Next: Conclusions
Up: Fast Color-Independent Ball Detection
Previous: The Cascade of Classifiers
Ball Detection and Results
Although the process of generating the cascade of classifiers is
relatively time-consuming, it produces quite promising results. The
first three stages of a learned cascade are shown in
Fig. 6. The cascade was tested systematically using four
categories of input data (see Fig. 7):
- RoboCup football arena
- Uniform background
- Rescue robotics arena
- Complex scenes
The idea behind this categorization was to be able to determine
exactly where the strengths and weaknesses of the technique lie. The
algorithm is to be applied to football-playing robots participating in
RoboCup to detect footballs, the innovation being the independence of
color and surface pattern of the ball. The first test to be passed was
therefore detecting the three different balls in the RoboCup
arena. The algorithm not only works well in the arena, but with any
images with a uniform background behind the footballs. This is shown
by the next test set. To test our method to its limits we tested it
both with images taken in the RoboCup Rescue arena, as well as other
more complex images, with all sorts of noise and distracting
objects. For each image category we ran the test with 25 pictures,
including 15 of each ball, making a total of 100 images and a total of
180 balls (60 each). The detection speed averaged at 300msec per
image. A sample of the test images in each category is shown in
Fig. 7; the results of the experiments run on two different
cascades are given in Tables I and
II. The tables reveal how many red, white or yellow
balls were correctly classified or not detected, as well as the number
of false positives in each image category. The first cascade was
learned with a total of 1000 images, where the second used a mere 570
input images.
Figure:
Top left: RoboCup football arena. Top right: Uniform
background. Bottom left: RoboCup Rescue arena. Bottom right:
Complex images.
|
Table I:
Simple Training Data
|
|
Correct |
Not Detected |
False Pos. |
|
red |
13 |
|
2 |
|
|
RoboCup |
wht |
5 |
26/45 |
10 |
19/45 |
4 |
|
yel |
8 |
|
7 |
|
|
|
red |
13 |
|
2 |
|
|
Uniform |
wht |
13 |
39/45 |
2 |
6/45 |
0 |
|
yel |
13 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
red |
2 |
|
13 |
|
|
Rescue |
wht |
2 |
5/45 |
13 |
40/45 |
10 |
|
yel |
1 |
|
14 |
|
|
|
red |
0 |
|
15 |
|
|
Complex |
wht |
0 |
0/45 |
15 |
45/45 |
9 |
|
yel |
0 |
|
15 |
|
|
|
red |
28/60 |
32/60 |
|
Total |
wht |
20/60 |
40/60 |
23 |
|
yel |
22/60 |
38/60 |
|
|
Table:
Complex Training Data
|
|
Correct |
Not Detected |
False Pos. |
|
red |
14 |
|
1 |
|
|
RoboCup |
wht |
11 |
37/45 |
4 |
8/45 |
5 |
|
yel |
12 |
|
3 |
|
|
|
red |
15 |
|
0 |
|
|
Uniform |
wht |
14 |
42/45 |
1 |
3/45 |
4 |
|
yel |
13 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
red |
5 |
|
10 |
|
|
Rescue |
wht |
5 |
20/45 |
10 |
25/45 |
21 |
|
yel |
10 |
|
5 |
|
|
|
red |
5 |
|
10 |
|
|
Complex |
wht |
2 |
9/45 |
13 |
36/45 |
24 |
|
yel |
2 |
|
13 |
|
|
|
red |
39/60 |
21/60 |
|
Total |
wht |
32/60 |
28/60 |
54 |
|
yel |
37/60 |
23/60 |
|
|
Actual detected images are shown in Fig. 8 for all four
categories, for both cascades, where the balls detected by the simple
cascade only are marked by blue boxes, those detected by the complex
cascade by green boxes and those detected by both by red boxes.
Figure:
Sample input images of each of the four categories (From top
to bottom: RoboCup, uniform background, RoboCup Rescue and complex
scenes) and the corresponding results of the two classifiers.
|
The two classifiers used in the experiments differ only in the data
used for training. For the first classifier (Table I)
relatively simple images were used for training, where the images
contained no background noise. The idea behind this approach was to
make sure that the classifier would only use information about the
ball itself and that complex data would only be confusing and would
eliminate all useful information about the ball shape. For the second
classifier (Table II) a wider range of training data was
used, including images with different lighting, in different
surroundings (similar to the complex images used for testing),
etc. The difference in performance is quite clear from the detected
images (Fig. 8).
It can also be observed from the results that we will always face the
difficulty of false positives when differentiating between footballs
and any other round objects. Examples of such false positives are
shown in Fig. 9.
Figure 9:
Left: Input images including round objects. Right: False
detections in filtered images.
|
Next: Conclusions
Up: Fast Color-Independent Ball Detection
Previous: The Cascade of Classifiers
root
2004-08-31