2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-01449-0_38
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Learning Morphological Operators for Depth Completion

Abstract: Abstract. Depth images generated by direct projection of LiDAR point clouds on the image plane suffer from a great level of sparsity which is difficult to interpret by classical computer vision algorithms. We propose a method for completing sparse depth images in a semantically accurate manner by training a novel morphological neural network. Our method approximates morphological operations by Contraharmonic Mean Filter layers which are easily trained in a contemporary deep learning framework. An early fusion … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We compare our unsupervised method (italized, row 3 in the table) against supervised methods on the KITTI depth completion benchmark. We also note that while most supervised methods still do better, our approach surpasses some supervised methods: [5] across all metrics, [6] on MAE, iMAE, and iRMSE metrics and [21] on iMAE. This demonstrates the potential of our method in closing the gap between supervised and unsupervised methods.…”
Section: Appendix VII Kitti Depth Completion Benchmarkmentioning
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We compare our unsupervised method (italized, row 3 in the table) against supervised methods on the KITTI depth completion benchmark. We also note that while most supervised methods still do better, our approach surpasses some supervised methods: [5] across all metrics, [6] on MAE, iMAE, and iRMSE metrics and [21] on iMAE. This demonstrates the potential of our method in closing the gap between supervised and unsupervised methods.…”
Section: Appendix VII Kitti Depth Completion Benchmarkmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…are the best performing method on the unsupervised setting, we note that the benchmark is still dominated by supervised methods. However, our approach shows promise as we surpass some supervised methods: [5] across all metrics, [6] on MAE, iMAE, and iRMSE metrics and [21] on iMAE. We hope that our approach will lay the foundation for the push to close the gap between supervised and unsupervised learning frameworks for the depth completion task.…”
Section: Appendix VII Kitti Depth Completion Benchmarkmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…[7] treats the binary validity map as a confidence map and adapts normalized convo-lution for confidence propagation through layers. [5] implements an approximation of morphological operators using the contra-harmonic mean (CHM) filter [23] and incorporates it as a layer in a U-Net architecture for depth completion. [4] proposes a deep recurrent auto-encoder to mimic the optimization procedure of compressive sensing for depth completion, where the dictionary is embedded in the neural network.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where d j = φ(z j , I j ; w) and L u is the loss defined in Eq. (5). Note that, the above summation term is the instantiation for P raw (I |I, d), which can also be replaced by the SSIM counterpart.…”
Section: Disparity Supervisionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are no depth data for most pixels when the LiDAR map is transformed to be aligned with an RGB camera [1]. Previous studies considered sparse inputs as an inpainting problem using classical image processing methods such as hand-crafted kernels or interpolation [22]- [25]. Recently, many approaches that employ deep learning and CNNs have shown successful results.…”
Section: Related Work a Depth Completionmentioning
confidence: 99%