Cited by 275Advanced Vision and ImagingRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Hints

Open access
Watson, Jamie, Firman, Michael, Brostow, Gabriel, Turmukhambetov, Daniyar·2019·2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

Abstract

Monocular depth estimators can be trained with various forms of self-supervision from binocular-stereo data to circumvent the need for high-quality laser-scans or other ground-truth data. The disadvantage, however, is that the photometric reprojection losses used with self-supervised learning typically have multiple local minima. These plausible-looking alternatives to ground-truth can restrict what a regression network learns, causing it to predict depth maps of limited quality. As one prominent example, depth discontinuities around thin structures are often incorrectly estimated by current state-of-the-art methods. Here, we study the problem of ambiguous reprojections in depth-prediction from stereo-based self-supervision, and introduce Depth Hints to alleviate their effects. Depth Hints are complementary depth-suggestions obtained from simple off-the-shelf stereo algorithms. These hints enhance an existing photometric loss function, and are used to guide a network to learn better weights. They require no additional data, and are assumed to be right only sometimes. We show that using our Depth Hints gives a substantial boost when training several leading self-supervised-from-stereo models, not just our own. Further, combined with other good practices, we produce state-of-the-art depth predictions on the KITTI benchmark.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/iccv.2019.00225

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • [27] uses a different split of the data, which is not the same as the Eigen split.

    “[27] uses a different split of the data, which is not the same as the Eigen split.”

    From Digging Into Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation (2019) · cites this paper as [27]

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Watson, J., Firman, M., Brostow, G., & Turmukhambetov, D.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Venue
2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2019-10
Pages
2162-2171
OpenAlex
W2973531541
Cited by
275
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 1
FWCI
9.99
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Vision and Imaging
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Robotics and Sensor-Based Localization
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
monocular depth estimation, self-supervised learning, depth discontinuities, thin structures, KITTI dataset

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.

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