Cited by 191Advanced Vision and ImagingAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

What Makes Good Synthetic Training Data for Learning Disparity and Optical Flow Estimation?

Open access
Mayer, Nikolaus, Ilg, Eddy, Fischer, Philipp, Hazirbas, Caner, Cremers, Daniel, Dosovitskiy, Alexey, Brox, Thomas·2018·International Journal of Computer Vision

Abstract

The finding that very large networks can be trained efficiently and reliably has led to a paradigm shift in computer vision from engineered solutions to learning formulations. As a result, the research challenge shifts from devising algorithms to creating suitable and abundant training data for supervised learning. How to efficiently create such training data? The dominant data acquisition method in visual recognition is based on web data and manual annotation. Yet, for many computer vision problems, such as stereo or optical flow estimation, this approach is not feasible because humans cannot manually enter a pixel-accurate flow field. In this paper, we promote the use of synthetically generated data for the purpose of training deep networks on such tasks. We suggest multiple ways to generate such data and evaluate the influence of dataset properties on the performance and generalization properties of the resulting networks. We also demonstrate the benefit of learning schedules that use different types of data at selected stages of the training process.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper analyzes what properties of synthetic training data matter for deep optical flow and disparity networks, using procedurally generated and manually modeled datasets. It finds that diversity and learning schedules matter more than realism, and that modeling camera artifacts can improve real-data performance.

Key findings

  • Training on 22k FlyingChairs samples outperformed training on 908 Sintel samples and on the more sophisticated FlyingThings3D and Monkaa datasets on Sintel/KITTI/FlyingChairs (e.g., Sintel EPE 5.73 vs 6.42, 6.64, and 8.47, respectively).
  • Sequential training FlyingChairs → FlyingThings3D gave the best Sintel train clean EPE of 4.05 under S_fine, better than a 1:1 mixture (4.25) or the reverse order (4.60), showing that simpler data first helps.
  • Realistic lighting was not necessary: a network trained with static lighting achieved 4.16 on Sintel vs 4.22 for dynamic lighting and 4.41 for shadeless; dynamic lighting could confuse the network on non-dynamically lit test objects.
  • Modeling camera artifacts helped: Bayer-interpolation degradation improved the KITTI 2015 score by 5% (1.62 to 1.54; KITTI2012 best-case 1.28), and full augmentation yielded 4.60 on Sintel vs 7.66 without augmentation, allowing a ∼100-fold reduction in training data.

Methods

  • Generated synthetic datasets: FlyingChairs (2D affine chairs on Flickr backgrounds), FlyingThings3D (3D Blender rendering with ShapeNet objects and scene flow), Monkaa (open-source movie assets), Driving (KITTI-like), plus ablations on object shape/motion, textures, displacement statistics, lighting, and augmentation.
  • Trained FlowNetC/FlowNet2-c for optical flow and DispNetCorr1D for disparity; typically 600k mini-batch iterations with batch size 4 and the S_short schedule, with S_long/S_fine for multi-dataset schedules.
  • Evaluated average endpoint error (EPE) on Sintel clean, KITTI 2015, and FlyingChairs, and tested camera degradations including lens distortion/blur and Bayer-interpolation artifacts.

Limitations

  • Stated: due to time and compute constraints, not all experiments were run on both optical flow and disparity; the authors assume disparity results likely apply to optical flow and vice versa. The findings may not hold for high-level tasks such as object recognition.
  • Stated: there is no single best general-purpose training dataset; training data can be improved if the target domain is known. Synthetic FlyingThings3D data cannot teach disparity priors for KITTI street scenes.
  • Evident: conclusions are tied to specific architectures (FlowNet/DispNet variants) and benchmarks (Sintel, KITTI 2015, FlyingChairs); KITTI ground truth is sparse and has gaps along object contours, limiting evaluation of boundary details.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11263-018-1082-6

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 22 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    The data does not have to be realistic to make for a good training dataset.

    “For instance, the data does not have to be realistic to make for a good training dataset.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    Enabling more realism in the data via complex lighting does not necessarily help even if the test data is realistically lit.

    “enabling more realism in the data via complex lighting does not necessarily help even if the test data is realistically lit”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    Simulating the flaws of a real camera during training improves network performance on images from such cameras.

    “simulating the flaws of a real camera during training improves network performance on images from such cameras.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § What Makes Good Synthetic Training Data for Learning Disparity and Optical Flow Estimation? · p. 1

    Learning schedules that use different types of data at selected stages of the training process are beneficial.

    “We also demonstrate the benefit of learning schedules that use different types of data at selected stages of the training process.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingreasoning
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    The simplistic 2D FlyingChairs dataset yields good data to start training a network for optical flow estimation.

    “In fact, our simplistic 2D FlyingChairs dataset yields good data to start training a network for optical flow estimation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 38
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    Multistage training on multiple separate datasets works better than either one of the datasets by itself and better than a full mix of both.

    “multistage training on multiple separate datasets works better than not only either one of the datasets by itself, but also than a full mix of both”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 3.1.2 Synthetic 3D data for optical flow, disparity and scene flow: FlyingThings3D · p. 5

    The generated FlyingThings3D scenes are not realistic in the naturalistic sense but allow for a large and diverse dataset.

    “While the generated scenes are by no means realistic in the naturalistic sense of e.g . Sintel, they allow for a large and diverse dataset.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.1.2 Synthetic 3D data for optical flow, disparity and scene flow: FlyingThings3D · p. 5

    FlyingThings3D is a 3D dataset rendered from true 3D models, with ground truth for stereo disparity, optical flow, and full scene flow.

    “we took the randomization approach further and created FlyingThings3D: a 3D dataset rendered from true 3D models, with ground truth for stereo disparity, optical flow, and for the full scene flow task (Mayer et al, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mayer et al, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 3.1.1 2D image pairs for optical flow: FlyingChairs · p. 4

    The resulting FlyingChairs images resemble those from McCane et al (2001), but with thousands of randomized scenes instead of a few manually created ones.

    “The resulting images resemble those from McCane et al (2001) ( cf. Fig. 1), yet with the crucial difference that there are thousands of randomized scenes instead of a few manually created ones.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McCane et al (2001) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 3.2.1 Monkaa · p. 6

    The Monkaa dataset contains articulated non-rigid motion of animals and extremely complex fur.

    “Contrary to the datasets mentioned above, Monkaa contains articulated non-rigid motion of animals and extremely complex fur.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    The Sintel training set consists of 1041 image pairs, which is sufficient to train a network but not a very powerful one.

    “Still, the dataset is small by deep learning standards: The training set consists of 1041 image pairs - which is sufficient to train a network, but not a very powerful one, as we show in this paper.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.2.2 Textures · p. 11

    Flickr textures generalize best to new datasets and yield the best results on Sintel.

    “Table 4 shows that the Flickr textures generalize best to new datasets. In particular, they yield the best results on the Sintel dataset.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.2.1 Object shape and motion · p. 10

    Nonrigid deformations help on Sintel and KITTI, but not on the rigid FlyingChairs.

    “Nonrigid deformations help on Sintel and KITTI, but not on the rigid FlyingChairs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5.2.1 Object shape and motion · p. 10

    Adding rotation motion yields the biggest improvement on FlyingChairs, which is also the test set with the strongest object rotation.

    “The observations can be explained by looking at the types of object motion present in each test dataset: adding rotation motion yields the biggest improvement on FlyingChairs which is also the testset with the strongest object rotation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given
    § 5.2.6 Amount of training data · p. 14

    More data is always better.

    “while more data is indeed always better”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: It is generally accepted that more training data leads to better results in supervised training.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 3.2.2 Driving · p. 6

    Fine-tuning on the Driving dataset teaches a network useful priors and largely improves performance on KITTI compared to training on data without such priors.

    “The experiments in this paper confirm the intuition that fine-tuning on this data should teach a network useful priors, e.g . a flat road surface at the bottom, and thus largely improve the performance on KITTI compared to training on data without such priors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.3 Learning schedules with multiple datasets · p. 14

    FlyingThings3D performs worse than FlyingChairs in the 40-160 pixel displacement range despite displacements in that range being well represented.

    “although displacements between 40 and 160 pixels are well represented in FlyingThings3D, it still performs worse than FlyingChairs in that displacement range.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5.2.6 Amount of training data · p. 14

    Best results are achieved when using both augmentation and as much raw data as possible.

    “we achieved the best results when using both augmentation and as much raw data as possible.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5.2.1 Object shape and motion · p. 10

    The effect of training with nonrigid 2D deformations is noticeable in Sintel and strongest in KITTI.

    “the effect of training with this is noticeable in Sintel, and strongest in KITTI.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5.2.5 Data augmentation · p. 14

    Color changes between frames always introduce new data because the unaugmented dataset does not contain this effect, and applying the same color augmentation to both frames does not change this.

    “Contrary to this, color changes between frames always introduce new data: the unaugmented dataset does not contain this effect, and applying the same color augmentation to both frames does not change this.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.2.3 Displacement statistics · p. 12

    The FlyingThings3D dataset was not tuned to match any specific histogram and contains relatively few small displacements.

    “The FlyingThings3D dataset was not tuned to match any specific histogram and contains relatively few small displacements.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.2.1 Object shape and motion · p. 9

    Adding only rotations does not lead to much better scores and even decreases the score on KITTI, while adding scaling motions on top yields a large improvement.

    “While adding only rotations does not lead to much better scores and even decreases the score on KITTI, adding scaling motions on top yields a large improvement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.2.4 Lighting · p. 13

    A network trained on static lighting cannot exploit dynamic lighting features, but performs best on Sintel whose realistic lighting setup generates both static and dynamic effects.

    “A network trained on static lighting cannot exploit dynamic lighting features, but performs best on Sintel whose realistic lighting setup generates both 'static' and 'dynamic' effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5.2.5 Data augmentation · p. 14

    Additional geometry augmentation between the frames of a sample is an exception; it does not improve performance.

    “The notable exception is additional geometry augmentation between the frames of a sample.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.2.3 Displacement statistics · p. 11

    Using the same displacement statistics as Sintel leads to the best results, whereas large deviations from these statistics lead to a large drop in performance.

    “Using the same displacement statistics as Sintel (denoted as 'Sintel-like') leads to the best results, whereas large deviations from these statistics lead to a large drop in performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.4.2 Bayer-interpolation artifacts · p. 17

    A difference image between the disparity estimates of our two synthetic-data networks reveals that most changes occur at object boundaries, and the highlighted crops are located in an image region for which there is no ground truth at all.

    “A difference image between the disparity estimates of our two synthetic-data networks reveals that most changes actually occur at object boundaries, and the highlighted crops are located in an image region for which there is no ground truth at all.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.1.1 2D image pairs for optical flow: FlyingChairs · p. 4

    To learn optical flow estimation, any image pair with computable pixelwise ground truth displacements can serve as training data.

    “This means that to learn this task, any image pair with computable pixelwise ground truth displacements can serve as training data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 3 Synthetic Data · p. 4

    Creating photo-realistic image data is not trivial, and it is not obvious which aspects of the real world are relevant and must be modeled.

    “The difficulties are that creating photo-realistic image data is not trivial, and that it is not obvious which aspects of the real world are relevant and must be modeled (these problems arise because we are unable to perfectly simulate the real world).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3 Synthetic Data · p. 4

    Starting off with a simple general scene and combining it with randomly sampled dynamic elements can yield datasets that are abstract but powerful and potentially of unlimited size.

    “Using our randomized 2D and 3D datasets as examples, we first discuss how starting off with a simple general scene and combining it with randomly sampled dynamic elements can yield datasets that are abstract but powerful and potentially of unlimited size.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.1.2 Synthetic 3D data for optical flow, disparity and scene flow: FlyingThings3D · p. 5

    The 3D setting with combined object and camera motions allows for complex object flows and scene configurations.

    “This 3D setting with combined object and camera motions allows for complex object flows and scene configurations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.1.2 Synthetic 3D data for optical flow, disparity and scene flow: FlyingThings3D · p. 5

    The FlyingThings3D dataset combines sophisticated 3D rendering with procedural generation of scenes, allowing for arbitrary amounts of data without manual effort.

    “The FlyingThings3D dataset combines sophisticated 3D rendering with the procedural generation of scenes which allows for arbitrary amounts of data without manual effort.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    Sintel provides ground truth for optical flow, disparities and occlusion areas, and has been largely adopted as a serious benchmark dataset despite its synthetic nature.

    “Sintel provides ground truth for optical flow, disparities and occlusion areas, and has been largely adopted as a serious benchmark dataset despite its synthetic nature.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Butler et al, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning
    § 3 Synthetic Data · p. 4

    The key idea of synthetic data is that we have perfect knowledge and control of the virtual world, allowing us to produce perfect ground truth annotations along with the images.

    “The key idea is that we have perfect knowledge and control of the virtual 'world' from which we create our image data, and that we are thus able to produce perfect ground truth annotations along with the images.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    The MPI-Sintel dataset demonstrated the feasibility of using existing data from an open source movie to render videos together with the desired ground truth.

    “The MPI-Sintel dataset demonstrated the feasibility of using existing data from an open source movie to render videos together with the desired ground truth (Butler et al, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Butler et al, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.3 Learning schedules with multiple datasets · p. 14

    A possible reason is that the simpler FlyingChairs dataset helps the network learn the general concept of finding correspondences without developing possibly confusing priors for 3D motion too early.

    “A reason might be that the simpler FlyingChairs dataset helps the network learn the general concept of finding correspondences without developing possibly confusing priors for 3D motion too early.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.2 What makes a good training dataset? · p. 9

    The disparity results are presumably valid for optical flow as well, just as the optical flow results can likely be applied to disparity estimation.

    “Considering how closely related the two tasks are, the disparity results are presumably valid for optical flow as well, just as the optical flow results can likely be applied to disparity estimation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Optical flow and disparity estimation are closely related tasks.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.3 Data augmentation · p. 7

    The use of data augmentation within the training process is more efficient than storing and reading additional data from disk because data can be generated on the fly.

    “While our 2D and 3D datasets offer much more training data than had previously been available, the use of data augmentation within the training process is much more efficient: additional data need not be stored and read from disk during training but can be generated on the fly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The learning algorithm is unable to filter out the small changes introduced by data augmentation and instead perceives the modified data as actual new data with new information.
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 5.2.6 Amount of training data · p. 14

    An augmented existing sample is not the same as a truly new sample; augmentation cannot create new textures or change relative positions within a group of objects.

    “However, an augmented existing sample is not the same as a truly new sample: for example, augmentation as we use it cannot create new textures or change the relative positions within a group of objects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3.3 Data augmentation · p. 7

    Any described geometry augmentation still yields a valid optical flow training sample by composing the computed flow induced by the augmentation operation with the existing flow of the original sample.

    “Note that any of the described geometry augmentations still yields a valid optical flow training sample by simply composing the computed flow induced by the augmentation operation with the existing flow of the original sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 5.4.2 Bayer-interpolation artifacts · p. 16

    Adding these effects helps, but from the qualitative results one might expect a larger difference.

    “This shows that adding these effects helps, but from the qualitative results one might expect a larger difference.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.2.4 Lighting · p. 13

    The dynamic lighting network performs worse on Sintel because Sintel scenes lack a strong directional light source, so objects have 'static' features but not the hard shadows produced in the dynamic setup.

    “if there is no strong directional light source in a Sintel scene, the objects have 'static' features but not the hard shadows produced in our 'dynamic' setup.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 5.4 Synthesizing the defects of real imaging · p. 15

    The OVVV dataset uses a comparable approach, simulating analog video effects to make evaluation data for video surveillance systems more realistic.

    “The OVVV dataset by Taylor et al (2007) uses a comparable approach, simulating analog video effects to make their evaluation data for video surveillance systems more realistic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Taylor et al (2007)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5.2.6 Amount of training data · p. 14

    Augmentation has inherent limits.

    “However, augmentation has inherent limits”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Data augmentation increases the effective size of the training dataset.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 5.2.3 Displacement statistics · p. 11

    Classical optical flow estimation methods are sensitive to displacement magnitude; variational methods have advantages for small displacements, while large displacements require extra treatment and combinatorial techniques.

    “Classical optical flow estimation methods are sensitive to the displacement magnitude. Variational methods (Horn and Schunck, 1981) have clear advantages in case of small displacements, whereas large displacements require extra treatment and the use of additional combinatorial techniques (Brox et al, 2004; Brox and Malik, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Horn and Schunck, 1981 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Brox et al, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Brox and Malik, 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 5.2.4 Lighting · p. 12

    In the real world and realistically lit synthetic data, interaction between light and object surfaces generates reflections, highlights, and shadows, which can violate the photoconsistency assumption and pose a challenge to vision algorithms.

    “In the real world (and in realistically lit synthetic data, such as Sintel), the interaction between light and object surfaces generates reflections, highlights, and shadows. These phenomena pose a challenge to vision algorithms because they can violate the photoconsistency assumption.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given
    § 5.4 Synthesizing the defects of real imaging · p. 15

    The fact that synthetic data was not recorded by a physical camera already makes it different.

    “yet the fact that this synthetic data was not recorded by a physical camera already makes it different.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.3 Data augmentation · p. 7

    Disparity estimation for stereo cameras is a more geometrically constrained setting than optical flow, with fixed camera transformation, so fewer augmentation options are available.

    “However, disparity estimation for stereo cameras is a more geometrically constrained setting than optical flow: the transformation between the two cameras is fixed, and e.g . rotating both views of a sample pair or zooming one view relative to the other would disturb the epipolar geometry. This means that for disparity the setting is more restricted and fewer augmentation options are available.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.2.4 Lighting · p. 13

    The inferiority of the FlyingThings3D-trained network is partially explained by the difficulty of learning to distinguish surface materials.

    “The latter would also partially explain why the FlyingThings3D dataset, which comes with realistic lighting and many object categories, leads to a network that is inferior to one trained on FlyingChairs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Some surfaces in Sintel and in real scenes are Lambertian, others shiny.
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.3 Learning schedules with multiple datasets · p. 14

    Presenting a too sophisticated dataset too early is disadvantageous, but at a later stage it actually helps.

    “From this observation, we conclude that presenting a too sophisticated dataset too early is disadvantageous, but at a later stage it actually helps.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.2.6 Amount of training data · p. 14

    Data augmentation serves purpose (a): if it only replicates effects found in original data, it increases effective size without changing domain, helping if dataset is not big enough.

    “if it only replicates the effects found in the original data, then augmentation increases the effective size of the training set without changing the domain of the data. This can help if the dataset is just not big enough.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Data augmentation increases the effective size of the training dataset.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4.1 Optical Flow Estimation · p. 7

    The FlowNet was the first network trained end-to-end for optical flow estimation.

    “The FlowNet was introduced by Dosovitskiy et al (2015). This network was the first to be trained end-to-end for optical flow estimation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dosovitskiy et al (2015)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.3 Learning schedules with multiple datasets · p. 14

    Not only the content of the data matters, but also the point of time at which it is presented to the network during training.

    “This reveals that not only the content of the data matters, but also the point of time at which it is presented to the network during the training phase.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § 5.2 What makes a good training dataset? · p. 9

    Due to time and compute power constraints, the authors could not evaluate both parts of their experiments suite on both optical flow and disparity estimation.

    “Due to time and compute power constraints, we could not evaluate both parts of our experiments suite on both optical flow and disparity estimation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 5.4 Synthesizing the defects of real imaging · p. 15

    Applying camera artifacts to rendered objects makes augmented-reality objects blend well into real images.

    “As a result, augmented-reality objects blended well into the real images; without this adjustment, the rendered objects stood out because they looked unnaturally clean and clear.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Klein and Murray (2010) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.2.4 Lighting · p. 13

    The dynamic lighting scenario presents the most realistic effects and allows the network to learn about lighting effects, but makes the learning task harder because the network must distinguish materials and ignore specular highlight motion.

    “This scenario presents the most realistic effects. It allows the network to learn about lighting effects, but this also makes the learning task harder: the network must learn to distinguish between different materials and that in case of specular materials, the changing position of a highlight is not supposed to induce optical flow.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5.1 Testing environments · p. 8

    Evaluation on Sintel covers generalization of the network to other synthetic datasets, while KITTI experiments cover generalization to real-world data in the restricted setting of a driving scenario.

    “While the evaluation on Sintel covers the generalization of the network to other synthetic datasets, the KITTI experiments cover the generalization to real-world data in the restricted setting of a driving scenario.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 6 Conclusion · p. 17

    Realistic effects, such as sophisticated lighting models, are not important to learn basic optical flow, but merely induce minor improvements.

    “Realistic effects, such as sophisticated lighting models, are not important to learn basic optical flow, but merely induce minor improvements.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 6 Conclusion · p. 17

    These findings are valid for optical flow (1-3) and disparity estimation (4).

    “According to our evaluation, these findings are valid for optical flow (1-3) and disparity estimation (4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 6 Conclusion · p. 17

    Diversity is important; a network trained on specialized data generalizes worse to other datasets than a network trained on diverse data.

    “(1) Diversity is important. A network trained on specialized data generalizes worse to other datasets than a network trained on diverse data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 6 Conclusion · p. 17

    These findings may not hold for high-level tasks such as object recognition.

    “They may not hold for high-level tasks such as object recognition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
55 of 55
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The learning algorithm is unable to filter out the small changes introduced by data augmentation and instead perceives the modified data as actual new data with new information.

    “It relies on the assumption that the learning algorithm is unable to filter out the small changes and instead perceives the modified data as actual new data with new information.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Optical flow and disparity estimation are closely related tasks.

    “Considering how closely related the two tasks are, the disparity results are presumably valid for optical flow as well, just as the optical flow results can likely be applied to disparity estimation.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The dominant motion in KITTI is scaling motion induced by the scene moving towards the camera.

    “The dominant motion in KITTI is scaling motion induced by the scene moving towards the camera.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Monkaa dataset comprises complex objects and motion patterns but highly repetitive and monotonous textures.

    “explains the poor performance when training a network on the Monkaa dataset, which comprises complex objects and motion patterns, but highly repetitive and monotonous textures.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Real data with good ground truth is not always available in quantity or even possible.

    “real data with good ground truth is not always available in quantity or even possible”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Some surfaces in Sintel and in real scenes are Lambertian, others shiny.

    “Some surfaces in Sintel and in real scenes are Lambertian, others shiny.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The KITTI ground truth is sparse and has gaps along object contours, due to its acquisition method using a laser scanner and the perspective difference between the scanner and the camera.

    “the KITTI ground truth is sparse and has gaps along object contours, due to the nature of its acquisition method using a laser scanner and the perspective difference between the scanner and the camera.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is generally accepted that more training data leads to better results in supervised training.

    “It is generally accepted that more training data leads to better results in supervised training.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Data augmentation increases the effective size of the training dataset.

    “Data augmentation increases the effective size of the training dataset.”
9 of 9

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Replacing auto-masking with a re-implementation of the predictive mask from [76] is worse than using no masking at all.

    “We find that this ablated model is worse than using no masking at all, while our auto-masking improves results in all cases.”

    From Digging Into Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation (2019) · cites this paper as [76]

  • Our models generate higher quality outputs and do not produce holes in the depth maps or border artifacts that can be seen in many existing baselines.

    “We can see that our models generate higher quality outputs and do not produce 'holes' in the depth maps or border artifacts that can be seen in many existing baselines e.g.[76,51,15,73].”

    From Digging Into Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation (2019) · cites this paper as [76]

  • As a baseline we compare against the pose network used by [62], which builds upon [76] with an additional scaling of the translation by the mean of the inverse depth.

    “As a baseline we compare against the pose network used by [62], which builds upon [76] with an additional scaling of the translation by the mean of the inverse depth.”

    From Digging Into Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation (2019) · cites this paper as [76]

  • In [76], the authors independently scale each predicted depth map by the ratio of the median of the ground truth and predicted depth map for each individual test image.

    “In [76], the authors independently scale each predicted depth map by the ratio of the median of the ground truth and predicted depth map -for each individual test im-age.”

    From Digging Into Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation (2019) · cites this paper as [76]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Incorrect EPE difference for 0-10 pixel displacements

    Minor

    In Table 7, 1.46 minus 0.87 is 0.59, not the reported 0.49.

    Reported 0.49 · recomputed 0.59

  • FlyingChairs is not better than Monkaa on every test set

    Minor

    Table 2 reports a lower KITTI2015 error for Monkaa (16.17) than for FlyingChairs (16.23), contradicting the claim that FlyingChairs yields consistently better numbers.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Barron, J. L., Fleet, D. J., & Beauchemin, S. S. (1994). Performance of optical flow techniques. IJCV, 12, 43–77.
  2. Mac Aodha, O., Brostow, G. J., Pollefeys, M. (2010). Segmenting video into classes of algorithm-suitability. In 2010 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR) (pp. 1054–1061). IEEE. · DOI
  3. Mac Aodha, O., Humayun, A., Pollefeys, M., & Brostow, G. J. (2013). Learning a confidence measure for optical flow. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 35(5), 1107–1120. · DOI
  4. Wu, Z., Song, S., Khosla, A., Yu, F., Zhang, L., Tang, X., Xiao, J. (2015) 3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes. In IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mayer, N., Ilg, E., Fischer, P., Hazirbas, C., Cremers, D., Dosovitskiy, A., & Brox, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
Mayer, Nikolaus
Venue
International Journal of Computer Vision
Published
2018-04-02
Volume
126
Issue
9
Pages
942-960
ISSN
  • 0920-5691 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1405
OpenAlex
W2784652921
Cited by
191
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 10
FWCI
13.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Computer Vision (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (VideoLearn)
  • European Research Council (3D Reloaded)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (Trimbot202)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (BR 3815/7-1, CR 250/17-1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Vision and Imaging
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
synthetic training data, optical flow, disparity estimation, stereo vision, data augmentation, generalization, learning rate scheduling, multi-stage training, deep networks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review