Object Detection Using Deep CNNs Trained on Synthetic Images

arXiv:1706.06782v2 [] 18 Sep 2017

P. S. Rajpura
Department of Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India 382355
Email:param.rajpura@iitgn.ac.in

H. Bojinov
Innit Inc.
Redwood City, CA 94063,USA
Email:hristo.bojinov@innit.com

Abstract—The need for large annotated image datasets for
training Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) has been a
significant impediment for their adoption in computer vision
applications. We show that with transfer learning an effective
object detector can be trained almost entirely on synthetically
rendered datasets. We apply this strategy for detecting packaged food products clustered in refrigerator scenes. Our CNN
trained only with 4000 synthetic images achieves mean average
precision (mAP) of 24 on a test set with 55 distinct products as
objects of interest and 17 distractor objects. A further increase
of 12% in the mAP is obtained by adding only 400 real images
to these 4000 synthetic images in the training set. A high degree
of photorealism in the synthetic images was not essential in
achieving this performance. We analyze factors like training
data set size and 3D model dictionary size for their influence
on detection performance. Additionally, training strategies like
fine-tuning with selected layers and early stopping which affect
transfer learning from synthetic scenes to real scenes are
explored. Training CNNs with synthetic datasets is a novel
application of high-performance computing and a promising
approach for object detection applications in domains where
there is a dearth of large annotated image data.
Keywords-Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN); Deep
learning; Transfer learning; Synthetic datasets; Object Detection; 3D Rendering

I. I NTRODUCTION
The field of Computer Vision has reached new heights
over the last few years. In the past, methods like DPMs [1],
SIFT [2] and HOG [3] were used for feature extraction,
and linear classifiers were used for making predictions.
Other methods [4] used correspondences between template
images and the scene image. Later works focused on classindependent object proposals [5] using segmentation and
classification using hand crafted features. Today methods
based on Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have achieved
state-of-the-art performance on image classification, object
detection, and segmentation [6], [7]. DNNs been successfully deployed in numerous domains [6], [7]. Convolutional
Neural Networks (CNNs), specifically, have fulfilled the
demand for a robust feature extractor that can generalize
to new types of scenes. CNNs were initially deployed for
image classification [6] and later extended to object detection [8]. The R-CNN approach [8] used object proposals
and features from a pre-trained object classifier. Recently

R. S. Hegde
Department of Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India 382355
Email:hegder@iitgn.ac.in

published works like Faster R-CNN [9] and SSD [10] learn
object proposals and object classification in an end-to-end
fashion.
The availability of large sets of training images has been
a prerequisite for successfully training CNNs [6]. Manual
annotation of images for object detection, however, is a
time-consuming and mechanical task; what is more, in some
applications the cost of capturing images with sufficient
variety is prohibitive. In fact the largest image datasets are
built upon only a few categories for which images can be
feasibly curated (20 categories in PASCAL VOC [11], 80
in COCO [12], and 200 in ImageNet [13]). In applications
where a large set of intra-category objects need to be
detected the option of supervised learning with CNNs is even
tougher as it is practically impossible to collect sufficient
training material.
There have been solutions proposed to reduce annotation
efforts by employing transfer learning or simulating scenes
to generate large image sets. The research community has
proposed multiple approaches for the problem of adapting
vision-based models trained in one domain to a different
domain [14]–[18]. Examples include: re-training a model
in the target domain [19]; adapting the weights of a pretrained model [20]; using pre-trained weights for feature
extraction [21]; and, learning common features between
domains [22].
Attempts to use synthetic data for training CNNs to adapt
in real scenarios have been made in the past. Peng et. al.
used available 3D CAD models, both with and without
texture, and rendered images after varying the projections
and orientations of the objects, evaluating on 20 categories in
the PASCAL VOC 2007 data set [23]. The CNN employed
for their approach used a general object proposal module [8]
which operated independently from the fine-tuned classifier
network. In contrast, Su and coworkers [24] used the rendered 2D images from 3D on varying backgrounds for pose
estimation. Their work also uses an object proposal stage
and limits the objects of interest to a few specific categories
from the PASCAL VOC data set. Georgakis and coworkers [25] propose to learn object detection with synthetic data
generated by object instances being superimposed into real
scenes at different positions, scales, and illumination. They

Figure 1.

Overview of our approach to train object detectors for real images based on synthetic rendered images.

propose the use of existing object recognition data sets such
as BigBird [26] rather than using 3D CAD models. They
limit their synthesized scenes to low-occlusion scenarios
with 11 products in GMU-Kitchens data set. Gupta et. al.
generate a synthetic training set by taking advantage of scene
segmentation to create synthetic training examples, however
the goal is text localization instead of object detection [21].
Tobin et. al. perform domain randomization with low-fidelity
rendered images from 3D meshes, however their objective
is to locate simpler polygon-shaped objects restricted to a
table top in world coordinates [27]. In [28], [29], the Unity
game engine is used to generate RGB-D rendered images
and semantic labels for outdoor and indoor scenes. They
show that by using photo-realistic rendered images the effort
for annotation can be significantly reduced. They combine
synthetic and real data to train models for semantic segmentation, however the network requires depth map information
for semantic segmentation.
None of the existing approaches to training with synthetic
data consider the use of synthetic image datasets for training
a general object detector in a scenario where high intra-class
variance is present along with high clutter or occlusion. Additionally, while previous works have compared the performance using benchmark datasets, the study of cues or hyperparameters involved in transfer learning has not received
sufficient attention. We propose to detect object candidates
in the scene with large intra-class variance compared to an
approach of detecting objects for few specific categories. We
are especially interested in synthetic datasets which do not
require extensive effort towards achieving photorealism. In
this work, we simulate scenes using 3D models and use the
rendered RGB images to train a CNN-based object detector.
We automate the process of rendering and annotating the
2D images with sufficient diversity to train the CNN endto-end and use it for object detection in real scenes. Our
experiments also explore the effects of different parameters
like data set size and 3D model repository size. We also
explore the effects of training strategies like fine-tuning
selective layers and early stopping [30] on transfer learning

from simulation to reality. The rest of this paper is organized
as follows: our methodology is described in section II,
followed by the results we obtain reported in section III,
finally concluding the paper in section IV.
II. M ETHOD
Given a RGB image captured inside a refrigerator, our
goal is to predict a bound-box and the object class category
for each object of interest. In addition, there are few objects
in the scene that need to be neglected. Our approach is
to train a deep CNN with synthetic rendered images from
available 3D models. Overview of the approach is shown in
Figure 1. Our work can be divided into two major parts
namely synthetic image rendering from 3D models and
transfer learning by fine-tuning the deep neural network with
synthetic images.
A. Synthetic Generation of Images from 3D Models
We use an open source 3D graphics software named
Blender. Blender-Python APIs facilitate to load 3D models
and automate the scene rendering. We use Cycles Render
Engine available with Blender since it supports ray-tracing
to render synthetic images. Since all the required annotation
data is available, we use the KITTI [31] format with boundbox co-ordinates, truncation state and occlusion state for
each object in the image.
Real world images have lot of information embedded about the environment, illumination, surface materials,
shapes etc. Since the trained model, at test time must be
able to generalize to the real world images, we take into
consideration the following aspects during generation of
each scenario:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Number of objects
Shape, Texture, and Materials of the objects
Texture and Materials of the refrigerator
Packing pattern of the objects
Position, Orientation of camera
Illumination via light sources

Figure 2.
Overview of the training dataset. a) Snapshots of the few 3D models from the ShapeNet database used for rendering images. We illustrate
the variety in object textures, surface materials and shapes in 3D models used for rendering. b) Rendered non-photo realistic images with with varying
object textures, surface materials and shapes arranged in random, grid and bin packed patterns finally captured from various camera angles with different
illuminations. c) Few real images used to illustrate the difference in real and synthetic images. These images are subset of the real dataset used for
benchmarking performance of model trained with synthetic images.

In order to simulate the scenario, we need 3D models,
their texture information and metadata. Thousands of 3D
CAD models are available online. We choose ShapeNet [32]
database since it provides a large variety of objects of
interest for our application. Among various categories from
ShapeNet like bottles, tins, cans and food items, we selectively add 616 various object models to object repository
(R0 ) for generating scenes. Figure 2a shows few of the
models in R0 . The variety helps randomize the aspect of
shape, texture and materials of the objects. For the refrigerator, we choose a model from Archive3D [33] suitable for
the application. The design of refrigerator remains same for
all the scenarios though the textures and material properties
are dynamically chosen.
For generating training set with rendered images, the
3D scenes need to be distinct. The refrigerator model with
5-25 randomly selected objects from R0 are imported in
each scene. To simulate the cluster of objects packed in
refrigerator like real world scenarios, we use three patterns
namely grid, random and bin packing for 3D models. The
grid places the objects in a particular scene on a refrigerator
tray top at predefined distances. Random placements drop
the objects at random locations on refrigerator tray top.
Bin packing tries to optimize the usage of tray top area
placing objects very close and clustered in the scene to

replicate common scenarios in refrigerator. The light sources
are placed such that illumination is varied in every scene and
the images are not biased to a well lit environment since
refrigerators generally tend to have dim lighting. Multiple
cameras are placed at random location and orientation to
render images from each scene. The refrigerator texture
and material properties are dynamically chosen for every
rendered image. Figure 2b shows few rendered images used
as training set while Figure 2c shows the subset of real world
images used in training.
B. Deep Neural Network Architecture, Training and Evaluation
Figure 3 provides the detailed illustration of network
architecture and work-flow for the training and validation stages. For neural network training we use NVIDIADIGITST M -DetectNet [34] with Caffe [35] library in backend. During training, the RGB images with resolution (in
pixels) 512 x 512 are labelled with standard KITTI [31]
format for object detection. We neglect objects truncated or
highly occluded in the images using appropriate flags in the
ground truth label generated while rendering. The dataset is
later fed into a fully convolutional network (FCN) predicting
coverage map for each detected class. The FCN network
represented concisely in Figure 4 has the same structure

Figure 3. Work-flow for the major steps of the system. a) Using annotated images, the FCN generates a coverage map and bound-box co-ordinates. The
training loss is a weighted sum of coverage and bound-box loss. b) At validation time, coverage map and bound boxes are generated from the FCN.

as GoogLeNet [7] without the data input layers and output
layers. For our experiments, we use pre-trained weights on
ImageNet to initialize the FCN network which has earlier
been helpful for transfer learning [25].

network and ground truth
N
1 X
coverageti − coveragepi
2N i=1

•

Figure 4.
The Fully Convolutional Network architecture used in the
detector. Each bar represents a layer. Convolution layer includes Convolution, ReLU activation and Pooling. Inception Layer includes the module
as described in GoogleNet [7].

The bound-box regressor predicts bound-box corner per
grid square. We train the detector through stochastic gradient
descent with Adam optimizer using standard learning rate
of 1e−3 . The total loss is the weighted summation of the
following losses:
• L2 loss between the coverage map estimated by the

2

(1)

where coveraget is the coverage map extracted from
annotated ground truth and coveragep is the predicted
coverage map while N denoting the batch size.
L1 loss between the true and predicted corners of
the bounding box for the object covered by each grid
square.

N
i
1 Xh t
x1 − xp1 + y1t − y1p + xt2 − xp2 + y2t − y2p
2N i=1
(2)
where (xt1 , y1t , xt2 , y2t ) are the ground-truth bound box
co-ordinates while (xp1 , y1p , xp2 , y2p ) are the predicted
bound box co-ordinates. N denotes the batch size.
For the validation stage, we threshold the coverage map
obtained after forward pass through the FCN network,
and use the bound-box regressor to predict the corners.
Since multiple bound-boxes are generated, we finally cluster
them to refine the predictions. For evaluation, we compute
Intersection over Union (IoU) score. With a threshold hyperparameter, predicted bound boxes are classified as True
Positives (TP), False Positives (FP) and False Negatives
(FN). Precision (PR) and Recall (RE) are calculated using
these metrics and a simplified mAP score is defined by the
product of PR and RE [36].

III. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
We evaluate our object detector trained exclusively with
synthetically rendered images using manually annotated
crowd-sourced refrigerator images. Figure 8 illustrates the
variety in object textures, shapes, scene illumination and
environment cues present in the test set. The real scenarios
also include other objects like vegetables, fruits, etc. which
need to be neglected by the detector. We address them as
distractor objects.
All the experiments were carried on workstation
with IntelR CoreT M i7-5960X processor accelerated by
NVIDIAR GEFORCET M GTX 1070. NVIDIA-DIGITST M
(v5.0) tool was used to prepare and manage the databases
and trained models. Hyper-parameters search on learning
rate, learning rate policy, training epochs, batch-size were
performed for training all neural network models.
The purpose of our experiments was to evaluate the
efficacy of transfer learning from rendered 3D models on
real refrigerator scenarios. Hence we divide this section into
two parts:
• Factors affecting Transfer Learning: Here, we analyze
the factors which we experimented with to achieve
the best detection performance via transfer learning.
We study following factors affecting overall detection
performance:
– Training Dataset Size: The variety in training images used determines the performance of neural
networks.
– Selected Layer Fine-tuning: Features learned at
each layer in CNNs have been distinct and found
to be general across domains and modalities. Finetuning of the final fully-connected linear classification layers has been used in practice for transfer
learning across applications. Hence, we extend this
idea to train several convolutional as well as linear
layers of the network and evaluate the resulting
performance.
– Object Dictionary Size: The appearance of an
object in image in static environment is a function
of its shape, texture and surface material property.
Variance in objects used for rendering has been
observed to increase detection performance significantly [24].
• Detection Accuracy: Here, we represent the analysis of
the performance on real dataset achieved with the best
detector model1 .
A. Factors affecting transfer learning
Considering other parameters like object dictionary size
and fine-tuned network layers, we vary the training data size
from 500-6000. We observe an increase in mAP up to 4000
1 Trained network weights and synthetic dataset are available at https:
//github.com/paramrajpura/Syn2Real

images followed by a light decline in performance as shown
in Figure 5. Note that the smaller dataset is a subset of
the larger dataset size i.e. we have incrementally added new
images to train dataset. After an extent, we observe decline
in accuracy as we increase the dataset size suggesting overfitting to synthetic data with increase in dataset size.

Figure 5.
iterations.

Detection results for the validation image-set for the training

Figure 6. Neurons in layers of CNN learn distinct features. Network
weights were fine-tuned by freezing layers sequentially. The figure represents the performance with weights fine-tuned till mentioned layers.

We use GoogleNet FCN architecture with 11 different
hierarchical levels with few inception modules as single level
(Figure 4). mAP vs. number of epochs chart is presented in
Figure 6 for models with different layers selected for finetuning. Starting from training just the final coverage and
bounding-box regressor layers we sequentially open deeper
layers for fine-tuning. We observe that fine-tuning all the
inception modules helps transfer learning from synthetic
images to real images in our application. The results show
that selection of the layers to fine-tune proves to be important
for detection performance.
To study the relationship of variance in 3D models with
performance, we incrementally add distinct 3D models to the
dictionary starting from 10 to 400. We observe an increase

on ImageNet dataset also noting that the training dataset
was devoid of such distractor objects marked as background
clutter. We report in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 mAP vs.
epochs trained plots over mAP vs. variance in factor to also
represent the relevance of early stopping [30]. The networks
trained by varying factors, show their peak performances
for 25-50 epochs of training while the performance declines
contrary to saturating which suggests over-fitting to synthetic
images.

Figure 7. Variety in training data affects the capability of generalizing
object detection in real scenarios.

in mAP up to 200 models and slight decline later on as
represented in Figure 7.
B. Detection Accuracy
We evaluate our best object detector model on a set of
50 crowd-sourced refrigerator scenes with all cue variances
covering 55 distinct objects of interest considered as positives and 17 distractor objects as negatives. Figure 8 shows
the variety in test set and the predicted bound-boxes for all
refrigerator images. The detector achieves mAP of 24 on
this dataset which is a promising result considering that no
distractor objects were used while training using synthetic
images.

Figure 8. Scenes representing variance in scale, background, textures,
illumination, packing patterns and material properties wherein Top Row:
Object detector correctly predicts the bound boxes for all objects of interest.
Middle Row: Object detector misses objects of interest. Bottom Row:
Object detector falsely predicts the presence of an object.

We observe that detector handles scale, shape and texture
variance. Though packing patterns like vertical stacking or
highly oblique camera angles lead to false predictions. Few
vegetables among the distractor objects are falsely predicted
as objects of interest suggesting the influence of pre-training

Figure 9. Performance plots illustrating the effect of including synthetic
images while training neural networks.

IV. C ONCLUSION
The question arises how well does a network trained with
synthetic images fare against one trained with real world
images. Hence we compare the performance of networks
trained with three different training image-sets as illustrated
in Figure 9. The synthetic training set consisted of 4000
images with 200 3D object models of interest while the real
training set consisted of 400 images parsed from the internet
with 240 distinct products and 19 distractor objects. The
hybrid set with synthetic and real images consisted of 3600
synthetic and 400 real images. All models were evaluated
on a set of 50 refrigerator scenes with less than 5% object
overlap between the test set and train set images. CNN
fully trained with 4000 synthetic images (achieves 24 mAP)
underperforms against one with 400 real images (achieves
28 mAP) but the addition of 4000 synthetic images to real
dataset boosts the detection performance by 12% (achieves
36 mAP) which signifies the importance of transferable cues
from synthetic to real.
To improve the observed performance, several tactics can
be tried. The presence of distractor objects in the test set
was observed to negatively impact performance. We are
working on the addition of distractor objects to the 3D
model repository for rendering scenes with distractor objects
to train the network to become aware of them. Optimizing
the model architecture or replacing DetectNet with object

proposal networks might be another alternative. Training
CNNs for semantic segmentation using synthetic images and
the addition of depth information to the training sets is also
expected to help in the case of images with high degree of
occlusion.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We acknowledge funding support from Innit Inc. consultancy grant CNS/INNIT/EE/P0210/1617/0007 and High
Performance Computing Lab support from Mr. Sudeep
Banerjee. We thank Aalok Gangopadhyay for the insightful
discussions.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. Forsyth, “Object detection with discriminatively trained
part-based models,” Computer, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 6–7, feb
2014.
[2] D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant
keypoints,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 60,
no. 2, pp. 91–110, nov 2004.
[3] N. Dalal and B. Triggs, “Histograms of oriented gradients
for human detection,” in Proceedings - 2005 IEEE Computer
Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2005, vol. I. IEEE, 2005, pp. 886–893.
[4] S. Ekvall, F. Hoffmann, and D. Kragic, “Object recognition
and pose estimation for robotic manipulation using color
cooccurrence histograms,” in Proceedings 2003 IEEERSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
IROS 2003 Cat No03CH37453, vol. 2, no. October. IEEE,
2003, pp. 1284–1289.
[5] J. R. Uijlings, K. E. Van De Sande, T. Gevers, and A. W.
Smeulders, “Selective search for object recognition,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 104, no. 2, pp.
154–171, sep 2013.
[6] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “ImageNet
classification with deep convolutional neural networks,” in
International Conference on Neural Information Processing
Systems. Curran Associates Inc., 2012, pp. 1097–1105.
[7] C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P. Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov,
D. Erhan, V. Vanhoucke, and A. Rabinovich, “Going deeper
with convolutions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer
Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 07-12-June. IEEE, jun 2015, pp. 1–9.
[8] R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik, “RegionBased Convolutional Networks for Accurate Object Detection
and Segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis
and Machine Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 142–158, jan
2016.
[9] S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster R-CNN:
Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal
Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1137–1149, jun 2017.

[10] W. Liu, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, C. Szegedy, S. Reed, C. Y.
Fu, and A. C. Berg, “SSD: Single shot multibox detector,”
in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
Bioinformatics), 2016, vol. 9905 LNCS, pp. 21–37.
[11] M. Everingham, S. M. A. Eslami, L. Van Gool, C. K. I.
Williams, J. Winn, and A. Zisserman, “The Pascal Visual
Object Classes Challenge: A Retrospective,” International
Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 98–136,
2014.
[12] T. Y. Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Dollár, and C. L. Zitnick, “Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 8693 LNCS, no.
PART 5, pp. 740–755, 2014.
[13] Jia Deng, Wei Dong, R. Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li FeiFei, “ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,”
in 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition. IEEE, jun 2009, pp. 248–255.
[14] W. Li, L. Duan, D. Xu, and I. W. Tsang, “Learning with
augmented features for supervised and semi-supervised heterogeneous domain adaptation,” in IEEE Transactions on
Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 36, no. 6,
jun 2014, pp. 1134–1148.
[15] J. Hoffman, E. Rodner, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and K. Saenko,
“Efficient Learning of Domain-invariant Image Representations,” in ICLR, jan 2013, pp. 1–9.
[16] J. Hoffman, S. Guadarrama, E. Tzeng, R. Hu, J. Donahue,
R. Girshick, T. Darrell, and K. Saenko, “LSDA: Large Scale
Detection Through Adaptation,” in Proceedings of the 27th
International Conference on Neural Information Processing
Systems. MIT Press, 2014, pp. 3536–3544.
[17] B. Kulis, K. Saenko, and T. Darrell, “What you saw is not
what you get: Domain adaptation using asymmetric kernel
transforms,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
IEEE, jun 2011, pp. 1785–1792.
[18] M. Long, Y. Cao, J. Wang, and M. I. Jordan, “Learning
Transferable Features with Deep Adaptation Networks,” in
Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 37, 2015,
pp. 97–105.
[19] J. Yosinski, J. Clune, Y. Bengio, and H. Lipson, “How transferable are features in deep neural networks?” in Proceedings
of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information
Processing Systems. MIT Press, 2014, pp. 3320–3328.
[20] Y. Li, N. Wang, J. Shi, J. Liu, and X. Hou, “Revisiting Batch Normalization For Practical Domain Adaptation,”
Arxiv Preprint, vol. 1603.04779, no. 10.1016/B0-7216-04234/50051-2, mar 2016.
[21] A. Gupta, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman, “Synthetic Data
for Text Localisation in Natural Images,” Arxiv Preprint, vol.
1604.06646, no. 10.1109/CVPR.2016.254, apr 2016.

[22] E. Tzeng, J. Hoffman, N. Zhang, K. Saenko, and T. Darrell,
“Deep Domain Confusion: Maximizing for Domain Invariance,” Arxiv Preprint, vol. 1412.3474, dec 2014.
[23] X. Peng, B. Sun, K. Ali, and K. Saenko, “Learning deep
object detectors from 3D models,” Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Computer Vision, vol. 2015 Inter,
pp. 1278–1286, dec 2015.
[24] H. Su, C. R. Qi, Y. Li, and L. J. Guibas, “Render for
CNN: Viewpoint estimation in images using CNNs trained
with rendered 3D model views,” Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Computer Vision, vol. 2015 Inter,
pp. 2686–2694, may 2015.
[25] G. Georgakis, A. Mousavian, A. C. Berg, and J. Kosecka,
“Synthesizing Training Data for Object Detection in Indoor
Scenes,” Arxiv Preprint, vol. 1702.07836, feb 2017.
[26] A. Singh, J. Sha, K. S. Narayan, T. Achim, and P. Abbeel,
“BigBIRD: A large-scale 3D database of object instances,”
in Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation. IEEE, may 2014, pp. 509–516.
[27] J. Tobin, R. Fong, A. Ray, J. Schneider, W. Zaremba, and
P. Abbeel, “Domain Randomization for Transferring Deep
Neural Networks from Simulation to the Real World,” Arxiv
Preprint, vol. 1703.06907, mar 2017.
[28] G. Ros, L. Sellart, J. Materzynska, D. Vazquez, and A. M.
Lopez, “The SYNTHIA Dataset: A Large Collection of Synthetic Images for Semantic Segmentation of Urban Scenes,”
in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, jun 2016, pp. 3234–3243.
[29] A. Handa, V. Patraucean, V. Badrinarayanan, S. Stent,
and R. Cipolla, “SceneNet: Understanding Real World Indoor Scenes With Synthetic Data,” Arxiv Preprint, vol.
1511.07041, no. 10.1109/CVPR.2016.442, nov 2015.
[30] Y. Yao, L. Rosasco, and A. Caponnetto, “On early stopping
in gradient descent learning,” Constructive Approximation,
vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 289–315, aug 2007.
[31] Sharp and Toby, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
(CVPR), 2012 IEEE Conference on : date, 16-21 June 2012.
IEEE, 2012.
[32] A. X. Chang, T. Funkhouser, L. Guibas, P. Hanrahan,
Q. Huang, Z. Li, S. Savarese, M. Savva, S. Song, H. Su,
J. Xiao, L. Yi, and F. Yu, “ShapeNet: An Information-Rich
3D Model Repository,” Arxiv Preprint, vol. 1512.03012, no.
10.1145/3005274.3005291, dec 2015.
[33] A. 3D, “Archive 3D,” 2015. [Online]. Available: http:
//archive3d.net/
[34] J. Barker, S. Sarathy, and A. T. July, “DetectNet
:
Deep
Neural
Network
for
Object
Detection
in
DIGITS,”
pp.
1–8,
2016.
[Online]. Available: https://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelforall/
detectnet-deep-neural-network-object-detection-digits/

[35] M. P. Vlastelica, S. Hayrapetyan, M. Tapaswi, and R. Stiefelhagen, “Kit at MediaEval 2015 - Evaluating visual cues
for affective impact of movies task,” in CEUR Workshop
Proceedings, vol. 1436. New York, New York, USA: ACM
Press, 2015, pp. 675–678.
[36] D. Hoiem, Y. Chodpathumwan, and Q. Dai, “Diagnosing error
in object detectors,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics).
Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2012, vol. 7574 LNCS, no. PART 3, pp. 340–
353.

