Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

On Pre-Trained Image Features and Synthetic Images for Deep Learning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1710.10710 v2 pith:LK4A62ST submitted 2017-10-29 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords imagessyntheticdeeplayersobjecttrainverydetectors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Deep Learning methods usually require huge amounts of training data to perform at their full potential, and often require expensive manual labeling. Using synthetic images is therefore very attractive to train object detectors, as the labeling comes for free, and several approaches have been proposed to combine synthetic and real images for training. In this paper, we show that a simple trick is sufficient to train very effectively modern object detectors with synthetic images only: We freeze the layers responsible for feature extraction to generic layers pre-trained on real images, and train only the remaining layers with plain OpenGL rendering. Our experiments with very recent deep architectures for object recognition (Faster-RCNN, R-FCN, Mask-RCNN) and image feature extractors (InceptionResnet and Resnet) show this simple approach performs surprisingly well.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Drone Detection using Deep Neural Networks Trained on Pure Synthetic Data

    cs.CV 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Faster R-CNN trained on synthetic drone images reached 97.0% AP50 on the real MAV-Vid set, close to 97.8% for a real-data model, but only 49.8% and 67.8% on two other real datasets.

Pith tools