorate:
adaptivity to local imaging conditions is weakened when theblock becomes too big, and when it is too small (1×1 block/ normalization over orientations alone) valuable spatial information is suppressed.
As in [12], it is useful to downweight pixels near the edgesof the block by applying a Gaussian spatial window to eachpixel before accumulating orientation votes into cells. This
improves performance by 1% at 10−4 FPPW for a Gaussianwith σ = 0.5 ∗ block width.
We also tried including multiple block types with different cell and block sizes in the overall descriptor. This slightly
improves performance (by around 3% at 10−4 FPPW), at thecost of greatly increased descriptor size.
Besides square R-HOG blocks, we also tested vertical(2×1 cell) and horizontal (1×2 cell) blocks and a combined
descriptor including both vertical and horizontal pairs. Vertical and vertical+horizontal pairs are significantly better thanhorizontal pairs alone, but not as good as 2×2 blocks (1%worse at 10−4 FPPW).

C-HOG. Our circular block (C-HOG) descriptors are reminiscent of Shape Contexts [1] except that, crucially, eachspatial cell contains a stack of gradient-weighted orientation cells instead of a single orientation-independent edgepresence count. The log-polar grid was originally suggestedby the idea that it would allow fine coding of nearby structure to be combined with coarser coding of wider context,
and the fact that the transformation from the visual field tothe V1 cortex in primates is logarithmic [21]. However small
descriptors with very few radial bins turn out to give the best
performance, so in practice there is little inhomogeneity orcontext. It is probably better to think of C-HOG’s simply as
an advanced form of centre-surround coding.
We evaluated two variants of the C-HOG geometry,
ones with a single circular central cell (similar to
the GLOH feature of [14]), and ones whose central cell is divided into angular sectors as in shapecontexts. We present results only for the circularcentre variants, as these have fewer spatial cells
than the divided centre ones and give the same performance in practice. A technical report will provide further details. The C-HOG layout has four parameters: thenumbers of angular and radial bins; the radius of the central
bin in pixels; and the expansion factor for subsequent radii.
At least two radial bins (a centre and a surround) and four
angular bins (quartering) are needed for good performance.
Including additional radial bins does not change the performance much, while increasing the number of angular bins
decreases performance (by 1.3% at 10−4 FPPW when going from 4 to 12 angular bins). 4 pixels is the best radius
for the central bin, but 3 and 5 give similar results. Increasing the expansion factor from 2 to 3 leaves the performanceessentially unchanged. With these parameters, neither Gaussian spatial weighting nor inverse weighting of cell votes bycell area changes the performance, but combining these two
reduces slightly. These values assume fine orientation sampling. Shape contexts (1 orientation bin) require much finer
spatial subdivision to work well.
Block Normalization schemes. We evaluated four different block normalization schemes for each of the above HOG
geometries. Let v be the unnormalized descriptor vector,
kvkk be its k-norm for k=1, 2, and  be p
a small constant.
The schemes are: (a) L2-norm, v → v/ kvk22 + 2 ; (b)L2-Hys, L2-norm followed by clipping (limiting the maximum values of v to 0.2) and renormalizing, as in [12]; (c)L1-norm, v → v/(kvk1 + p); and (d) L1-sqrt, L1-norm followed by square root v → v/(kvk1 + ), which amounts
to treating the descriptor vectors as probability distributions
and using the Bhattacharya distance between them. Fig. 4(c)shows that L2-Hys, L2-norm and L1-sqrt all perform equallywell, while simple L1-norm reduces performance by 5%,
and omitting normalization entirely reduces it by 27%, at
10−4 FPPW. Some regularization  is needed as we evalu-

ate descriptors densely, including on empty patches, but theresults are insensitive to ’s value over a large range.

ing a Gaussian kernel SVM increases performance by about
3% at 10−4 FPPW at the cost of a much higher run time.

Centre-surround normalization. We also investigated analternative centre-surround style cell normalization scheme,in which the image is tiled with a grid of cells and foreach cell the total energy in the cell and its surrounding region (summed over orientations and pooled using Gaussian
weighting) is used to normalize the cell. However as fig. 4(c)(“window norm”) shows, this decreases performance relative
to the corresponding block based scheme (by 2% at 10−4
FPPW, for pooling with σ=1 cell widths). One reason isthat there are no longer any overlapping blocks so each cellis coded only once in the final descriptor. Including several
normalizations for each cell based on different pooling scales
σ provides no perceptible change in performance, so it seems
that it is the existence of several pooling regions with different spatial offsets relative to the cell that is important here,
not the pooling scale.
To clarify this point, consider the R-HOG detector withoverlapping blocks. The coefficients of the trained linear
SVM give a measure of how much weight each cell of eachblock can have in the final discrimination decision. Close examination of fig. 6(b,f) shows that the most important cells
are the ones that typically contain major human contours (especially the head and shoulders and the feet), normalized
w.r.t. blocks lying outside the contour. In other words —despite the complex, cluttered backgrounds that are common in our training set — the detector cues mainly on thecontrast of silhouette contours against the background, noton internal edges or on silhouette contours against the foreground. Patterned clothing and pose variations may makeinternal regions unreliable as cues, or foreground-to-contour
transitions may be confused by smooth shading and shadowing effects. Similarly, fig. 6(c,g) illustrate that gradients
inside the person (especially vertical ones) typically count as
negative cues, presumably because this suppresses false positives in which long vertical lines trigger vertical head andleg cells.

6.7 Discussion

6.5 Detector Window and Context

Our 64×128 detection window includes about 16 pixels
of margin around the person on all four sides. Fig. 4(e)shows that this border provides a significant amount of context that helps detection. Decreasing it from 16 to 8 pixels(48×112 detection window) decreases performance by 6%
at 10−4 FPPW. Keeping a 64×128 window but increasing
the person size within it (again decreasing the border) causes
a similar loss of performance, even though the resolution of
the person is actually increased.

6.6 Classifier

By default we use a soft (C=0.01) linear SVM trainedwith SVMLight [10] (slightly modified to reduce memory
usage for problems with large dense descriptor vectors). Us-

Overall, there are several notable findings in this work.
The fact that HOG greatly out-performs wavelets and thatany significant degree of smoothing before calculating gradients damages the HOG results emphasizes that much of
the available image information is from abrupt edges at finescales, and that blurring this in the hope of reducing the sensitivity to spatial position is a mistake. Instead, gradientsshould be calculated at the finest available scale in the current
pyramid layer, rectified or used for orientation voting, andonly then blurred spatially. Given this, relatively coarse spatial quantization suffices (8×8 pixel cells / one limb width).
On the other hand, at least for human detection, it pays tosample orientation rather finely: both wavelets and shapecontexts lose out significantly here.
Secondly, strong local contrast normalization is essential for good results, and traditional centre-surround styleschemes are not the best choice. Better results can beachieved by normalizing each element (edge, cell) several
times with respect to different local supports, and treating
the results as independent signals. In our standard detector,
each HOG cell appears four times with different normalizations and including this ‘redundant’ information improves
performance from 84% to 89% at 10−4 FPPW.

7

Summary and Conclusions

We have shown that using locally normalized histogramof gradient orientations features similar to SIFT descriptors[12] in a dense overlapping grid gives very good results for
person detection, reducing false positive rates by more thanan order of magnitude relative to the best Haar wavelet based
detector from [17]. We studied the influence of various descriptor parameters and concluded that fine-scale gradients,
fine orientation binning, relatively coarse spatial binning,and high-quality local contrast normalization in overlapping
descriptor blocks are all important for good performance.
We also introduced a new and more challenging pedestrian
database, which is publicly available.
Future work: Although our current linear SVM detector isreasonably efficient – processing a 320×240 scale-space image (4000 detection windows) in less than a second – there is
still room for optimization and to further speed up detections
it would be useful to develop a coarse-to-fine or rejectionchain style detector based on HOG descriptors. We are also
working on HOG-based detectors that incorporate motion information using block matching or optical flow fields. Finally, although the current fixed-template-style detector has
proven difficult to beat for fully visible pedestrians, humans
are highly articulated and we believe that including a parts
based model with a greater degree of local spatial invariance

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

Figure 6. Our HOG detectors cue mainly on silhouette contours (especially the head, shoulders and feet). The most active blocks arecentred on the image background just outside the contour. (a) The average gradient image over the training examples. (b) Each “pixel”
shows the maximum positive SVM weight in the block centred on the pixel. (c) Likewise for the negative SVM weights. (d) A test image.
(e) It’s computed R-HOG descriptor. (f,g) The R-HOG descriptor weighted by respectively the positive and the negative SVM weights.

would help to improve the detection results in more generalsituations.
Acknowledgments. This work was supported by the European Union research projects ACE M EDIA and PASCAL. We
thanks Cordelia Schmid for many useful comments. SVMLight [10] provided reliable training of large-scale SVM’s.

References[1] S. Belongie, J. Malik, and J. Puzicha. Matching shapes. The
8th ICCV, Vancouver, Canada, pages 454–461, 2001.
[2] V. de Poortere, J. Cant, B. Van den Bosch, J. dePrins, F. Fransens, and L. Van Gool. Efficient pedestrian detection: a test case for svm based categorization.
Workshop on Cognitive Vision, 2002. Available online:
http://www.vision.ethz.ch/cogvis02/.
[3] P. Felzenszwalb and D. Huttenlocher. Efficient matching of
pictorial structures. CVPR, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, USA, pages 66–75, 2000.
[4] W. T. Freeman and M. Roth. Orientation histograms forhand gesture recognition. Intl. Workshop on Automatic Faceand Gesture- Recognition, IEEE Computer Society, Zurich,
Switzerland, pages 296–301, June 1995.
[5] W. T. Freeman, K. Tanaka, J. Ohta, and K. Kyuma. Computer vision for computer games. 2nd International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, Killington,
VT, USA, pages 100–105, October 1996.
[6] D. M. Gavrila. The visual analysis of human movement: A
survey. CVIU, 73(1):82–98, 1999.
[7] D. M. Gavrila, J. Giebel, and S. Munder. Vision-based pedestrian detection: the protector+ system. Proc. of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Parma, Italy, 2004.
[8] D. M. Gavrila and V. Philomin. Real-time object detection for
smart vehicles. CVPR, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, pages
87–93, 1999.
[9] S. Ioffe and D. A. Forsyth. Probabilistic methods for finding
people. IJCV, 43(1):45–68, 2001.

[10] T. Joachims. Making large-scale svm learning practical. In
B. Schlkopf, C. Burges, and A. Smola, editors, Advances in
Kernel Methods - Support Vector Learning. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.
[11] Y. Ke and R. Sukthankar. Pca-sift: A more distinctive representation for local image descriptors. CVPR, Washington,
DC, USA, pages 66–75, 2004.
[12] D. G. Lowe. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant
keypoints. IJCV, 60(2):91–110, 2004.
[13] R. K. McConnell. Method of and apparatus for pattern recognition, January 1986. U.S. Patent No. 4,567,610.
[14] K. Mikolajczyk and C. Schmid. A performance evaluation of
local descriptors. PAMI, 2004. Accepted.
[15] K. Mikolajczyk and C. Schmid. Scale and affine invariant
interest point detectors. IJCV, 60(1):63–86, 2004.
[16] K. Mikolajczyk, C. Schmid, and A. Zisserman. Human detection based on a probabilistic assembly of robust part detectors.
The 8th ECCV, Prague, Czech Republic, volume I, pages 69–
81, 2004.
[17] A. Mohan, C. Papageorgiou, and T. Poggio. Example-based
object detection in images by components. PAMI, 23(4):349–
361, April 2001.
[18] C. Papageorgiou and T. Poggio. A trainable system for object
detection. IJCV, 38(1):15–33, 2000.
[19] R. Ronfard, C. Schmid, and B. Triggs. Learning to parse pictures of people. The 7th ECCV, Copenhagen, Denmark, volume IV, pages 700–714, 2002.
[20] Henry Schneiderman and Takeo Kanade. Object detection
using the statistics of parts. IJCV, 56(3):151–177, 2004.
[21] Eric L. Schwartz. Spatial mapping in the primate sensory projection: analytic structure and relevance to perception. Biological Cybernetics, 25(4):181–194, 1977.
[22] P. Viola, M. J. Jones, and D. Snow. Detecting pedestrians
using patterns of motion and appearance. The 9th ICCV, Nice,
France, volume 1, pages 734–741, 2003.