\section{Introduction}

Thermonuclear X-ray bursts (also known as Type-I X-ray bursts) are eruptions in X-rays that
can be observed from neutron star~(NS) low mass X-ray binaries~(LMXBs). These are
triggered in the NS envelope due to unstable thermonuclear burning of hydrogen and helium accreted from a low-mass stellar
companion \citep[e.g.,][]{Woosley76, Schatz98}.
During thermonuclear X-ray bursts, the X-ray luminosity increases many times
of the persistent level \citep[for reviews, see][]{Lewin93,Strohmayer06,Galloway08}.
Within a few tens of seconds $10^{38}-10^{39}$ ergs of energy is released.
We do not discuss herein long bursts and superbursts that are comparatively
more energetic, $10^{40}-10^{42}$ ergs \citep[for details refer.,][]{Zand11}.

It is believed that most of the accreted fuel is burned during a burst.~Therefore,
the atmosphere must be completely replaced before a new burst can ignite \citep[see e.g.,][]{Woosley04,Fisker08}.
X-ray bursts with a recurrence time of hours to days have been
detected from over 100 sources in our Galaxy \footnote{https://www.sron.nl/~jeanz/bursterlist.html}
\citep[see e.g.,][]{Lewin93,Strohmayer06,Galloway08}.
However, bursts having short recurrence times varying between $\sim$~3 to 45~minutes have been observed from
15 sources \citep[see][for details]{Keek10}. \\

A large fraction of X-ray burst studies have been done with the
\textsc{Proportional Counter Array}~(\textsc{PCA}) aboard \textsc{Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer}~(\emph{RXTE})
\citep[see e.g.,][]{Galloway08}.
The shortest recurrence time reported by \citet{Galloway08} in \emph{RXTE}-\textsc{PCA} light curves
is $\sim$~6.4~minutes.~\citet{Linares09} later, reported a short recurrence time of
5.4~minutes using \emph{RXTE} observations of 4U~1636--536.
\citet{Keek10} reported the shortest recurrence time between X-ray bursts
from 4U~1705--44 to be $\sim$~3.8~minutes.
There also exist an exceptional source,~IGR~J17480--2446
that showed large number of recurring X-ray bursts during its outburst in 2010.
During this outburst, X-ray bursts with recurrence time as short as 3.3~minutes were also
observed \citep{Motta11,Linares12}.
A study carried out by \citet{Boirin07} using a long X-ray observation of EXO~0748--676 with the \emph{XMM-Newton} observatory
discovered short recurrence time (8-20~minutes) bursts.
The same authors showed that short recurrence time bursts are less energetic compared
to the ``normal'' recurrence times (few hours).
They also found that short recurrence time bursts have
peak temperature lower compared to the ``normal'' recurrence times
bursts and the profiles
of such bursts lack 50~-~100~s long tail.
An extensive study carried out by \citet{Galloway08} using \emph{RXTE}
data of 48 accreting neutron stars revealed that the short recurrence time bursts in many other sources also showed a behaviour
that is similar to that observed by \citet{Boirin07}. \\

Several possibilities have been discussed to explain short recurrence time
X-ray bursts. For instance, \citet{Fisker04}
 suggested a waiting point in the chain of nuclear reaction network. Very recently \citet{Keek17}
proposed an alternative model that show that
there are left overs of the accreted material after the previous X-ray event
and these are transported by convection to the ignition depth, producing short recurrence time burst.  \\

The Large Area X-ray Proportional Counter (\textsc{LAXPC}) instrument on-board the Indian
multi-wavelength mission \emph{AstroSat} has timing capabilities similar to that of \textsc{PCA}
aboard \emph{RXTE} but has a larger effective area at higher energies (see next section for details).
\citet{Verdhan17} and \citet{Sudip18} reported detections of thermonuclear X-ray bursts
in the LMXB 4U~1728--34.~These authors also showed the presence of burst oscillations during the X-ray burst. \\

4U~1636-536, an extraordinary~(most luminous) atoll source \citep{Hasinger89}
which exhibits a wide variety of X-ray bursts such as double-peaked
X-ray bursts \citep{Sztajno85,Sudip06b}, triple-peaked X-ray bursts \citep{Van86,Zhang09},
superbursts \citep{Wijnands01,Kuulkers04}, short recurrence time bursts \citep{Keek10}
was observed with \textsc{LAXPC} as a part of the performance verification.
In this work, we report results obtained from the observations
of 4U~1636--536 with the \textsc{LAXPC} instrument.~We found a total of seven thermonuclear X-ray bursts
in these observations of 4U~1636--536 and in particular, we observed the presence of short recurrence time bursts
(a rare triplet). We also present the results obtained from the time-resolved spectroscopy
performed during X-ray bursts. This is a technique which is often
 employed for the measurement of neutron star parameters
 such as its radius \citep[see e.g.,][for details]{Lewin93,Galloway08,Sudip10}.

\section{Observations}
\subsection{\emph{AstroSat}-\textsc{LAXPC}}

\emph{AstroSat} is the first Indian multi-wavelength astronomical satellite
launched on September 28, 2015. It has five instruments on-board
\citep{Agrawal06, Paul13}.~Large Area X-ray Proportional Counter~(LAXPC)
is one of the primary instruments aboard.
\textsc{LAXPC} consists of three identical proportional counters with a total
effective area of $\sim$6000~$cm^2$ at 15~keV.
The \textsc{LAXPC} detectors
have a collimator with a field of view of about $1^{\circ} \times 1^{\circ}$.
Each \textsc{LAXPC} detector independently records the time of arrival of each photon with a time resolution of 10~$\mu$s.
The energy resolution at 30~keV is about 15$\%$,~12$\%$,~11$\%$ for
\textsc{LAXPC10},~\textsc{LAXPC20},~\textsc{LAXPC30} respectively \citep{Yadav16,Antia17}.

The three proportional counters of \textsc{LAXPC} are named as
\textsc{LAXPC10}, \textsc{LAXPC20}, \textsc{LAXPC30}.
\textsc{LAXPC} detectors work in an energy range of 3-80~keV.
Each proportional counter unit has five layers, each with
12 detector cells \citep[for details see][]{Yadav16,Antia17}. \\

\subsection{Data}

\textsc{LAXPC} data was collected in two different modes:
Broad Band Counting~(BBC) and Event Analysis mode~(EA).
Data collected in the event mode of \textsc{LAXPC}
contains information about the time, anodeID and Pulse Height~(PHA)
of each event.~Therefore, we have used
EA mode data for the timing and spectral analysis.
As a part of the performance verification,
\emph{AstroSat} observed thermonuclear X-ray burst source 4U~1636--536
covering 22 orbits during 15-16 February 2016.~Observation details
are given in Table~\ref{obs}.

\begin{table}
\caption{\textsc{LAXPC} observations details of 4U~1636--536 starting from MJD~57433.25.
 In this \textsc{LAXPC} observation, other than the data gaps due to satellite passage through the
 SAA region and occultation of the source by
 the Earth, there was some additional data gap in orbit no 02092, around 90,000 seconds (Figure 2).}
\begin{tabular}{|c c c c|}
 \hline
 Orbit~Number   & On-Source Exposure~(s)   \\ [0.45ex]
 \hline\hline
 02078  & 1925    \\
 02079 &  2769    \\
 02080 &  2764   \\
 02081 &  2776    \\
 02082 &  2771   \\
 02083 &  2764    \\
 02084 &  2392     \\
 02085 &  2815     \\
 02086 &  3239    \\
 02087 &  3662   \\
 02088 &  3851   \\
 02089 &  3741    \\
 02090 &  3303   \\
 02091 &  2779  \\
 02092 &  736    \\
 02093 &  2357    \\
 02094 &  2394    \\
 02095 &  2737     \\
 02096 &  2739  \\
 02097 &  2733    \\
 02098 &  2436 \\
 02099 &  2862  \\ [0.9ex]

 \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{obs}
\end{table}

\section{Results}
\subsection{Light Curves}

\begin{figure*}
\begin{multicols}{2}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in,width=2.1\columnwidth]{fig1.ps}
\end{multicols}{2}
\caption{This plot highlights the spectral state of the source during the \textsc{LAXPC} observation using Swift-BAT light curve in 15-50~keV band.~Thick bold line
indicates the time of the \textsc{LAXPC} observation~(around 57433~MJD).~This figure shows that \textsc{LAXPC} observation was made during the hard state of 4U~1636--536.}
\label{BAT}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
\begin{multicols}{2}
\includegraphics[height=2\columnwidth,width=1.5\columnwidth,angle=270]{fig2.ps}
\end{multicols}{2}
\caption{3-80~keV light curve created using \textsc{LAXPC} data of 4U~1636--536.
Light curve is binned with a binsize of 1~second.~The arrows indicate the segments of the light curve that show a low frequency QPO.}
\label{LC}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=\columnwidth,angle=270]{fig3.ps}
\caption{3-80~keV light curve created using data of from the three proportional counters of \textsc{LAXPC}.
This plot shows the triplet of X-ray bursts (burst~5, burst~6 and burst~7).
Light curve is binned with a binsize of 1~second.}
\label{Triple}
\end{figure}

The \emph{Swift}/Burst Alert Telescope~(\textsc{BAT})
 is a hard X-ray transient monitor which observes
 $\sim$~88$\%$ of the sky each day and provides
 near real-time coverage of the X-ray sky in the energy range
15-50~keV \citep{Krimm13}.~We have used
\emph{Swift}-\textsc{BAT} light curve of 4U~1636--536
to determine the spectral
state of this source (see Figure~\ref{BAT}).
The \textsc{BAT} light curve of 4U~1636--536 has been binned with a binsize of 1~day.
The \textsc{BAT} light curve of 4U~1636--536 shows
the long-term variability of about 40~days
from 2015 March to 2016 November.
Since \textsc{BAT} is a hard X-ray monitor therefore
the peak of the light curve~(high value of flux in 15-50~keV band)
would suggest the hard spectral state of a source. \\

Figure~\ref{LC} shows 3-80~keV light curve of 4U~1636--536 obtained using the data of \textsc{LAXPC}.
 We plot light curve of each detector separately to demonstrate the identical nature of light curves
in the three detectors of \textsc{LAXPC}.

For creating the light curve of 4U~1636-536 with \textsc{LAXPC},
we have used data from all the layers of all the three proportional
counter units of \textsc{LAXPC}.
Good time intervals~(GTI) based on the following
filtering criteria:~elevation angle from Earth horizon greater than 2 degrees,
Charged Particle Monitor \citep[CPM;][]{Rao17} count rate less than 12~counts~s$^{-1}$ and angle offset less than 0.22 degrees
were used to create the source light curves.
We have used the \textsc{LAXPC} tool
task {\textquoteleft}{\textit{lxplc}}{\textquoteright} for the extraction of light curve.
\textit{lxplc} tool allows selection of events based on layers and energy channels.~We have
used channels ranging from 25-611 of each layer for the extraction of light curves of \textsc{LAXPC10},
channels 27-646 for \textsc{LAXPC30} while we have used channels 20-484 for the extraction of light curve using
data from \textsc{LAXPC20} (which has lower gain compared to \textsc{LAXPC10}, \textsc{LAXPC30} \citep{Antia17}.
The light curves were binned with a binsize of 1~second.
Light curve of each proportional counter unit consists of a persistent emission separated by data gaps and seven
thermonuclear X-ray bursts.
Data gaps in the observation corresponds to times
during the Earth occultation and the satellite passing through the South Atlantic Anomaly~(SAA) region.
The light curves show nearly a constant total count-rate of about 414 counts/s, 320 counts/s, 327 counts/s
over the entire duration in \textsc{LAXPC10}, \textsc{LAXPC20}, \textsc{LAXPC30} respectively except during the
seven thermonuclear X-ray bursts observed.
The average count-rate in \textsc{LAXPC10},
\textsc{LAXPC20}, \textsc{LAXPC30} measured during the earth occultation is 221 counts/s, 147 counts/s,
137 counts/s respectively, which accounts for most of the background.

The X-ray bursts observed were found
in the data of orbits, viz. 02084, 02087, 02091, 02094 and 02099.
The zoomed-in version of these X-ray bursts in each
\textsc{LAXPC} unit is shown in the Appendix~(Appendix A).
\subsection{A triplet of X-ray Bursts}

We have found
a very rare triplet of X-ray bursts in the light curve (see Figure~\ref{Triple}).
This triplet was seen in the last orbit of the observation.
To estimate the time difference or the wait time
between two X-ray events in a triplet, we followed
the definition of \citet{Boirin07}.~These authors
defined wait time
of a burst as the separation between its peak time and the
peak time of the previous burst.~The wait time between two X-ray bursts namely, burst 1 and
burst 2 of the triplet is $\sim$~7 minutes while the wait time between the last and the second burst
(burst 3 and burst 2 of the triplet) is about 5.5~minutes.

\subsection{Energy-Resolved Burst Profiles}
To observe the energy dependence
of these X-ray bursts, we created light curves during an X-ray burst in five different
narrow energy bands namely, 3-6~keV,~6-12~keV,~12-18~keV,
18-24~keV and 24-30~keV.~The light curves were created using data from all layers
of three counters of \textsc{LAXPC} and with a binsize of 1~second.
Figure~\ref{Burst-En} shows an energy resolved light curve of the
burst~1 seen in the observation of 4U~1636--536.
For the light curve in the 24-30~keV band, the count-rates have been multiplied
by a factor 5 for the visual clarity.~This figures indicates that
bursts are detected upto 30~keV.~We extracted light curves
above 30~keV to investigate the effect of bursts on the light curves at higher energies.
Light curves created in the 30-80~keV band showed the presence of a dip. The dip observed
in the light curves was similar to the some reports of dip observed in hard X-rays during bursts
in other sources
\citep{Maccarone03,Chen13,Kajava17}.
However, dip observed in the \emph{LAXPC} light curves could
also be due to the deadtime effect and to investigate this we
corrected hard X-ray light curve for the total count rate in each detector.
The count rates were scaled by applying appropriate
deadtime correction{\footnote{http://www.rri.res.in/~rripoc/}}.
We observed after applying this correction the dip disappeared (see~Figure~\ref{DTC}).

We also noticed the energy dependence of the burst duration in Figure~\ref{Burst-En}.
Therefore, we measured the energy dependence of the burst duration
in all the seven X-ray bursts.
To measure the exponential decay times during each energy resolved
burst profile we fitted the burst profiles with the QDP model '\textit{burs}'.
We found that there is a gradual decrease
in the decay time with an increase in energy.
Decay time of an X-ray burst varied between $\sim$~28~seconds
and 10~seconds (Figure~\ref{Decay}).
A gradual decrease in the temperature due to cooling of burning ashes
along the burst decay is the cause of observed
energy dependence of burst duration \citep[see e.g.,][]{Degenaar16}.

\subsection{Time-Resolved Spectroscopy}

We observed from the energy-resolved light curves that X-ray bursts are detected only upto 30~keV~(see Figure~\ref{Burst-En}).
In \textsc{LAXPC}, the soft and medium energy X-rays do not reach the bottom layers of the detectors.
Therefore, we have performed time-resolved spectroscopy using
single events from the top layer~(L1,~L2) of each detector of \textsc{LAXPC}.~This was done to
minimize the background.
Each proportional counter has a different energy response file
based on various factors gain, quantum efficiency, energy resolution etc.
The gain of the \textsc{LAXPC} detector may vary from observation
to observation, therefore we first estimated the gain of each detector of \textsc{LAXPC}
using the tool $\textquoteleft$\textit{k-events-spec}'.
 We found that during the entire observations the value of gain compared to ground calibration data was
$\sim$1.0,~$\sim$0.99,~$\sim$1.05 for \textsc{LAXPC10}, \textsc{LAXPC20}, \textsc{LAXPC30} respectively.
Based on all these necessary checks we selected an appropriate response file
needed while performing spectroscopy.~Additional care was taken about the deadtime correction.
We modified the value of $\textquoteleft$\textit{backscal}' keyword
of each time-resolved spectra.
The value was calculated using $1.0/(1.0-N{\times}t)$, where $N$ is the count-rate and $t$ is
measured deadtime~($\sim$~42.3 microseconds).  \\

In order to investigate spectral evolution during X-ray bursts,
the spectra during X-ray bursts were extracted
using a time interval of 1~second.
For each burst, we extracted the spectrum
using 16~seconds of data preceding the burst.
This was subtracted for all burst intervals as the underlying
accretion emission and background. \\

The net burst spectra in 4-20~keV band were fitted in XSPEC \citep{Arnaud96},
using a blackbody model {\textquoteleft}\textsc{BBODYRAD}' consisting
of two parameters, a temperature~($T_{BB}$) and a normalization
($K=(R_{BB}/d_{10})^2$), where $R_{BB}$ is the blackbody radius
and $d_{10}$ is the source distance in units of 10~kpc.~To account
for interstellar extinction, we used the '\textsc{TBABS}' model
component \citep{Wilms00}.~Since Hydrogen column density is not well constrained
in the \textsc{LAXPC} energy band, therefore we fixed $N_H=0.25{\times}10^{22}cm^{-2}$ \citep{Galloway08}.
Figure~\ref{burst-spec} shows an example count-rate
spectrum fitted with a blackbody model attenuated
with an interstellar absorption component.
While performing the spectral fitting we have also added a
systematic error of $1{\%}$ to the time-resolved spectra. \\

In Figure~\ref{Burst1}, we show the best-fit
parameters obtained after performing time-resolved spectroscopy
of the seven bursts.~The top panel of each plot shows count-rate
during an X-ray burst, the second panel shows the temperature
evolution and the third panel shows the blackbody normalization
during each short segment of an X-ray burst.
Flux estimated in 4-20~keV band is shown in the fourth panel
of each plot while the fifth and the sixth panels show
the reduced chi-squared obtained from each spectral
fitting and the radius measured from the values of blackbody
normalization respectively.
We have not applied the correction factors such as color correction factor
for the measurement of a real value of neutron star radius.
The maximum temperature
 observed in an X-ray burst~1 is~$2.47\pm0.05$~keV.
 The emission radii inferred from the blackbody normalization
 spectral fit suggests that it is a Photospheric radius Expansion
 X-ray burst. Nearly same value of maximum temperature
 was also seen in burst~2,~3,~4 and~5.
However,~we notice a lower value of maximum temperature~($\sim$1.7~keV)
  in last two bursts of the triplet.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=\columnwidth,angle=270]{fig4.ps}
\caption{This plot shows a thermonuclear X-ray burst as observed in different energy bands.~We have used data
during burst~1.~This figure shows that the X-ray burst is detected upto 30~keV.}
\label{Burst-En}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig21.ps}
\caption{This plot shows that the dip observed in the energy band of 30-80~keV close to the peak of thermonuclear X-ray burst~(burst~1)
disappears after performing deadtime correction.~The light curves are binned with a binsize of 3~s.}
\label{DTC}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig5.ps}
\caption{This plot shows an exponential decay timescales observed in different energy bands during seven bursts observed
in the \textsc{LAXPC} data of 4U~1636--536.}
\label{Decay}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=\columnwidth,angle=-90]{fig6.ps}
\caption{An example best-fit count-rate spectrum of 4U~1636--536 obtained using the simultaneous spectral
fitting of the data of three detectors of \textsc{LAXPC}.~The lower panel shows
the residuals of the fit, where $\chi$ is defined as ($x_i$-$x_m$)/${\sigma}_i$.
$x_i$ and ${\sigma}_i$ corresponds to the observed counts and associated uncertainity while $x_m$
is the model prediction.}
\label{burst-spec}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[height=3.in,width=6.cm]{fig7.ps}
\includegraphics[height=3.in,width=6.cm]{fig10.ps}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.02\linewidth}
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
 \includegraphics[height=3in,width=6.cm]{fig8.ps}
 \includegraphics[height=3in,width=6.cm]{fig11.ps}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.02\linewidth}
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
 \includegraphics[height=3in,width=6.cm]{fig9.ps}
  \includegraphics[height=3in,width=6.cm]{fig12.ps}
 \end{minipage}
 \hspace{0.02\linewidth}
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
 \includegraphics[height=3in,width=6.cm]{fig13.ps}
\end{minipage}
 \hspace{0.02\linewidth}
\caption{(First Panel)~In the left we show the best-fit parameters obtained after performing time-resolved spectroscopy of burst~1
.We have not applied correction factors to obtain a
real value of the neutron star radius.~Middle:~Best fit parameters obtained after performing time-resolved spectroscopy of burst~2
and the right plot shows the best-fit parameters obtained from the time-resolved spectroscopy of the burst~3.~(Second Panel)~In the left we show the best-fit parameters obtained after performing time-resolved spectroscopy \\
of the burst~4, the plot in the middle
is for the burst~5 while the right plot is for burst~6.  \\
(Third Panel):~Best-fit parameters obtained after performing time-resolved spectroscopy of the burst~7.}
\label{Burst1}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig14.ps}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.05\linewidth}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
 \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig15.ps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Left:~Power density spectrum created using combined light curve from LXP1, LXP2 and LXP3  of orbit -02079.
Light curves were created using data
from the top layers (L1,L2,L3 and L4) and in energy 2.5-25~keV.~There exist a weak QPO-like feature around $\sim$~5~Hz~(Q-value~$\sim$~1.2).~Right:~
We show the PDS covering wide frequency range 1-5000~Hz created
using the light curves of binsize 0.1ms. We have used data of all the detectors of \textsc{LAXPC}
and from all the orbits to obtain this PDS.}
\label{PDS}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Power Density Spectrum}
We have added light curves from all the three detectors of \textsc{LAXPC} to
generate the power density spectra of 4U~1636--536.
To have a high ratio of the source to the background
count rate,~we have used data from the top two layers and restricted
the light curves to 3-25~keV band\footnote{http://www.rri.res.in/$\sim$~rripoc/}.
We searched for both low frequency and high frequency
QPOs in the light curves excluding X-ray bursts.~For the case of low frequency QPOs we
used the light curves binned with a binsize 1~ms
while for the high frequency QPO search we used
light curves having binsize of
0.1~ms.
The light curves were divided into segments each with 8192 bins.
PDS from all the segments were averaged to
produce the final PDS.
Figure~\ref{PDS} shows the presence of a weak low frequency QPO-like feature around 5~Hz
observed in the light curve of one of the orbit~(02079).
However, the Q-factor of this QPO-like feature is low $\sim$~1.2.
 We also searched for the presence of milli-hertz QPOs in the light curves of each orbit separately, however,
we did not find the presence of any such feature in the PDS.
On the right hand side of Figure~\ref{PDS}, we
show the PDS obtained after using light curves from all the orbits.
This covers wide range of frequency 1-5000~Hz.
We also attempted to search for burst oscillations
using light curves during the X-ray bursts,
however, we did not find any burst oscillations
around the previously observed burst oscillation feature at 580~Hz~\citep{Strohmayer02}.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{color-color.ps}
\caption{Color-color diagram of 4U~1636--536 adapted from \citet{Altamirano08b}.
(see text for the details about the energy bands used for the estimation
of soft and hard colors.).
This figure highlights the position
of \textsc{LAXPC} observation of 4U~1636--536 in the color-color diagram.
The observations performed with the \textsc{RXTE} observatory
that showed short recurrence X-ray bursts in this source are also shown.}
\label{color}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{This table shows sources that exhibited series of three X-ray bursts
having recurrence time less than 30 minutes.~We also note that \citet{Boirin07}
reported five X-ray triplets in EXO~0748--676 having wait times of $\sim$12 minutes between the
three bursts of X-ray triplets.}
\begin{tabular}{|c c  |}
 \hline

Source Name & Number of Triplets     \\ [0.45ex]
 \hline\hline
 4U~1608--52$2^a$ &  1    \\
 EXO~1745--24$8^a$ & 1    \\
 2E~1742.9--292$9^a$ & 3 \\
 Rapid~Burste$r^a$ & 4 \\
 4U~1705--4$4^a$ & 1     \\
2S~1742--29$4^b$ & 3   \\
 Aql~X--$1^b$ & 1   \\
 EXO~0748--67$6^c$ &  5             \\[0.9ex]

 \hline
\end{tabular}
\\
{\bf{Notes}}: \\
   \hspace{0.7in} a $\rightarrow$ \citet{Galloway08} \\
     \hspace{0.7in} b $\rightarrow$ \citet{Keek10} \\
     \hspace{0.7in} c $\rightarrow$  \citet{Boirin07} \\

\label{Triplet}

\end{table}

\section{Discussions}
In this work, we have used a long \textsc{LAXPC} observation of 4U~1636--536.
The light curve of 4U~1636--536
revealed the presence of seven X-ray bursts.
Last orbit of the observation
showed a triplet of X-ray bursts.~Triplet of
X-ray bursts are rare events.
Therefore, we searched the literature and found that a total of 19
triplets of X-ray bursts have been observed so far from sources other than 4U~1636--536.
The wait time between the three bursts of these X-ray triplets
is less then 30 minutes~(Table~\ref{Triplet}).~In particular, EXO~0748--676
showed X-ray bursts having
wait times of $\sim$12~minutes between the three bursts of triplets \citep{Boirin07}. \\

\begin{table}
\caption{Triplet of thermonuclear X-ray bursts observed in 4U~1636-536 with \emph{RXTE}~(\textsc{MINBAR} bursts).}
\begin{tabular}{| c c c |}
 \hline
  Observation~ID & Wait Times & Wait Times \\ [0.45ex]
                 & (minutes)  & (minutes)  \\ [0.45ex]
                 & First \& second burst     &  Second \& third burst \\ [0.45ex]
 \hline\hline

  60032-05-07-01 & $\sim$~8.4 & $\sim$~11.6 \\
  93087-01-42-10 &  $\sim$~13.8 & $\sim$~7.4  \\ [0.9ex]

  \hline
\end{tabular}

\label{Triplet-1636}

\end{table}
\subsection{Burst Catalog}

Multi-INstrument Burst ARchive (\textsc{MINBAR}) is a collection of
Type~I bursts that are observed
with different X-ray observatories~(\emph{RXTE},~\emph{BeppoSAX},~\emph{INTEGRAL}), and that are all analyzed in a uniform way.
Currently, it contains information on 6987 Type~I X-ray bursts from 84
burst sources (MINBAR version 0.9)\footnote{http://burst.sci.monash.edu/minbar}.
\textsc{MINBAR} was used to locate \emph{RXTE}-\textsc{PCA} observations of 4U~1636-536
that shows bursts with recurrence times of less than 30~minutes.~Table~\ref{Triplet-1636} shows the X-ray burst
triplets observed in the \emph{RXTE}-\textsc{PCA} light curves and that were not included in \citet{Keek10}.
We found two additional triplet of X-ray bursts in 4U~1636-536 which were not
reported by \citet{Keek10}.
The shortest wait time observed between second and the third burst of a triplet of
X-ray bursts in the \emph{RXTE}-\textsc{PCA} light curves is 7.4~minutes.
However, the shortest wait time observed between
first and the second burst of a triplet in the \textsc{PCA} light curves is $\approx$~8~minutes.
We thus, notice that the \textsc{LAXPC} observation of 4U~1636--536 revealed one of
the shortest triplet among all the known triplet of X-ray bursts~(Table~\ref{Triplet}) and also the
shortest time difference ($\sim$ 5.5 minutes) among the triplet of bursts observed in this source (Table~\ref{Triplet-1636}).
Similar wait time was also reported by \citet{Linares09}
during the doublet of X-ray bursts of 4U~1636--536.
Several models have been proposed to explain the occurence of short recurrence bursts.
Very recently, \citet{Keek17} proposed one-dimensional multi-zone model that reproduce short recurrence bursts
on the observed timescale of minutes.~Their simulations are based on the convective mixing driven by opacity.
The authors proposed that bursts that ignite in a relatively hot neutron star envelope
leave a substantial fraction of unburnt fuel and convective mixing bring this fuel down to the ignition
depth on the observed timescale of minutes.
We compared our observational results with that predicted by \citet{Keek17}.~We observe that although the recurrence
timescales matches with that obtained by \citet{Keek17} but the profile of triple X-ray bursts obtained by these authors do not match
the one observed with \textsc{LAXPC}. The authors predicted intermediate bumps between the X-ray bursts which are caused by
convection, however, we do not seen
such bumps in the light curves.~Moreover, the X-ray burst in the middle of the triplet is much fainter compared to the
other two X-ray bursts in the triplet. This is again not consistent with that predicted by \citet{Keek17}.
\citet{Grebenev17} recently studied short recurrence X-ray bursts using the data of \emph{INTEGRAL}. The authors
found the profile of triple X-ray bursts similar to that has been observed in 4U~1636-536 using the data of \textsc{LAXPC}.
The authors explained these short recurrence bursts based on the model of
a spreading layer of accreting matter over the neutron star surface. However, these authors believe that further refinement
in the model is required for the complete understanding of the existence of triple X-ray bursts.

The large effective area of the \textsc{LAXPC} instrument at
higher energies allowed us to create the energy resolved burst profiles.
We found that bursts were detected upto 30~keV.
Above 30 keV, the raw light curves of \textsc{LAXPC} detectors showed a dip similar to those
reported in some other sources \citep{Maccarone03, Kajava17}.
However, after a deadtime correction,
the hard X-ray light curve during the burst was found to be consistent with the pre-burst emission.
We observe a strong energy dependence of burst decay times.
Decrease in the burst decay times with the increase in energy
suggests the cooling of burning ashes. \\

Time-resolved spectroscopy during X-ray bursts was performed
using spectra with 1~second time interval.~From the time
resolved spectroscopy we found that
the maximum temperature measured is $\sim$ $2.5\pm0.05$~keV. \\

The power density spectral analysis showed the presence of a
QPO around 5~Hz.~The low frequency QPO is observed
in black holes and in accreting neutron stars as well
as in non-pulsating neutron stars. The low frequency QPO covers a wide range
between 0.1 and 50~Hz \citep[see][and references therein]{Altamirano08a}.
Moreover, these authors suggest that the range of low frequency covered
in a source is not related to spin
frequency, angular momentum or luminosity of the
object.
We did not detect any Kilo-hertz QPOs
in this observation of 4U~1636--536.
This again suggests hard spectral state of the source
as high frequency QPOs are often observed during the
soft spectral state of this source \citep{Belloni07}.~This is well supported by the
fact that the \emph{Swift}-\textsc{BAT} light curve suggested
that this observation of 4U~1636--536 was
made near the peak of its light curve in 15-50~keV band. \\

The Atoll sources are known to display three main tracks in the color-color diagram.
These three spectral states are: the extreme island state~(EIS),
the island state~(IS) and the banana branch~(BB) \citep{Hasinger89}.
\citet{Altamirano08c} have described in detail the characteristics of each
of these states.~To confirm the hard~(island)~spectral state
of the present \textsc{LAXPC} observation,
we have used the color-color diagram of 4U~1636--536 (Figure~1 of \citet{Altamirano08b}).
The authors defined soft and hard colors as
the ratio of count-rates in 3.5-6.0~keV / 2.0-3.5~keV
and 9.7-16.0~keV/6.0-9.7~keV respectively.
They also normalized the colors by the corresponding
Crab Nebula color values that are closest in time to
correct for the gain changes as well as for the differences in
the effective area between different proportional counters of \emph{RXTE}.
We have adapted the same technique to estimate the colors of the \textsc{LAXPC}
observation, however, we have used slightly different energy bands for the estimation of colors.
For the soft and the hard colors, we used the ratios of count-rates in 6.0-9.7~keV / 3.0-6.0~keV and
16.0-25.0~keV / 9.7-16.0~keV respectively.
It is quite interesting to notice that the \textsc{LAXPC} observation falls on the island branch
which corresponds to the hard spectral state (see Figure~\ref{color}).
We also noticed that all the previous known short recurrence bursts
from this source \citep[see e.g.,][]{Keek10} lie on the island branch of the color-color diagram.
The observations performed with \emph{RXTE} that exhibit triplets of X-ray bursts~(shown in cyan color in Figure~\ref{color})
also lie close to this observation performed with \textsc{LAXPC}. \\

\citep{Altamirano08b} showed that close to the transition between the island
and the banana state, 4U~1636--536 exhibits millihertz quasi-periodic oscillations~(mHz QPOs)
(see Figures~1 \& 2 of their paper). We did not detect any milli-hertz oscillations
in the power density spectrum created using the \textsc{LAXPC} observation.
The non-detection of mHz QPOs further supports the fact that the current
observation does not lie close to the transition region between the island
and the banana state.
It is proposed that mHz QPOs are the consequence of marginally stable
burning on the neutron star surface \citep{Heger07}.
The non-detection of mHz QPOs in the \textsc{LAXPC} observation
suggests that the accreted fuel is not available for the
stable burning \citep{Altamirano08b}.~This is well supported by the fact that we observe
seven consecutive bursts in almost day long observation. \\

To summarize, we present the results obtained with the study of seven thermonuclear
X-ray bursts observed with \emph{AsroSat}-\textsc{LAXPC}.
The short recurrence time
bursts (a rare triplet) in the LMXB 4U~1636--536 have been detected for the first time with \emph{AsroSat}-\textsc{LAXPC}.
We have shown the energy dependence of burst profiles and have also discussed the caveats
due to the background at higher energies.
This paper along with two other papers on thermonuclear X-ray bursts observed with \textsc{LAXPC} \citep{Verdhan17,Sudip18}
demonstrates the sensitivity of the \textsc{LAXPC} instrument to detect and study thermonuclear X-ray bursts.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
A.B. \& M.P. gratefully acknowledge the Royal Society and SERB~(Science $\&$ Engineering Research Board, India)
for financial support through Newton-Bhabha Fund.
A.B thanks
Dr.~Diego Altamirano for providing the \textsc{RXTE} data for Figure~\ref{color}, and
for useful discussions.~We acknowledge strong support from Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) in various aspect of
\emph{LAXPC} instrument building, testing, software development and mission operation during payload verification phase.
This paper uses preliminary analysis results from the Multi-INstrument Burst ARchive (MINBAR),
 which is supported under the Australian Academy of Science's Scientific Visits to Europe program,
 and the Australian Research Council's Discovery Projects and Future Fellowship funding schemes.
 We also thank Dr.~Laurens Keek for providing information on bursts that were not included in their paper
 \citep{Keek10}.

\newpage


\section{Introduction} \label{sec1:intro}
Object detection requires us to localize all the instances of an object category of interest in a given image. In recent years, significant advances in speed and accuracy have been achieved by detection frameworks based on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) \cite{dai2016r,girshick15fastrcnn,girshick2014rcnn,he2017mask,liu2016ssd,Redmon_2016_CVPR,ren2015faster}. Most of the existing methods require a strongly supervised data set, where each image is labeled with the ground-truth bounding boxes of all the object instances. Given the high cost of obtaining such detailed annotations, researchers have recently started exploring the weakly supervised object detection (WSOD) problem~\cite{Bilen_2016_CVPR,Diba_2017_CVPR,Jie_2017_CVPR,lai2017saliency,Li_2016_CVPR,li2017multiple,Tang_2017_CVPR,Tang_2018_ECCV,yan2017weakly,Zhang_2018_CVPR,Zhang_2018_ECCV,Zhang_2018_CVPR_W2F}. The goal of WSOD is to learn an accurate detector using training samples that are annotated with image-level labels (which indicate the presence of an object category).

Given the wide availability of image-level labels, WSOD offers a cost-effective and highly scalable learning paradigm. However, this comes at the cost of introducing uncertainty in the location of the object instances during training. For example, consider the task of detecting a car. Given a training image annotated to indicate the presence of a car, we are still faced with the challenge of identifying the bounding box for the car.

In order to effectively model uncertainty in weakly supervised learning, Kumar \emph{et al.}~\cite{kumar2012modeling} proposed a probabilistic framework that models two distributions: (i) a conditional distribution, which represents the probability of an output conditioned on the given annotation during training; and (ii) a prediction distribution which represents the probability of an output at test time. The parameters of the two distributions are estimated jointly by minimizing the dissimilarity coefficient~\cite{rao1982diversity}, which measures the distance between any two distributions using a task specific loss function.

The aforementioned dissimilarity coefficient based framework has provided promising results in domains where the conditional distribution is simple to model (that is, consists of terms that depend on a few variables at a time)~\cite{arun2018learning, kumar2012modeling}. However, WSOD presents a more challenging scenario due to the complexity of the underlying conditional distribution. Specifically, given the hundreds or even thousands of bounding box proposals for an image, the annotation constraint imposes a term over all of these bounding box proposals such that at least one of them corresponds to the given image-level label. This leads to a challenging scenario where the distribution is not factorizable over the bounding box proposals. While previous works have approximated this uncertainty as a fully factorized distribution for computational efficiency, we argue that such a choice leads to poor accuracy.

To overcome the difficulty of a complex conditional distribution, we make the key observation that
deep learning relies on stochastic optimization. Therefore, we do not need to explicitly model this complex distribution but simply estimate the distribution using samples. This observation opens the door to the use of state-of-the-art deep generative models such as the Discrete \textsc{Disco} Net~\cite{bouchacourt2017thesis}.

We test the efficacy of our approach on the challenging PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 data sets. To generate the weakly supervised data sets, we use the image-level labels, discarding the bounding box annotations. We achieve $53.6\%$ detection AP on PASCAL VOC 2007 and $49.5\%$ detection AP on PASCAL VOC 2012 data set, significantly improving the state-of-the-art by $1.5\%$ on both data sets.

To summarize, we make the following contributions.
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep=-0.25em
    \item Efficiently model the complex non-factorizable, annotation aware conditional distribution using the deep generative model, the Discrete \textsc{Disco} Net.
    \item Empirically show the importance of modeling the uncertainty in the annotations in a single unified probabilistic learning objective, the dissimilarity coefficient.
    \item State-of-the art performance for the task of WSOD on challenging PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 data sets.
\end{itemize}

\section{Related Work} \label{sec2:relWork}
Conventional methods often treat WSOD as a Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) problem~\cite{dietterich1997solving} by representing each image as a bag of instances (that is, putative bounding boxes)~\cite{bilen2015weakly,cinbis2017weakly,song2014weakly,wang2014weakly,wang2015relaxed}. The learning procedure alternates between training an object classifier and selecting the most confident positive instances. However, these methods are susceptible to poor initialization. To address this, different strategies have been developed, which aim to improve the initialization~\cite{kumar2010self,siva2012defence,siva2011weakly,song2014weakly}, regularize the model with extra cues~\cite{bilen2015weakly,cinbis2017weakly}, or relax the MIL constraint~\cite{wang2015relaxed} to make the objective differentiable. These hard-MIL based methods have demonstrated their effectiveness, specially when CNN features are used to represent object proposals~\cite{cinbis2017weakly}. However, these models are not end to end trainable and also do not explicitly model the uncertainty.

A more interesting line of work is to integrate MIL strategy as deep networks such that they are end to end trainable~\cite{Bilen_2016_CVPR,Diba_2017_CVPR,Ge_2018_CVPR,Tang_2017_CVPR,Tang_2018_ECCV,wang2018collaborative,Zhang_2018_CVPR,Zhang_2018_ECCV,Zhang_2018_CVPR_W2F}. In their work, Bilen \emph{et al.}~\cite{Bilen_2016_CVPR} proposed a smoothed version of MIL that softly labels object proposals instead of choosing the highest scoring ones. Building on this soft-MIL based approach, Diba \emph{et al.}~\cite{Diba_2017_CVPR} integrate the MIL strategy with better bounding box proposals into an end-to-end cascaded deep network. Tang \emph{et al.}~\cite{Tang_2017_CVPR} refine the prediction iteratively through multi-stage instance classifier. Zhang \emph{et al.}~\cite{Zhang_2018_CVPR} add curriculum learning using the MIL framework. As we shall see, our formulation brings out the curriculum learning naturally during training. Other end-to-end trainable frameworks for WSOD employ domain adaptation~\cite{Li_2016_CVPR,song2014weakly}, expectation-maximization algorithm~\cite{Jie_2017_CVPR,yan2017weakly} and saliency based methods~\cite{lai2017saliency}. Although these methods are end to end trainable, they not only model a single distribution for two related tasks, but also model the complex distribution with a fully factorized one. This makes these approach sub-optimal as what we truly want is to model a distribution which enforces at least one bounding box proposals corresponding to the image-level label.

There have been attempts to further improve the performance of the weakly supervised detectors by combining them with the strongly supervised detectors. Typically, the predicted instances from a trained weakly supervised detector are treated as a pseudo-strong label to train a strongly supervised network~\cite{Ge_2018_CVPR,Li_2016_CVPR,Tang_2017_CVPR,Tang_2018_ECCV,Zhang_2018_CVPR,Zhang_2018_ECCV,Zhang_2018_CVPR_W2F}. However, there is only a unidirectional connection between the two detectors. In their work, Wang \emph{ et al.} \cite{wang2018collaborative}  train a weakly and strongly supervised model jointly, in a collaborative manner. This is similar in spirit to ours in using two distributions. However, they model their weakly supervised detector with a fully factorized distribution. The improvement in results reported by these papers advocates the importance of modeling two separate distributions. In this work, we explicitly define the two distributions employed during training and test time and jointly train them by minimizing the dissimilarity coefficient~\cite{rao1982diversity} based objective function.

\section{Model} \label{sec3:model}
\subsection{Notation} \label{ssec3.1:notation}
We denote an input image as ${\bf x} \in \mathbb{R}^{(H \times W \times 3)}$, where $H$ and $W$ are the height and the width of the image respectively. For the sake of simplifying the subsequent description of our approach, we assume that we have extracted $B$ bounding box proposals from each image. In our experiments, we use Selective Search~\cite{uijlings2013selective}. Each bounding box proposal can belong to one of $C+1$ categories from the set $\{0,1,\dots,C\}$, where category $0$ is background, and categories $\{1,\dots,C\}$ are object classes.

We denote an image-level label by ${\bf a} \in \{0, 1\}^C$, where ${\bf a}^{(j)} = 1$ if image ${\bf x}$ contains the $j$-th object.
Furthermore, we denote the unknown bounding box labels by ${\bf y} \in \{0, \dots, C\}^{B}$, where ${\bf y}^{(i)} = j$ if the $i$-th bounding box is of the $j$-th category. A weakly supervised data set $\mathcal{W} = \{({\bf x}_i, {\bf a}_i) | i = 1, \dots, N\}$ contains $N$ pairs of images ${\bf x}_i$ and their corresponding image-level labels ${\bf a}_i$.

\subsection{Probabilistic Modeling} \label{ssec3.2:probModel}
Given a weakly supervised data set $\mathcal{W}$, we wish to learn an object detector that can predict the bounding box labels ${\bf y}$ of a previously unseen image. Due to the uncertainty inherent in this task, we advocate the use of a probabilistic formulation. Following \cite{arun2018learning,kumar2012modeling}, we define two distributions. The first one is the prediction distribution $\Pr_{p}({\bf y} | {\bf x};\boldsymbol{\theta}_p)$, which models the probability of the bounding box labels ${\bf y}$ given an input image ${\bf x}$. Here $\boldsymbol{\theta}_p$ are the parameters of the distribution. As the name suggest, this distribution is used to make the prediction at test time.

In addition to the prediction distribution, we also construct a conditional distribution $\Pr_{c}({\bf y}| {\bf x}, {\bf a}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_{c})$, which models the probability of the bounding box labels ${\bf y}$ given the input image ${\bf x}$ and its image-level annotations ${\bf a}$. Here $\boldsymbol{\theta}_c$ are the parameters of the distribution. The conditional distribution contains additional information, namely the presence of foreground objects in each image. Thus, we can expect it to provide better predictions for the bounding box labels ${\bf y}$. We will use this property during training in order to learn an accurate prediction distribution using the conditional distribution. The details on the modeling of the two distributions are discussed below.

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{images/fig1.png}
\end{center}
   \caption{\emph{The overall architecture. (a) Prediction Network: a standard Fast-RCNN architecture is used to model the prediction net. For an input image, bounding box proposals are generated from selective search~\cite{uijlings2013selective}. Features from each of these proposals are computed by the region of interest (ROI) pooling layers, which are then passed through the classifier and regressor to predict the final bounding box. (b) Conditional Network: a modified Fast-RCNN architecture is used to model the conditional net. For a single input image ${\bf x}$ and three different noise samples $\{{\bf z}_1, {\bf z}_2, {\bf z}_3\}$ (represented as red, green and blue matrix), three different bounding boxes $\{{\bf y}^{(1)}, {\bf y}^{(2)}, {\bf y}^{(3)}\}$ are sampled for the given image-level label (bird in this example). Here the noise filter is concatenated as an extra channel to the final convolutional layer. For both the networks, the initial conv-layers are fixed during training. Best viewed in color.}}
\label{fig1:Arch}
\end{figure*}

\vspace{-2.5mm}
\subsubsection{Prediction Distribution} \label{sssec3.2.1:predDist}
The task of the prediction distribution is to accurately model the probability of the bounding box labels given the input image. Taking inspiration from the supervised models \cite{girshick15fastrcnn,girshick2014rcnn,ren2015faster}, we assume independence between the probability of the output for each bounding box proposal. Therefore, the overall distribution for an image equals the product of the probabilities of each proposal,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1:pred_dist}
	\Pr\nolimits_{p}({\bf y}|{\bf x}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_{p}) = \prod_{i = 1}^{B} \Pr\nolimits_{p}({\bf y}^{(i)}|{\bf x}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_{p}).
\end{equation}
We model this distribution using the Fast-RCNN architecture~\cite{girshick15fastrcnn} (see Figure \ref{fig1:Arch}(a)). As the prediction distribution is specified by a neural network, we henceforth refer to it as the {\em prediction net}. In this setting, the parameters of the distribution $\boldsymbol{\theta}_p$ are the weights of the prediction net.

\vspace{-2.5mm}
\subsubsection{Conditional Distribution} \label{sssec3.2.2:condDist}
Given $B$ bounding box proposals for an image ${\bf x}$ and the image-level label ${\bf a}$, the conditional distribution $\Pr_{c}({\bf y}| {\bf x, a}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_{c})$ models the probability of bounding box labels ${\bf y}$ under the constraint that they are compatible with the annotation ${\bf a}$. Specifically, there exists at least one bounding box $i$ such that ${\bf y}^{(i)} = j$, for every positive image-level label ${\bf a}^{(j)} = 1$.

Note that due to the requirement that the bounding box labels ${\bf y}$ are compatible with the annotation ${\bf a}$, the conditional distribution cannot be trivially decomposed over bounding box proposals. This is in stark contrast to the simple prediction net, which uses a fully factorized distribution. If one were to explicitly model the conditional distribution, then one would be required to compute its partition function during training, which would be prohibitively expensive. To alleviate this computational challenge, we make a key observation that in practice we only need access to a representative set of samples from the conditional distribution. This opens the door to the use of the recently proposed Discrete \textsc{Disco} Net~\cite{bouchacourt2017thesis}. In what follows, we briefly describe Discrete {\sc Disco} Nets while highlighting their applicability to our framework.

\vspace{-2.5mm}
\paragraph{Discrete \textsc{Disco} Net:} Discrete \textsc{Disco} Net~\cite{bouchacourt2017thesis} is a deep probabilistic framework that implicitly represents a  probability distribution over a discrete structured output space. The strength of the framework lies in the fact that it allows us to adapt a pointwise deep network (a network that provides a single pointwise prediction) to a probabilistic one by the introduction of noise.

In the context of our setting, consider the modified Fast-RCNN network in Figure \ref{fig1:Arch}(b) for the conditional distribution. Once again, as we are using a neural network, we will henceforth refer to it as the \emph{conditional net}. The parameters of the conditional distribution $\boldsymbol{\theta}_c$ are the weights of the conditional net. The colored filters in the middle of the network represent the noise that is sampled from a uniform distribution. Each value of the noise filter ${\bf z}_k$ results in a different score function\footnote{The use of score function in this paper should not be confused with the scoring rule theory, which is used to design the learning objective of \textsc{Disco} Nets.} $\mathcal{G}_k({\bf y}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_{c}) \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C}$. Note that we generate $K$ different score functions using $K$ different noise samples. These score functions are then used to sample corresponding bounding box labels $\hat{\bf y}_{c}^{k}$ such that all ground truth labels are present in it. This enables us to generate samples from the underlying distribution encoded by the network parameters. Note that obtaining a single sample is as efficient as a simple forward pass through the network. By placing the filters sufficiently far away from the output layer of the network, we can learn a highly non-linear mapping from the uniform distribution (used to generate the noise filter) to the output distribution (used to generate bounding box labels).

\vspace{-2.5mm}
\paragraph{Inference:} For the input pair $({\bf x}, {\bf z}_k)$, the classification branch of the conditional net outputs a score function $\mathcal{G}_k({\bf y}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_{c})$, which is a $B \times C$ matrix. The $(i,j)$-th element of the matrix, denoted by $\mathcal{G}_{k}^{(i,j)}$, denotes the score of the bounding box $i$ belonging to the category $j$. We will now redefine this score function such that it respects the constraints imposed by the annotation ${\bf a}$. In other words, for each category $j$ such that ${\bf a}^{(j)} =1$ there must exist at least one bounding box $i$ in ${\bf y}$ such that ${\bf y}^{(i)} = j$. The joint score for all the bounding box labels ${\bf y}$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2:redefiningScoreFn}
	S_k({\bf y}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_{c}) = \sum_{i=1}^B \mathcal{G}_{k}({\bf y}^{(i)}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_c) - H_k({\bf y}),
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{align}
\label{eq3:H_condition}
	H_k({\bf y}) =
    		\begin{cases}
            	0
                	& \mathrm{if}\;\forall j \in \{1, \dots, C\}\ \mathrm{s.t.}\ {\bf a}^{(j)}=1,\\
                    &\; \exists i \in \{1, \dots, B\}\ \mathrm{s.t.}\ {\bf y}^{(i)}=j,	\\
                \infty &\; \mathrm{otherwise}.
            \end{cases}
\end{align}
Given the scoring function in equation (\ref{eq2:redefiningScoreFn}), we compute the $k$-th sample as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq4:samplingFromScoringFn}
	\hat{\bf y}_c^k = \argmax_{y \in \mathcal{Y}} S_k({\bf y}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_c).
\end{equation}
Note that in equation (\ref{eq4:samplingFromScoringFn}) the $\argmax$ needs to be computed over the entire output space $\mathcal{Y}$. A na\"ive brute force algorithm for this would be computationally infeasible. However, by using the structure of the higher order term $H_k$, we can design an efficient yet exact algorithm for equation (\ref{eq4:samplingFromScoringFn}).
Specifically,  we assign each bounding box proposal $i$ to its maximum scoring object class. If all the ground truth annotations ${\bf a}$ are not present in the generated bounding box labels, then we sample the bounding box which has the highest score corresponding to the foreground label, otherwise we sample all bounding boxes which satisfies the constraint.

\vspace{-2.5mm}
\section{Learning Objective} \label{sec4:learningObj}
In order to estimate the parameters of the prediction and conditional distribution, $\boldsymbol{\theta}_p$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}_c$, we define a unified probabilistic learning objective based on the dissimilarity coefficient~\cite{rao1982diversity}. To this end, we require a task specific loss function, which we define next.

\vspace{-0.5mm}
\subsection{Task Specific Loss Function} \label{ssec4.1:TaskLoss}
We define a loss function for object detection that decomposes over the bounding box proposals as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq5:taskLoss}
	\Delta({\bf y}_1, {\bf y}_2) = \frac{1}{B} \sum_{i=1}^B \Delta({\bf y}_1^{(i)}, {\bf y}_2^{(i)}).
\end{equation}
Following the standard practice in most modern object detectors \cite{Huang_2017_CVPR}, $\Delta({\bf y}_1^{(i)}, {\bf y}_2^{(i)})$ is further decomposed as a weighted combination of the classification loss and the localization loss. We use $\lambda$ to denote the loss ratio ( ratio of the weight of localization loss to the weight of classification loss). We use a simple $0-1$ loss as our classification loss $\Delta_{cls}$, and $smoothL1$ \cite{girshick15fastrcnn} for our localization loss $\Delta_{loc}$. Formally, the task specific loss is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq6:expandedTaskLoss}
	\Delta({\bf y}_1^{(i)}, {\bf y}_2^{(i)}) = \Delta_{cls}({\bf y}_1^{(i)}, {\bf y}_2^{(i)}) + \lambda  \Delta_{loc}({\bf y}_1^{(i)}, {\bf y}_2^{(i)}).
\end{equation}

\subsection{Objective Function} \label{ssec4.2:ObjFn}
The task of both the prediction distribution and the conditional distribution is to predict the bounding box labels. Moreover, as the conditional distribution utilizes the extra information in the form of the image-level label, it is expected to provide more accurate predictions for the bounding box labels ${\bf y}$. Leveraging on the task similarity between the two distributions, we would like to bring the two distributions close to each other, so that the extra knowledge of the conditional distribution can be transferred to the prediction distribution. Taking inspiration from~\cite{arun2018learning,kumar2012modeling}, we design a joint learning objective that can minimize the dissimilarity coefficient~\cite{rao1982diversity} between the prediction distribution and conditional distribution. In what follows, we briefly describe the concept of dissimilarity coefficient before applying it to our setting.

\vspace{-2.5mm}
\paragraph{Dissimilarity Coefficient:} The dissimilarity coefficient between any two distributions $\Pr_1(\cdot)$ and $\Pr_2(\cdot)$ is determined by measuring their diversities. The diversity of a distribution $\Pr_{1}(\cdot)$ and a distribution $\Pr_{2}(\cdot)$ is defined as the expected difference between their samples, where the difference is measured by a task-specific loss function $\Delta'(\cdot, \cdot)$. Formally, we define the diversity as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq7:DivCoeff}
    \begin{split}
	    DIV_{\Delta'}(\Pr\nolimits_1, \Pr\nolimits_2) =& \mathbb{E}_{{\bf y}_1 \sim \Pr_1(\cdot)} \big[ \mathbb{E}_{{\bf y}_2 \sim \Pr_2(\cdot)} \\
	     & \qquad\qquad\qquad [\Delta'({\bf y}_1, {\bf y}_2) ] \big].
	\end{split}
\end{equation}
If the model correctly brings the two distribution close to each other, we could expect the diversity $DIV_{\Delta'}(\Pr_1, \Pr_2)$ to be small. Using this definition of diversity, the dissimilarity coefficient of $\Pr_{1}$ and $\Pr_{2}$ is given by,
\begin{align}
\label{eq8:discoLoss}
	\begin{split}
		DISC_{\Delta'}(\Pr\nolimits_1, \Pr\nolimits_2) =& DIV_{\Delta'}(\Pr\nolimits_1, \Pr\nolimits_2) \\
		&- \gamma DIV_{\Delta'}(\Pr\nolimits_2, \Pr\nolimits_2) \\
        & - (1-\gamma)DIV_{\Delta'}(\Pr\nolimits_1, \Pr\nolimits_1),
	\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\gamma \in [0, 1]$. In other words, the dissimilarity coefficient between $\Pr_1$ and $\Pr_2$ is the difference between the diversity of $\Pr_1$ and $\Pr_2$, and a convex combination of their self-diversities. The self-diversity terms encourages the samples from each of the two distribution to be diverse, thus better representing the uncertainty of the task. In our experiments, we use $\gamma = 0.5$, which results in a symmetric dissimilarity coefficient between two distributions.

\vspace{-2.5mm}
\paragraph{Learning Objective for Detection:} Given the above definition of dissimilarity coefficient, we can now specify our learning objective for the task specific loss $\Delta$ tuned for object detection (\ref{eq6:expandedTaskLoss}) as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq9:objectiveFn}
	\boldsymbol{\theta}_p^*, \boldsymbol{\theta}_c^* = \argmin_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_p, \boldsymbol{\theta}_c} DISC_{\Delta}(\Pr\nolimits_p(\boldsymbol{\theta}_p), \Pr\nolimits_c(\boldsymbol{\theta}_c)),
\end{equation}
where each of the diversity terms can be derived from equation (\ref{eq7:DivCoeff}). As discussed in Section~\ref{ssec3.2:probModel}, the conditional distribution is difficult to model directly. Therefore, the corresponding diversity terms are computed by stochastic estimators from $K$ samples $\hat{\bf y}_{c}^{k}$ of the conditional net.
Thus, each of the diversity terms can be written as\footnote{Details in Appendix~\ref{ap:learning_objective}}
\begin{dmath}
	DIV_{\Delta}(\Pr\nolimits_p, \Pr\nolimits_c) =  \frac{1}{BK} \sum_{i=1}^B \sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{{\bf y}_p^{(i)}} \Pr\nolimits_p({\bf y}_p^{(i)}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_p)  \Delta({\bf y}_p^{(i)}, \hat{\bf y}_c^{k,(i)}), \label{eq10:crossDiv}
\end{dmath}
\begin{dmath}
    DIV_{\Delta}(\Pr\nolimits_c, \Pr\nolimits_c) = \frac{1}{K(K-1)B} \sum_{\substack{{k,k'=1}\\{k' \neq k}}}^K \sum_{i=1}^B \Delta(\hat{\bf y}_c^{k,(i)}, \hat{\bf y'}_c^{k',(i)}), \label{eq11:selfCondDiv}
\end{dmath}
\begin{dmath}
    DIV_{\Delta}(\Pr\nolimits_p, \Pr\nolimits_p) = \frac{1}{B} \sum_{i=1}^B \sum_{{\bf y}_p^{(i)}} \sum_{{\bf y'}_p^{(i)}} \Pr\nolimits_p({\bf y}_p^{(i)}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_p) \Pr\nolimits_p({\bf y'}_p^{(i)}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_p) \Delta({\bf y}_p^{(i)}, {\bf y'}_p^{(i)}). \label{eq12:selfPredDiv}
\end{dmath}
Here, $DIV_{\Delta}(\Pr\nolimits_p, \Pr\nolimits_c) $ measures the diversity between the prediction net and the conditional net, which is the expected difference between the samples from the two distributions as measured by the task specific loss function $\Delta$. Here $\Pr\nolimits_p$ is explicitly modeled, hence the expectation of its sample can be computed easily. However, as $\Pr\nolimits_c$ is not explicitly modeled, we compute the required expectation by drawing $K$ samples from the distribution. Likewise, $DIV_{\Delta}(\Pr\nolimits_c, \Pr\nolimits_c)$ measures the self diversity of the conditional net. We draw $K$ samples from the distribution to compute the required expectation. Also, the self diversity of the prediction net $DIV_{\Delta}(\Pr\nolimits_p, \Pr\nolimits_p)$ can be exactly computed as $\Pr\nolimits_p$ is explicitly modeled.

\section{Optimization} \label{sec5:Optimization}
As we employ deep neural networks to model the two distributions,  our objective function (\ref{eq9:objectiveFn}) is ideally suited to be minimized by stochastic gradient descent. While it may be possible to compute the gradients of both the networks simultaneously, in this work we use a simple coordinate descent optimization strategy. In more detail, the optimization proceeds by iteratively fixing the prediction network and learning the conditional network, followed by learning the prediction network for fixed conditional network.

The main advantage of using the iterative training strategy is that it results in an approach similar to the fully supervised learning of each network. This in turn allows us to readily use the algorithm developed in Fast-RCNN \cite{girshick15fastrcnn} and Discrete \textsc{Disco} Net \cite{bouchacourt2017thesis}. The outputs from the fixed network are treated as the pseudo ground truth bounding box labels for the other network. Furthermore, the iterative learning strategy also reduces the memory complexity of learning as only one network is trained at a time.

\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{images/fig2.png}
\end{center}
   \caption{\emph{Example of predictions of prediction net and conditional net. For prediction net, the visualization is after taking standard non maximal suppression using standard score threshold = $0.7$. Column 1 and 3 are output of the prediction network while column 2 and 4 are output from the conditional network. Row 1 represents prediction of the two networks after first iteration and row 2 and 3 represents prediction of the two networks after third and sixth (final) iteration respectively. Each object class is represented by different colored bounding box, where green box represents the \emph{car} category and red and blue represents the \emph{bottle} and \emph{dog} category respectively.}}
\label{fig2:VizOfLearningSteps}
\end{figure*}

Figure~\ref{fig2:VizOfLearningSteps} provides the visualization of the performance of the two networks over the different iterations of the iterative learning procedure. The estimated bounding box labels from the prediction net and those sampled from the conditional net for two images are depicted. For conditional net, we superimpose five different samples of bounding box labels. If all the samples agree with each other on bounding box labels, then the bounding boxes will have a high overlap, otherwise they will be scattered across the image. For visualization purposes only, a standard non maximal suppression (NMS) is applied with a score threshold of $0.7$ on the output of the prediction net. However, note that the non maximal suppression is not used during training of the prediction net. The two steps of the iterative algorithm are described below in brief. For completeness, the details are provided in appendix~\ref{ap:optimization}.

\subsection{Optimization over Prediction Distribution} \label{ssec5.1:OptPredNet}
For a fixed set of parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}_c$ of the conditional network, the learning objective of the prediction net corresponds to the following:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq13:OptPredNet}
	\boldsymbol{\theta}_p^* = \argmin_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_p} DIV_{\Delta}(\Pr\nolimits_p, \Pr\nolimits_p) - (1-\gamma)DIV_{\Delta}(\Pr\nolimits_p, \Pr\nolimits_p).
\end{equation}
Note that, due to the use of dissimilarity coefficient, the above objective differs slightly from the one used for Fast-RCNN \cite{girshick15fastrcnn}. However, importantly, it is still differentiable with respect to $\boldsymbol{\theta}_p$. Hence, the prediction net can be directly optimized via stochastic gradient descent.

In order to visualize the optimization of the prediction net, let us consider Figure \ref{fig2:VizOfLearningSteps}. The first two columns show the bounding box labels from the prediction and the conditional nets for an image with single foreground object. As the image has a large foreground object with a clean background, both the prediction and the conditional nets have low uncertainty. This represents an easy case where the prediction net already has a high confidence for the bounding box labels in initial iterations, and therefore has little to gain from the conditional net. As expected, we see only a minor improvement in the predicted bounding box labels of the prediction net over the iterations.

The last two columns show bounding box labels from the prediction and conditional nets for a challenging image. The object \emph{dog} presents moderate difficulty to our algorithm, where initially the prediction net is highly uncertain while the conditional net has low uncertainty. After few iterations, the information present in the conditional net is successfully transferred over to the prediction net. This is shown in last row of the third column where the prediction net does a reasonable job at estimating the bounding boxes.

The second object \emph{bottle} in the image is a difficult example because of its small scale. We observe high uncertainty in both the networks. In such cases the prediction and the conditional nets will reject the bounding box labels having high diversity. Moreover, the uncertainty in the prediction net also decreases by learning from other easier instances of the object present in the data set.

\subsection{Optimization over Conditional Distribution} \label{ssec5.1:OptOverCondNet}
For a fixed set of parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}_p$ of the prediction network, the learning objective for the conditional network corresponds to the following,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq14:OptCondNet}
	\boldsymbol{\theta}_c^* = \argmin_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_c} DIV_{\Delta}(\Pr\nolimits_p, \Pr\nolimits_c) - \gamma DIV_{\Delta}(\Pr\nolimits_c, \Pr\nolimits_c).
\end{equation}
The above objective function is similar to the one used in \cite{bouchacourt2017thesis} for supervised learning of Discrete \textsc{Disco} Nets. As our conditional net employs a sampling procedure over the scoring function $S_k({\bf y}; \boldsymbol{\theta}_c)$, objective~(\ref{eq14:OptCondNet}) is non-differentiable. However, as observed in \cite{bouchacourt2017thesis}, it is possible to compute an unbiased estimate of the gradients using the direct loss minimization technique \cite{hazan2010direct,song2016training}. Therefore, the conditional net can be optimized using stochastic gradient descent. We present the technical details of optimization, which are similar to those in \cite{bouchacourt2017thesis}, in appendix~\ref{ap:optimization}.

In order to visualize the optimization of the conditional net, let us first consider the easy case in Figure \ref{fig2:VizOfLearningSteps} (columns 1-2). Similar to the prediction net in the previous subsection, the uncertainty in the conditional net decreases marginally over the iterations, as it already has high confidence for the bounding box labels. For the challenging objects present in the image of the last two columns, we see that the prediction net has high uncertainty. The improvement in the predictions of the conditional net for these two cases are mainly attributed to the information gained by training on other easier examples of the \emph{dog} and the \emph{bottle} category present in the data set.

\section{Experiments} \label{sec5:experiments}
\subsection{Data set and Evaluation Metrics}
\paragraph{Data set:} We evaluate our method on the challenging PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 data sets~\cite{everingham2010pascal} which have $9,962$ and $22,531$ images respectively for $20$ object categories. These two data sets are divided into the train, val and test sets. Here we choose trainval set of $5011$ images for VOC 2007 and $11,540$ images for VOC 2012 to train our network. The trainval set is further split into $80\%-20\%$ to create new training and validation sets. We use a non-standard training-validation split in order to maximize the number of training images for our networks, while not overfitting our hyper-parameters on the test set. As we focus on weakly supervised detection, only image-level labels are utilized during training.

\vspace{-2.5mm}
\paragraph{Evaluation Metric} We use two metrics to evaluate our detection performance. First we evaluate detection using mean  Average Precision (mAP) on the PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 test sets, following the standard PASCAL VOC protocol~\cite{everingham2010pascal}. Second, we compute CorLoc~\cite{deselaers2012weakly} on the PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 trainval splits. CorLoc is the fraction of positive training images in which we localize an object of the target category correctly. Following~\cite{everingham2010pascal}, a detected bounding box is considered correct if it has at least 0.5 IoU with a ground truth bounding box.

\subsection{Implementation Details}
We use standard Fast-RCNN~\cite{girshick15fastrcnn} to model prediction distribution and a modified Fast-RCNN to model the conditional distribution, as shown in Figure \ref{fig1:Arch}(a). We use the ImageNet pre-trained VGG16 Network~\cite{Simonyan14c} as the base CNN architecture for both our prediction and conditional nets.

The Fast-RCNN architecture is modified by adding a noise filter in its $5^{\mathrm{th}}$ conv-layer as an extra channel as shown in Figure~\ref{fig1:Arch}(b). A $1 \times 1$ filter is used to bring the number of channels back to the original dimensions ($512$ channels). No architectural changes are made for the prediction net. The bounding box proposals required for the Fast-RCNN is obtained from the Selective Search algorithm~\cite{uijlings2013selective}. Results based on the Region Proposal Networks are given in appendix~\ref{ap:implementation_details}.

Following the standard practice followed in Fast-RCNN, we train and test our method on a single scale. We also construct an ensemble by taking the ImageNet pre-trained VGG11 and VGG13 along with VGG16 and report its results. For all our experiments we choose $K=5$ for the conditional net. That is, we sample $5$ bounding boxes corresponding to $5$ noise filters, which are themselves sampled from a uniform distribution. For all other hyper-parameters, we use the same configurations as described in \cite{girshick15fastrcnn}.

\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{|l|cccccccccccccccccccc|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Method} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{aero} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{bike} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{bird} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{boat} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{bottle} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{bus} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{car} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{cat} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{chair} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{cow} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{table} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{dog} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{horse} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mbike} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{pson} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{plant} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{sheep} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{sofa} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{train} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{tv} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{mAP} \\ \hline
WSDDN~\cite{Bilen_2016_CVPR} & 46.4 & 58.3 & 35.5 & 25.9 & 14.0 & 66.7 & 53.0 & 39.2 & 8.9 & 41.8 & 26.6 & 38.6 & 44.7 & 59.0 & 10.8 & 17.3 & 40.7 & 49.6 & 56.9 & 50.8 & 39.3    \\
WSCCN~\cite{Diba_2017_CVPR} & 49.5 & 60.6 & 38.6 & 29.2 & 16.2 & 70.8 & 56.9 & 42.5 & 10.9 & 44.1 & 29.9 & 42.2 & 47.9 & 64.1 & 13.8 & 23.5 & 45.9 & 54.1 & 60.8 & 54.5 & 42.8 \\
k-EM~\cite{yan2017weakly} & 59.8 & 64.6 & 47.8 & 28.8 & 21.4 & 67.7 & 70.3 & 61.2 & 17.2 & 51.5 & 34.0 & 42.3 & 48.8 & 65.9 & 9.3  & 21.1 & 53.6 & 51.4 & 54.7 & 50.7 & 46.1 \\
OICR~\cite{Tang_2017_CVPR} & 65.5 & 67.2 & 47.2 & 21.6 & 22.1 & 68.0 & 68.5 & 35.9 & 5.7 & 63.1 & 49.5 & 30.3 & 64.7 & 66.1 & 13.0 & 25.6 & 50.0 & 57.1 & 60.2 & 59.0 & 47.0 \\
ZLDN~\cite{Zhang_2018_CVPR} & 55.4 & 68.5 & 50.1 & 16.8 & 20.8 & 62.7 & 66.8 & 56.5 & 2.1 & 57.8 & 47.5 & 40.1 & 69.7 & 68.2 & 21.6 & 27.2 & 53.4 & 56.1 & 52.5 & 58.2 & 47.6 \\
CL~\cite{wang2018collaborative} & 61.2 & 66.6 & 48.3 & 26.0 & 15.8 & 66.5 & 65.4 & 53.9 & 24.7 & 61.2 & 46.2 & 53.5 & 48.5 & 66.1 & 12.1 & 22.0 & 49.2 & 53.2 & 66.2 & 59.4 & 48.3 \\
ML-LocNet~\cite{Zhang_2018_ECCV} & 60.8 & 70.6 & 47.8 & 30.2 & 24.8 & 64.9 & 68.4 & 57.9 & 11.0 & 51.3 & 55.5 & 48.1 & 68.7 & 69.5 & 28.3 & 25.2 & 51.3 & 56.5 & 60.0 & 43.1 & 49.7 \\
WS-RPN~\cite{Tang_2018_ECCV} & 63.0 & 69.7 & 40.8 & 11.6 & 27.7 & 70.5 & 74.1 & 58.5 & 10.0 & 66.7 & 60.6 & 34.7 & 75.7 & 70.3 & 25.7 & 26.5 & 55.4 & 56.4 & 55.5 & 54.9 & 50.4 \\
W2F~\cite{Zhang_2018_CVPR_W2F} & 63.5 & 70.1 & 50.5 & 31.9 & 14.4 & 72.0 & 67.8 & 73.7 & 23.3 & 53.4 & 49.4 & 65.9 & 57.2 & 67.2 & 27.6 & 23.8 & 51.8 & 58.7 & 64.0 & 62.3 & 52.4 \\
\hline
Pred Net (VGG) & 66.7 & 69.5 & 52.8 & 31.4 & 24.7 & 74.5 & 74.1 & 67.3 & 14.6 & 53.0 & 46.1 & 52.9 & 69.9 & 70.8 & 18.5 & 28.4 & 54.6 & 60.7 & 67.1 & 60.4 & \textbf{52.9}  \\
Pred Net (Ens) & 67.7 & 70.4 & 52.9 & 31.3 & 26.1 & 75.5 & 73.7 & 68.6 & 14.9 & 54.0 & 47.3 & 53.7 & 70.8 & 70.2 & 19.7 & 29.2 & 54.9 & 61.3 & 67.6 & 61.2 & \textbf{53.6}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Detection average precision ($\%$) for different methods on VOC 2007 test set.}
\label{table1:mAP07}
\end{table*}

\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{|l|cccccccccccccccccccc|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Method} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{aero} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{bike} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{bird} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{boat} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{bottle} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{bus} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{car} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{cat} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{chair} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{cow} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{table} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{dog} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{horse} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mbike} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{pson} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{plant} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{sheep} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{sofa} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{train} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{tv} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{mean} \\ \hline
WSCCN~\cite{Diba_2017_CVPR} &  83.9 & 72.8 & 64.5 & 44.1 & 40.1 & 65.7 & 82.5 & 58.9 & 33.7 & 72.5 & 25.6 & 53.7 & 67.4 & 77.4 & 26.8 & 49.1 & 68.1 & 27.9 & 64.5 & 55.7 & 56.7 \\
WSDDN~\cite{Bilen_2016_CVPR} & 68.9 & 68.7 & 65.2 & 42.5 & 40.6 & 72.6 & 75.2 & 53.7 & 29.7 & 68.1 & 33.5 & 45.6 & 65.9 & 86.1 & 27.5 & 44.9 & 76.0 & 62.4 & 66.3 & 66.8 & 58.0   \\
ZLDN~\cite{Zhang_2018_CVPR} & 74.0 & 77.8 & 65.2 & 37.0 & 46.7 & 75.8 & 83.7 & 58.8 & 17.5 & 73.1 & 49.0 & 51.3 & 76.7 & 87.4 & 30.6 & 47.8 & 75.0 & 62.5 & 64.8 & 68.8 & 61.2 \\
OICR~\cite{Tang_2017_CVPR} & 85.8 & 82.7 & 62.8 & 45.2 & 43.5 & 84.8 & 87.0 & 46.8 & 15.7 & 82.2 & 51.0 & 45.6 & 83.7 & 91.2 & 22.2 & 59.7 & 75.3 & 65.1 & 76.8 & 78.1 & 64.3 \\
CL~\cite{wang2018collaborative} & 85.8 & 80.4 & 73.0 & 42.6 & 36.6 & 79.7 & 82.8 & 66.0 & 34.1 & 78.1 & 36.9 & 68.6 & 72.4 & 91.6 & 22.2 & 51.3 & 79.4 & 63.7 & 74.5 & 74.6 & 64.7 \\
k-EM~\cite{yan2017weakly} & 79.8 & 77.8 & 66.7 & 50.3 & 57.0 & 80.1 & 89.9 & 71.5 & 29.9 & 75.9 & 30.5 & 58.9 & 73.2 & 90.2 & 25.4 & 51.8 & 80.2 & 60.3 & 72.4 & 78.9 & 65.0 \\
WS-RPN~\cite{Tang_2018_ECCV} & 83.8 & 82.7 & 60.7 & 35.1 & 53.8 & 82.7 & 88.6 & 67.4 & 22.0 & 86.3 & 68.8 & 50.9 & 90.8 & 93.6 & 44.0 & 61.2 & 82.5 & 65.9 & 71.1 & 76.7 & 68.4 \\
ML-LocNet~\cite{Zhang_2018_ECCV} &  81.7 & 82.9 & 68.7 & 44.4 & 53.9 & 80.3 & 88.9 & 70.5 & 32.6 & 74.0 & 62.7 & 61.7 & 81.4 & 91.6 & 46.0 & 60.6 & 75.2 & 69.2 & 78.7 & 65.8 & 68.6 \\
W2F~\cite{Zhang_2018_CVPR_W2F} & 85.4 & 87.5 & 62.5 & 54.3 & 35.5 & 85.3 & 86.6 & 82.3 & 39.7 & 82.9 & 49.4 & 76.5 & 74.8 & 90.0 & 46.8 & 53.9 & 84.5 & 68.3 & 79.1 & 79.9 & 70.3 \\
\hline
Pred Net (VGG) & 88.6 & 86.3 & 71.8 & 53.4 & 51.2 & 87.6 & 89.0 & 65.3 & 33.2 & 86.6 & 58.8 & 65.9 & 87.7 & 93.3 & 30.9 & 58.9 & 83.4 & 67.8 & 78.7 & 80.2 & \textbf{70.9} \\
Pred Net (Ens) & 89.2 & 86.7 & 72.2 & 50.9 & 51.8 & 88.3 & 89.5 & 65.6 & 33.6 & 87.4 & 59.7 & 66.4 & 88.5 & 94.6 & 30.4 & 60.2 & 83.8 & 68.9 & 78.9 & 81.3 & \textbf{71.4} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{CorLoc (in \%) for different methods on VOC 2007 trainval set.}
\label{table2:corLoc07}
\end{table*}

\subsection{Results}
In this subsection, we will first compare our method with existing state-of-the-art methods for detection and correct localization tasks on VOC 2007 and 2012 data sets. Then through ablation experiments, see how various terms of our dissimilarity coefficient based objective function contribute towards the accuracy gained. We present further ablation studies in appendix~\ref{ap:experiments}.

\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Method & WSCCN~\cite{Diba_2017_CVPR} & DSL~\cite{Jie_2017_CVPR} & OICR~\cite{Tang_2017_CVPR} & W2F~\cite{Zhang_2018_CVPR_W2F} & PredNet(VGG) & PredNet(Ens) \\
\hline
mAP $\%$ & 37.9 & 38.3 & 42.5 & 47.8 & \textbf{48.4} & \textbf{49.5} \\
CorLoc $\%$ & - & 58.8 & 65.6 & 69.4 & \textbf{69.5} & \textbf{70.2} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Results for different methods on VOC 2012. See appendix~\ref{ap:experiments} for details.}
\label{table3:VOC12}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}

\vspace{-2.5mm}
\subsubsection{Comparison with other methods}
We compare our proposed method with other state-of-the-art weakly supervised methods. The detection average precision (AP) and correct localization (CorLoc) on the PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 data sets are shown in Table~\ref{table1:mAP07}, Table~\ref{table2:corLoc07} and Table~\ref{table3:VOC12} respectively. Compared with the other methods, our proposed framework achieves state-of-the-art performance using a single model.

Compared to the state-of-the-art method, if we were to only train and test Zhang \emph{et al.}~\cite{Zhang_2018_CVPR_W2F} (W2F) using a single scale, where they achieve 49.0\% mAP, we get an improvement of 3.9\%. Our framework trained on a single scale still outperforms W2F by 0.5\% even when they train and test using multiple scales. We approximate the use of multiple scales by ensembling, which gives us a further improvement over the state-of-the-art method by over 1.2\%.

The weakly supervised detector employed in W2F models the annotation constraint using a fully factorized distribution. We argue that our choice of modeling the annotation aware conditional distribution exactly but efficiently, using Discrete \textsc{Disco} Net, gives us the improved performance. Moreover, unlike W2F, our method combines the weakly supervised and the strongly supervised detectors with a single learning objective instead of training them in a non-end-to-end, cascaded fashion. We note that the pseudo-ground-truth excavation (PGE) algorithm proposed in W2F is complementary to our method, and can also be employed over the samples generated from conditional distribution to further improve the accuracy of our method.

\vspace{-3mm}
\subsubsection{Effect of the diversity coefficient terms}
In order to understand the effect of various diversity coefficient terms in our objective (\ref{eq8:discoLoss}), we remove the self-diversity term in one or both of our probabilistic networks ($\Pr_c$ and $\Pr_p$). In order to obtain a single sample from our conditional network, we feed a zero noise vector (denoted by $PW_c$). The prediction network still outputs the probability of each bounding box belonging to each class. However, by removing the self-diversity term, we encourage it to output a peakier distribution (denoted by $PW_p$). Table~\ref{table4:ablation} shows that both the self-diversity terms are important to obtain the maximum accuracy. Relatively speaking, it is more important to include the self-diversity in the conditional network in order to deal with the difficult examples (example, bottle in figure~\ref{fig2:VizOfLearningSteps}). Moreover, this enforces a diverse set of outputs from the conditional network, which helps the prediction network to avoid overfitting the samples during training.

\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Method         & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}$\Pr\nolimits_{p}, \Pr\nolimits_{c}$\\ (proposed)\end{tabular} & $\Pr\nolimits_{p}, PW_c$ & $PW_p, \Pr\nolimits_{c}$ & $PW_p, PW_c$ \\ \hline
Mean AP & 52.9 & 50.1 & 52.6  & 49.5 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Detection Average Precision ($\%$) for various ablative settings on VOC 2007 test set}
\label{table4:ablation}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}

\vspace{-2.5mm}
\section{Discussion}
We presented a novel framework to train an object detector using a weakly supervised data set. Our framework employs a probabilistic objective based on dissimilarity coefficient to model the uncertainty in the location of objects. We show that explicitly modeling the complex non-factorizable conditional distribution is a necessary modeling choice and present an efficient mechanism based on a discrete generative model, the Discrete \textsc{Disco} Nets, to do so. Extensive experiments on the benchmark data sets have shown that our framework successfully transfers the information present in the image-level annotations for the task of object detection.

In future, we would like to investigate the use of active learning, to further benefit our network in terms of the accuracy of the fully supervised annotations. This will help bridge the performance gap between the strongly supervised detectors and detectors trained using low-cost annotations.

\clearpage

{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee}