3.8 Proceedings Paper

Exploring Geometric Consistency for Monocular 3D Object Detection

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.00173

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the geometric consistency problem in monocular 3D object detection and proposes geometry-aware data augmentation methods to enhance the consistency. The research shows that by using geometric consistency constraints, the proposed augmentation techniques achieve state-of-the-art results in benchmark tests and are suitable for semi-supervised training and cross-dataset generalization.
This paper investigates the geometric consistency for monocular 3D object detection, which suffers from the ill-posed depth estimation. We first conduct a thorough analysis to reveal how existing methods fail to consistently localize objects when different geometric shifts occur. In particular, we design a series of geometric manipulations to diagnose existing detectors and then illustrate their vulnerability to consistently associate the depth with object apparent sizes and positions. To alleviate this issue, we propose four geometry-aware data augmentation approaches to enhance the geometric consistency of the detectors. We first modify some commonly used data augmentation methods for 2D images so that they can maintain geometric consistency in 3D spaces. We demonstrate such modifications are important. In addition, we propose a 3D-specific image perturbation method that employs the camera movement. During the augmentation process, the camera system with the corresponding image is manipulated, while the geometric visual cues for depth recovery are preserved. We show that by using the geometric consistency constraints, the proposed augmentation techniques lead to improvements on the KITTI and nuScenes monocular 3D detection benchmarks with state-of-the-art results. In addition, we demonstrate that the augmentation methods are well suited for semi-supervised training and cross-dataset generalization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据