Advertisement

A hybrid image dataset toward bridging the gap between real and simulation environments for robotics

Annotated desktop objects real and synthetic images dataset: ADORESet
  • Ertugrul BayraktarEmail author
  • Cihat Bora Yigit
  • Pinar Boyraz
Original Paper

Abstract

The primary motivation of computer vision in the robotics field is to obtain a perception level that is as close as possible to human visual system. To achieve this, the inclusion of large datasets is necessary, sometimes involving less-frequent and seemingly irrelevant data to increase the system robustness. To minimize the effort and time in forming such extensive datasets from real world, the preferred method is to utilize simulation environments, replicating real-world conditions as much as possible. Following this solution path, the machine vision problems in robotics (i.e., object detection, recognition, and manipulation) often employ synthetic images in datasets and, however, do not mix them with real-world images. When the systems are trained only using the synthetic images and tested within the simulated world, the tasks requiring object recognition in robotics can be accomplished. However, the systems trained using this procedure cannot be directly used in the real-world experiments or end-user products due to the inconsistencies between real and simulation environments. Therefore, we propose a hybrid image dataset including annotated desktop objects from real and synthetic worlds (ADORESet). This hybrid dataset provides purposeful object categories with a sufficient number of real and synthetic images. ADORESet is composed of colored images with the dimension of \(300\times 300\) pixels within 30 categories. Each class has 2500 real-world images acquired from the wild web and 750 synthetic images that are generated within Gazebo simulation environment. This hybrid dataset enables researchers to implement their own algorithms for both real-world and simulation environment conditions. ADORESet is composed of fully annotated object images. The limits of objects are manually specified, and the bounding box coordinates are provided. The successor objects are also labeled to give statistical information and the likelihood about the relations of the objects within the dataset. To further demonstrate the benefits of this dataset, it is tested in object recognition tasks by fine-tuning the state-of-the-art deep convolutional neural networks such as VGGNet, InceptionV3, ResNet, and Xception. The possible combinations regarding the data types for these models are compared in terms of time, accuracy, and loss values. As a result of the conducted object recognition experiments, training with all-real images yields approximately \(49\%\) validation accuracy for simulation images. When the training is performed with all-synthetic images and validated using all-real images, the accuracy becomes lower than \(10\%\). If the complete ADORESet is employed for training and validation, the hybrid dataset validation accuracy reaches approximately to \(95\%\). This result proves further that including the real and synthetic images together in the training and validation sessions increases the overall system accuracy and reliability.

Keywords

Object dataset Object recognition Deep convolutional neural network Deep learning-based robot vision Synthetic image data Labeled image data 

References

  1. 1.
    Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D.: Amazon’s mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6(1), 3–5 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calli, B., Singh, A., Walsman, A., Srinivasa, S., Abbeel, P., Dollar, A.M.: The ycb object and model set: towards common benchmarks for manipulation research. In: IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics, pp. 510–517. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carlucci, F.M., Russo, P., Caputo, B.: A deep representation for depth images from synthetic data. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017, pp. 1362–1369. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chollet, F.: Xception: deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02357 (2016)
  5. 5.
    Chung, K.L.: On a stochastic approximation method. Ann. Math. Stat. 25(3), 463–483 (1954)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dosovitskiy, A., Fischer, P., Ilg, E., Hausser, P., Hazirbas, C., Golkov, V., van der Smagt, P., Cremers, D., Brox, T.: Flownet: learning optical flow with convolutional networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 2758–2766 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Everingham, M., Van Gool, L., Williams, C.K., Winn, J., Zisserman, A.: The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 88(2), 303–338 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fei-Fei, L., Fergus, R., Perona, P.: Learning generative visual models from few training examples: an incremental bayesian approach tested on 101 object categories. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 106(1), 59–70 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer, P., Dosovitskiy, A., Brox, T.: Descriptor matching with convolutional neural networks: a comparison to sift. arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.5769 (2014)
  10. 10.
    Gaidon, A., Wang, Q., Cabon, Y., Vig, E.: Virtual worlds as proxy for multi-object tracking analysis. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 4340–4349 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Georgakis, G., Mousavian, A., Berg, A.C., Kosecka, J.: Synthesizing training data for object detection in indoor scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.07836 (2017)
  12. 12.
    Giusti, A., Guzzi, J., Cireşan, D.C., He, F.L., Rodríguez, J.P., Fontana, F., Faessler, M., Forster, C., Schmidhuber, J., Di Caro, G., et al.: A machine learning approach to visual perception of forest trails for mobile robots. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 1(2), 661–667 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Griffin, G., Holub, A., Perona, P.: Caltech-256 Object Category Dataset. Technical Report 7694, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gupta, A., Vedaldi, A., Zisserman, A.: Synthetic data for text localisation in natural images. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 2315–2324 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 770–778 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson-Roberson, M., Barto, C., Mehta, R., Sridhar, S.N., Rosaen, K., Vasudevan, R.: Driving in the matrix: can virtual worlds replace human-generated annotations for real world tasks? In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kingma, D.P., Ba, J.: Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krizhevsky, A., Hinton, G.: Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images, vol. 1, No. 4. Technical report, University of Toronto, p. 7 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., Hinton, G.E.: Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1097–1105 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G.: Deep learning. Nature 521(7553), 436–444 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levine, S., Finn, C., Darrell, T., Abbeel, P.: End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 17(1), 1334–1373 (2016)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levine, S., Pastor, P., Krizhevsky, A., Quillen, D.: Learning hand-eye coordination for robotic grasping with large-scale data collection. In: International Symposium on Experimental Robotics, pp. 173–184. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lin, T.Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., Dollár, P., Zitnick, C.L.: Microsoft coco: common objects in context. In: European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 740–755. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Milford, M., Shen, C., Lowry, S., Suenderhauf, N., Shirazi, S., Lin, G., Liu, F., Pepperell, E., Lerma, C., Upcroft, B., et al.: Sequence searching with deep-learnt depth for condition-and viewpoint-invariant route-based place recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pp. 18–25 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller, G.A.: Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Commun. ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ødegaard, N., Knapskog, A.O., Cochin, C., Louvigne, J.C.: Classification of ships using real and simulated data in a convolutional neural network. In: Radar Conference (RadarConf), 2016 IEEE, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oquab, M., Bottou, L., Laptev, I., Sivic, J.: Learning and transferring mid-level image representations using convolutional neural networks. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2014, pp. 1717–1724. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peng, X., Sun, B., Ali, K., Saenko, K.: Learning deep object detectors from 3D models. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2015, pp. 1278–1286. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ros, G., Sellart, L., Materzynska, J., Vazquez, D., Lopez, A.M.: The synthia dataset: a large collection of synthetic images for semantic segmentation of urban scenes. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., Berg, A.C., Fei-Fei, L.: Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. Int. J. Comput. Vis. (IJCV) 115(3), 211–252 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Russell, B.C., Torralba, A., Murphy, K.P., Freeman, W.T.: Labelme: a database and web-based tool for image annotation. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 77(1), 157–173 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shrivastava, A., Pfister, T., Tuzel, O., Susskind, J., Wang, W., Webb, R.: Learning from simulated and unsupervised images through adversarial training. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), vol. 3, p. 6 (2017)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simonyan, K., Zisserman, A.: Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. CoRR (2014). (abs/1409.1556) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., Wojna, Z.: Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2818–2826 (2016)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Torralba, A., Fergus, R., Freeman, W.T.: 80 million tiny images: a large data set for nonparametric object and scene recognition. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 30(11), 1958–1970 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tremblay, J., Prakash, A., Acuna, D., Brophy, M., Jampani, V., Anil, C., To, T., Cameracci, E., Boochoon, S., Birchfield, S.: Training deep networks with synthetic data: bridging the reality gap by domain randomization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06516 (2018)
  37. 37.
    Wu, Z., Song, S., Khosla, A., Yu, F., Zhang, L., Tang, X., Xiao, J.: 3D shapenets: a deep representation for volumetric shapes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1912–1920 (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yan, K., Wang, Y., Liang, D., Huang, T., Tian, Y.: Cnn vs. sift for image retrieval: alternative or complementary? In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Multimedia Conference, pp. 407–411. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yosinski, J., Clune, J., Bengio, Y., Lipson, H.: How transferable are features in deep neural networks? In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pp. 3320–3328 (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zeiler, M.D., Fergus, R.: Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In: European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 818–833. Springer, Cham (2014)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zheng, L., Yang, Y., Tian, Q.: SIFT meets CNN: A decade survey of instance retrieval. IEEE. Trans. Pattern. Anal. Mach. Intell. 40(5), 1224–1244 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhou, B., Lapedriza, A., Khosla, A., Oliva, A., Torralba, A.: Places: A 10 million image database for scene recognition. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 40(6), 1252–1264 (2017)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhou, B., Lapedriza, A., Xiao, J., Torralba, A., Oliva, A.: Learning deep features for scene recognition using places database. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 487–495 (2014)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhuo, L., Jiang, L., Zhu, Z., Li, J., Zhang, J., Long, H.: Vehicle classification for large-scale traffic surveillance videos using convolutional neural networks. Mach. Vis. Appl. 28(7), 793–802 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00138-017-0846-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zuo, H., Lang, H., Blasch, E., Ling, H.: Covert photo classification by deep convolutional neural networks. Mach. Vis. Appl. 28(5), 623–634 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00138-017-0859-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Graduate School of Science Engineering and TechnologyIstanbul Technical UniversityMaslak, IstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIstanbul Technical UniversityBeyoglu, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations