Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
119 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

BOP: Benchmark for 6D Object Pose Estimation (1808.08319v1)

Published 24 Aug 2018 in cs.CV, cs.AI, and cs.RO

Abstract: We propose a benchmark for 6D pose estimation of a rigid object from a single RGB-D input image. The training data consists of a texture-mapped 3D object model or images of the object in known 6D poses. The benchmark comprises of: i) eight datasets in a unified format that cover different practical scenarios, including two new datasets focusing on varying lighting conditions, ii) an evaluation methodology with a pose-error function that deals with pose ambiguities, iii) a comprehensive evaluation of 15 diverse recent methods that captures the status quo of the field, and iv) an online evaluation system that is open for continuous submission of new results. The evaluation shows that methods based on point-pair features currently perform best, outperforming template matching methods, learning-based methods and methods based on 3D local features. The project website is available at bop.felk.cvut.cz.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (16)
  1. Tomas Hodan (22 papers)
  2. Frank Michel (8 papers)
  3. Eric Brachmann (27 papers)
  4. Wadim Kehl (14 papers)
  5. Anders Glent Buch (12 papers)
  6. Dirk Kraft (7 papers)
  7. Bertram Drost (8 papers)
  8. Joel Vidal (3 papers)
  9. Stephan Ihrke (1 paper)
  10. Xenophon Zabulis (2 papers)
  11. Caner Sahin (9 papers)
  12. Fabian Manhardt (41 papers)
  13. Federico Tombari (214 papers)
  14. Tae-Kyun Kim (91 papers)
  15. Jiri Matas (133 papers)
  16. Carsten Rother (74 papers)
Citations (411)

Summary

BOP: Benchmark for 6D Object Pose Estimation

The paper presents a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating 6D object pose estimation methods. The introduced benchmark, titled BOP, includes a variety of datasets, a standardized evaluation methodology, and an online evaluation platform, aiming to provide a reliable baseline for comparing the efficacy of different methods in the field of 6D pose estimation.

Components of the Benchmark

The benchmark is meticulously structured around several key elements:

  • Datasets: The benchmark comprises eight datasets covering diverse real-world scenarios, including variations in lighting conditions and object occlusions. Two new datasets specifically tackle environments with changing lighting, adding to the challenges posed by existing datasets, which include textured and texture-less objects.
  • Evaluation Methodology: A standardized evaluation procedure is outlined, employing a pose-error function tailored to address pose ambiguities, which arise from symmetric or partially occluded objects. This function ensures a precise assessment of an algorithm's capability to determine an object's 6D pose.
  • Online Evaluation System: An ongoing online platform is provided, allowing for continual submission and evaluation of new results, thereby promoting transparency and progress tracking over time.

Evaluation of Methods

The paper offers an exhaustive evaluation of 15 recent methods, representing the prevalent approaches in the field:

  1. Point-Pair Features Methods: This category, including Vidal-18 and Drost-10-edge, demonstrated superior performance across the datasets. These methods rely on matching point pairs in 3D models and scenes, exhibiting robustness in clutter and partial occlusion.
  2. Template Matching Methods: Typified by Hodaƈ-15, these methods utilize pre-rendered views of objects and efficiently identify matching templates in test scenes. Although they perform well in some scenarios, they generally lag behind point-pair-based methods.
  3. Learning-Based Methods: This category, represented by methods such as Brachmann-16, leverages machine learning models to establish correspondences between image data and 3D object coordinates. While promising in scenarios with sufficient training data, they often face challenges with highly occluded or symmetric objects.
  4. Methods using 3D Local Features: These methods typically rely on local descriptors for matching points between the model and scene clouds. Unfortunately, they frequently struggle with complex scenes, as evidenced by lower recall scores in the evaluation.

Implications and Challenges

The benchmark highlights several core challenges persisting in 6D pose estimation, such as handling object occlusions, variable lighting conditions, and the difficulties posed by object symmetries and similarities. The evaluation indicates that while point-pair feature methods currently set the standard, there is considerable room for improvement, particularly in environments with dynamic lighting and significant occlusions.

Future Directions

The availability of this benchmark can accelerate advances in the field by providing clear metrics and datasets for comparison. Future work in 6D pose estimation will likely focus on improving robustness to occlusion and lighting changes. Additionally, the integration of semantic understanding and richer sensory inputs (e.g., AI-driven approaches using deep learning) could further enhance pose estimation capabilities. Continuous updates and submissions to the BOP online system will ensure that it remains a relevant and effective tool for researchers in this domain.