Most recent object detection methods rely on a convolutional neural network. They create a feature map by running input data through a feature extraction step. They then add more convolutional layers to output a set of values like so (this set is from YOLO, but other architectures like SSD differ slightly):
pobj: probability of being an object
c1, c2 ... cn: indicating which class the object belongs to
x, y, w, h: bounding box of the object
However, one particular box cannot be multiple objects. As in, wouldn't having a high value for, say, c1 mean that the values for all the others c2 ... cn would be low? So why use different values for c1, c2 ... cn? Couldn't they all be represented by a single value, say 0-1, where each object has a certain range within the 0-1, say 0-0.2 is c1, 0.2-0.4 is c2 and so on...
This would reduce the dimension of the output from NxNx(5+C) (5 for the probability and bounding box, +C one for each class) to NxNx(5+1) (5 same as before and 1 for the class)
Thank you
Short answer, NO! That is almost certainly not an acceptable solution. It sounds like your core question is: Why is a a single value in the range [0,1] not a sufficient, compact output for object classification? As a clarification, I'd say this doesn't really have to do with single-shot detectors; the outputs from 2-stage detectors and most all classification networks follows this same 1D embedding structure. As a secondary clarification, I'd say that many 1-stage networks also don't output pobj in their original implementations (YOLO is the main one that does but Retinanet and I believe SSD does not).
An object's class is a categorical attribute. Assumed within a standard classification problem is that the set of possible classes is flat (i.e. no class is a subclass of any other), mutually exclusive (each example falls into only a single class), and unrelated (not quite the right term here but essentially no class is any more or less related to any other class).
This assumed attribute structure is well represented by an orthonormal encoding vector of the same length as the set of possible attributes. A vector [1,0,0,0] is no more similar to [0,1,0,0] than it is to [0,0,0,1] in this space.
(As an aside, a separate branch of ML problems called multilabel classification removes the mutual exclusivity constrain (so [0,1,1,0] and [0,1,1,1] would both be valid label predictions. In this space class or label combinations COULD be construed as more or less related since they share constituent labels or "basis vectors" in the orthonormal categorical attribute space. But enough digression..)
A single, continuous variable output for class destroys the assumption that all classes are unrelated. In fact, it assumes that the relation between any two classes is exact and quantifiable! What an assumption! Consider attempting to arrange the classes of, let's say, the ImageNet classification task, along a single dimension. Bus and car should be close, no? Let's say 0.1 and 0.2, respectively in our 1D embedding range of [0,1]. Zebra must be far away from them, maybe 0.8. But should be close to zebra fish (0.82)? Is a striped shirt closer to a zebra or a bus? Is the moon more similar to a bicycle or a trumpet? And is a zebra really 5 times more similar to a zebra fish than a bus is to a car? The exercise is immediately, patently absurd. A 1D embedding space for object class is not sufficiently rich to capture the differences between object classes.
Why can't we just place object classes randomly in the continuous range [0,1]? In a theoretical sense nothing is stopping you, but the gradient of the network would become horrendously, unmanageably non-convex and conventional approaches to training the network would fail. Not to mention the network architecture would have to encode extremely non-linear activation functions to predict the extremely hard boundaries between neighboring classes in the 1D space, resulting in a very brittle and non-generalizable model.
From here, the nuanced reader might suggest that in fact, some classes ARE related to one another (i.e. the unrelated assumption of the standard classification problem is not really correct). Bus and car are certainly more related than bus and trumpet, no? Without devolving into a critique on the limited usefulness of strict ontological categorization of the world, I'll simply suggest that in many cases there is an information embedding that strikes a middle ground. A vast field of work has been devoted to finding embedding spaces that are compact (relative to the exhaustive enumeration of "everything is its own class of 1") but still meaningful. This is the work of principal component analysis and object appearance embedding in deep learning.
Depending on the particular problem, you may be able to take advantage of a more nuanced embedding space better suited towards the final task you hope to accomplish. But in general, canonical deep learning tasks such as classification / detection ignore this nuance in the hopes of designing solutions that are "pretty good" generalized over a large range of problem spaces.