Indoor Semantic Segmentation using depth information
Authors: Camille Couprie, Clement Farabet, Laurent Najman, Yann LeCun
ICLR 2013

Abstract: This work addresses multi-class segmentation of indoor scenes with RGB-D inputs. While this area of research has gained much attention recently, most works still rely on hand-crafted features. In contrast, we apply a multiscale convolutional network to learn features directly from the images and the depth information. We obtain state-of-the-art on the NYU-v2 depth dataset with an accuracy of 64.5%. We illustrate the labeling of indoor scenes in videos sequences that could be processed in real-time using appropriate hardware such as an FPGA.

Indoor Semantic Segmentation
using depth information
Camille Couprie1∗ Cl´ement Farabet2,3 Laurent Najman3 Yann LeCun2
1 IFP Energies Nouvelles
Technology, Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Division
Rueil Malmaison, France
2 Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
New York University
New York, NY 10003, USA
3 Universit´e Paris-Est
Laboratoire d’Informatique Gaspard-Monge
´Equipe A3SI - ESIEE Paris, France
Abstract
This work addresses multi-class segmentation of indoor scenes with RGB-D in-
puts. While this area of research has gained much attention recently, most works
still rely on hand-crafted features. In contrast, we apply a multiscale convolutional
network to learn features directly from the images and the depth information. We
obtain state-of-the-art on the NYU-v2 depth dataset with an accuracy of 64.5%.
We illustrate the labeling of indoor scenes in videos sequences that could be pro-
cessed in real-time using appropriate hardware such as an FPGA.
1 Introduction
The recent release of the Kinect allowed many progress in indoor computer vision. Most approaches
have focused on object recognition [1, 14] or point cloud semantic labeling [2], ﬁnding their appli-
cations in robotics or games [6]. The pioneering work of Silberman et al. [22] was the ﬁrst to deal
with the task of semantic full image labeling using depth information. The NYU depth v1 dataset
[22] guathers 2347 triplets of images, depth maps, and ground truth labeled images covering twelve
object categories. Most datasets employed for semantic image segmentation [11, 17] present the
objects centered into the images, under nice lightening conditions. The NYU depth dataset aims to
develop joint segmentation and classiﬁcation solutions to an environment that we are likely to en-
counter in the everyday life. This indoor dataset contains scenes of ofﬁces, stores, rooms of houses
containing many occluded objects unevenly lightened. The ﬁrst results [22] on this dataset were
obtained using the extraction of sift features on the depth maps in addition to the RGB images. The
depth is then used in the gradient information to reﬁne the predictions using graph cuts. Alternative
CRF-like approaches have also been explored to improve the computation time performances [4].
The results on NYU dataset v1 have been improved by [19] using elaborate kernel descriptors and a
post-processing step that employs gPb superpixels MRFs, involving large computation times.
A second version of the NYU depth dataset was released more recently [23], and improves the
labels categorization into 894 different object classes. Furthermore, the size of the dataset did also
increase, it now contains hundreds of video sequences (407024 frames) acquired with depth maps.
Feature learning, or deep learning approaches are particularly adapted to the addition of new image
modalities such as depth information. Its recent success for dealing with various types of data is
manifest in speech recognition [13], molecular activity prediction, object recognition [12] and many
1∗ Performed the work at New York University.
1
arXiv:1301.3572v2  [cs.CV]  14 Mar 2013
more applications. In computer vision, the approach of Farabet et al. [8, 9] has been speciﬁcally
designed for full scene labeling and has proven its efﬁciency for outdoor scenes. The key idea is to
learn hierarchical features by the mean of a multiscale convolutional network. Training networks
using multiscales representation appeared also the same year in [3, 21].
When the depth information was not yet available, there have been attempts to use stereo image
pairs to improve the feature learning of convolutional networks [16]. Now that depth maps are easy
to acquire, deep learning approachs started to be considered for improving object recognition [20].
In this work, we suggest to adapt Farabet et al.’s network to learn more effective features for indoor
scene labeling. Our work is, to the best of our knowledge, the ﬁrst exploitation of depth information
in a feature learning approach for full scene labeling.
2 Full scene labeling
2.1 Multi-scale feature extraction
Good internal representations are hierarchical. In vision, pixels are assembled into edglets, edglets
into motifs, motifs into parts, parts into objects, and objects into scenes. This suggests that recog-
nition architectures for vision (and for other modalities such as audio and natural language) should
have multiple trainable stages stacked on top of each other, one for each level in the feature hierar-
chy. Convolutional Networks [15] (ConvNets) provide a simple framework to learn such hierarchies
of features.
Convolutional Networks are trainable architectures composed of multiple stages. The input and
output of each stage are sets of arrays called feature maps. In our case, the input is a color (RGB)
image plus a depth (D) image and each feature map is a 2D array containing a color or depth channel
of the input RGBD image. At the output, each feature map represents a particular feature extracted at
all locations on the input. Each stage is composed of three layers: a ﬁlter bank layer, a non-linearity
layer, and a feature pooling layer. A typical ConvNet is composed of one, two or three such 3-layer
stages, followed by a classiﬁcation module. Because they are trainable, arbitrary input modalities
can be modeled, such as the depth modality that is added to the input channel in this work.
 
F 3
convnet
 F 1 
F 2
F 
 f 1  ( X 1 ; /u1D6C91 )
labeling
l ( F , h ( I ))
superpixels
RGBD
Laplacian
pyramid
g ( I )
 table
 wall
 ceiling
 chair
 chair
 pict.  pict.
 f 3  ( X 3 ; /u1D6C93 )
 f 2  ( X 2 ; /u1D6C92 )
Input RGB image
Input depth image
segmentation
h ( I )
Figure 1: Scene parsing (frame by frame) using a multiscale network and superpixels. The RGB
channels of the image and the depth image are transformed through a Laplacian pyramid. Each
scale is fed to a 3-stage convolutional network, which produces a set of feature maps. The feature
maps of all scales are concatenated, the coarser-scale maps being upsampled to match the size of the
ﬁnest-scale map. Each feature vector thus represents a large contextual window around each pixel.
In parallel, a single segmentation of the image into superpixels is computed to exploit the natural
contours of the image. The ﬁnal labeling is obtained by the aggregation of the classiﬁer predictions
into the superpixels.
A great gain has been achieved with the introduction of the multiscale convolutional network de-
scribed in [9]. The multi-scale, dense feature extractor produces a series of feature vectors for
regions of multiple sizes centered around every pixel in the image, covering a large context. The
2
multi-scale convolutional net contains multiple copies of a single network that are applied to differ-
ent scales of a Laplacian pyramid version of the RGBD input image.
The RGBD image is ﬁrst pre-processed, so that local neighborhoods have zero mean and unit stan-
dard deviation. The depth image, given in meters, is treated as an additional channel similarly to any
color channel. The overview scheme of our model appears in Figure 1.
Beside the input image which is now including a depth channel, the parameters of the multi-scale
network (number of scales, sizes of feature maps, pooling type, etc.) are identical to [9]. The feature
maps sizes are 16,64,256, multiplied by the three scales. The size of convolutions kernels are set
to 7 by 7 at each layer, and sizes of subsampling kernels (max pooling) are 2 by 2. In our tests we
rescaled the images to the size 240 × 320.
As in [9], the feature extractor followed by a classiﬁer was trained to minimize the negative log-
likelihood loss function. The classiﬁer that follows feature extraction is a 2-layer multi-perceptron,
with a hidden layer of size 1024. We use superpixels [10] to smooth the convnet predictions as a
post-processing step, by agregating the classiﬁers predictions in each superpixel.
2.2 Movie processing
While the training is performed on single images, we are able to perform scene labeling of video
sequences. In order to improve the performances of our frame-by-frame predictions, a temporal
smoothing may be applied. In this work, instead of using the frame by frame superpixels as in the
previous section, we employ the temporal consistent superpixels of [5]. This approach works in
quasi-linear time and reduces the ﬂickering of objects that may appear in the video sequences.
3 Results
We used for our experiments the NYU depth dataset – version 2 – of Silberman and Fergus [23],
composed of 407024 couples of RGB images and depth images. Among these images, 1449 frames
have been labeled. The object labels cover 894 categories. The dataset is provided with the original
raw depth data that contain missing values, with code using [7] to inpaint the depth images.
3.1 Validation on images
The training has been performed using the 894 categories directly as output classes. The frequencies
of object appearences have not been changed in the training process. However, we established 14
clusters of classes categories to evaluate our results more easily. The distributions of number of
pixels per class categories are given in Table 1. We used the train/test splits as provided by the
NYU depth v2 dataset, that is to say 795 training images and 654 test images. Please note that
no jitter (rotation, translations or any other transformation) was added to the dataset to gain extra
performances. However, this strategy could be employed in future work. The code consists of Lua
scripts using the Torch machine learning software [18] available online athttp://www.torch.ch/ .
To evaluate the inﬂuence of the addition of depth information, we trained a multiscale convnet only
on the RGB channels, and another network using the additional depth information. Both networks
were trained until the achievement of their best performances, that is to say for 105 epochs and 98
epochs respectively, taking less than 2 days on a regular server.
We report in Table 1 two different performance measures:
• the “classwise accuracy”, counting the number of correctly classiﬁed pixels divided by the
number of false positive, averaged for each class. This number corresponds to the mean of
the confusion matrix diagonal.
• the “pixelwise accuracy”, counting the number of correctly classiﬁed pixels divided by the
total number of pixels of the test data.
We observe that considerable gains (15% or more) are achieved for the classes ’ﬂoor’, ’ceiling’,
and ’furniture’. This result makes a lot of sense since these classes are characterized by a somehow
constant appearance of their depth map. Objects such as TV , table, books can either be located in
3
Ground truths
Results using the Multiscale Convnet
Results using the Multiscale Convnet with depth information
wall
bed
books
ceiling
chair
ﬂoor
furniture
pict./deco
sofa
table
object
window
TV
uknw
Ground truths
Depth maps
Results using the Multiscale Convnet
Results using the Multiscale Convnet with depth information
Figure 2: Some scene labelings using our Multiscale Convolutional Network trained on RGB and
RGBD images. We observe in Table 1 that adding depth information helps to recognize objects that
have low intra-class variance of depth appearance.
the foreground as well as in the background of images. On the contrary, the ﬂoor and ceiling will
almost always lead to a depth gradient always oriented in the same direction: Since the dataset has
been collected by a person holding a kinect device at a his chest, ﬂoors and ceiling are located at
a distance that does not vary to much through the dataset. Figure 2 provides examples of depth
4
Class Multiscale MultiScl. Cnet
Occurrences Convnet Acc. [9] +depth Acc.
bed 4.4% 30.3 38.1
objects 7.1 % 10.9 8.7
chair 3.4% 44.4 34.1
furnit. 12.3% 28.5 42.4
ceiling 1.4% 33.2 62.6
ﬂoor 9.9% 68.0 87.3
deco. 3.4% 38.5 40.4
sofa 3.2% 25.8 24.6
table 3.7% 18.0 10.2
wall 24.5% 89.4 86.1
window 5.1% 37.8 15.9
books 2.9% 31.7 13.7
TV 1.0% 18.8 6.0
unkn. 17.8% - -
Avg. Class Acc. - 35.8 36.2
Pixel Accuracy (mean) - 51.0 52.4
Pixel Accuracy (median) - 51.7 52.9
Pixel Accuracy (std. dev.) - 15.2 15.2
Table 1: Class occurrences in the test set – Performances per class and per pixel.
maps that illustrate these observations. Overall, improvements induced by the depth information
exploitation are present. In the next section, these improvements are more apparent.
3.2 Comparison with Silberman et al.
In order to compare our results to the state-of-the-art on the NYU depth v2 dataset, we adopted a
different selection of outputs instead of the 14 classes employed in the previous section. The work
of Silberman et al. [23] deﬁnes the four semantic classes Ground, Furniture, Props and Structure.
This class selection is adopted in [23] to use semantic labelings of scenes to infer support relations
between objects. We recall that the recognition of the semantic categories is performed in [23] by
the deﬁnition of diverse features including SIFT features, histograms of surface normals, 2D and 3D
bounding box dimensions, color histograms, and relative depth.
Ground Furniture Props Structure Class Acc. Pixel Acc.
Silberman et al.[23] 68 70 42 59 59.6 58.6
Multiscale convnet [9] 68.1 51.1 29.9 87.8 59.2 63.0
Multiscale+depth convnet 87.3 45.3 35.5 86.1 63.5 64.5
Table 2: Accuracy of the multiscale convnet compared with the state-of-the-art approach of [23].
As reported in Table 2, the results achieved using the Multiscale convnet are improving the structure
class predictions, resulting in a 4% gain in pixelwise accuracy over Silberman et al. approach.
Adding the depth information results in a considerable improvement of the ground prediction, and
performs also better over the other classes, achieving a 4% gain in classwise accuracy over previous
works and improves by almost 6% the pixelwise accuracy compared to Silberman et al.’s results.
We note that the class ’furniture’ in the 4-classes evaluation is different than the ’furniture’ class
of the 14-classes evaluation. The furniture-4 class encompasses chairs and beds but not desks, and
cabinets for example, explaining a drop of performances here using the depth information.
5
3.3 Test on videos
The NYU v2 depth dataset contains several hundreds of video sequences encompassing 26 different
classes of indoor scenes, going from bedrooms to basements, and dining rooms to book stores.
Unfortunately, no ground truth is yet available to evaluate our performances on this video. Therefore,
we only present here some illustrations of the capacity of our model to label these scenes.
The predictions are computed frame by frame on the videos and are reﬁned using temporally
smoothed superpixels using [5]. Two examples of results on sequences are shown at Figure 3.
A great advantage of our approach is its nearly real time capabilities. Processing a 320x240 frame
takes 0.7 seconds on a laptop [9]. The temporal smoothing only requires an additional 0.1s per
frame.
(a) Output of the Multiscale convnet trained using depth information - frame by frame
(b) Results smoothed temporally using [5]
Props
 Floor
 Structure
 Wall
(c) Output of the Multiscale convnet trained using depth information - frame by frame
(d) Results smoothed temporally using [5]
Figure 3: Some results on video sequences of the NYU v2 depth dataset. Note that results (c,d)
could be improved by using more training examples. Indeed, only a very small number in the
labeled training examples exhibit a wall in the foreground.
4 Conclusion
Feature learning is a particularly satisfying strategy to adopt when approaching a dataset that con-
tains new image (or other kind of data) modalities. Our model, while being faster and more efﬁcient
than previous approaches, is easier to implement without the need to design speciﬁc features adapted
to depth information. Different clusterings of object classes as the ones used in this work may be
chosen, reﬂecting this work’s ﬂexibility of applications. For example, using the 4-classes clustering,
the accurate results achieved with the multi-scale convolutional network could be applied to perform
inference on support relations between objects. Improvements for speciﬁc object recognition could
further be achieved by ﬁltering the frequency of the training objects. We observe that the recog-
nition of object classes having similar depth appearance and location is improved when using the
depth information. On the contrary, it is better to use only RGB information to recognize objects
with classes containing high variability of their depth maps. This observation could be used to com-
bine the best results in function of the application. Finally, a number of techniques (unsupervised
6
feature learning, MRF smoothing of the convnet predictions, extension of the training set) would
probably help to improve the present system.
5 Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Nathan Silberman for his useful input for handling the NYU depth v2 dataset,
and fruitful discussions.
References
[1] B3do: Berkeley 3-d object dataset. http://kinectdata.com/. 1
[2] Cornell-rgbd-dataset. http://pr.cs.cornell.edu/sceneunderstanding/data/data.php. 1
[3] Dan Claudiu Ciresan, Alessandro Giusti, Luca Maria Gambardella, and J ¨urgen Schmidhuber.
Deep neural networks segment neuronal membranes in electron microscopy images. In NIPS,
pages 2852–2860, 2012. 1
[4] Camille Couprie. Multi-label energy minimization for object class segmentation. In 20th
European Signal Processing Conference 2012 (EUSIPCO 2012), Bucharest, Romania, August
2012. 1
[5] Camille Couprie, Cl ´ement Farabet, and Yann LeCun. Causal graph-based video segmentation,
2013. arXiv:1301.1671. 2.2, 3.3
[6] L. Cruz, D. Lucio, and L. Velho. Kinect and rgbd images: Challenges and applications. SIB-
GRAPI Tutorial, 2012. 1
[7] Anat Levin Dani, Dani Lischinski, and Yair Weiss. Colorization using optimization. ACM
Transactions on Graphics, 23:689–694, 2004. 3
[8] Clement Farabet, Camille Couprie, Laurent Najman, and Yann LeCun. Scene Parsing with
Multiscale Feature Learning, Purity Trees, and Optimal Covers. In Proc. of the 2012 Interna-
tional Conference on Machine Learning, Edinburgh, Scotland, June 2012. 1
[9] Clement Farabet, Camille Couprie, Laurent Najman, and Yann LeCun. Learning hierarchical
features for scene labeling. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,
2013. In press. 1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
[10] Pedro F. Felzenszwalb and Daniel P. Huttenlocher. Efﬁcient graph-based image segmentation.
International Journal of Computer Vision, 59:2004, 2004. 2.1
[11] Stephen Gould, Richard Fulton, and Daphne Koller. Decomposing a Scene into Geometric
and Semantically Consistent Regions. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision,
2009. 1
[12] Geoffrey E. Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhut-
dinov. Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors. CoRR,
abs/1207.0580, 2012. 1
[13] Navdeep Jaitly, Patrick Nguyen, Andrew Senior, and Vincent Vanhoucke. Application of pre-
trained deep neural networks to large vocabulary speech recognition. In Proceedings of Inter-
speech 2012, 2012. 1
[14] Allison Janoch, Sergey Karayev, Yangqing Jia, Jonathan T. Barron, Mario Fritz, Kate Saenko,
and Trevor Darrell. A category-level 3-d object dataset: Putting the kinect to work. In ICCV
Workshops, pages 1168–1174. IEEE, 2011. 1
[15] Y . LeCun, L. Bottou, Y . Bengio, and P. Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document
recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278 –2324, nov 1998. 2.1
[16] Yann LeCun, Fu-Jie Huang, and Leon Bottou. Learning Methods for generic object recognition
with invariance to pose and lighting. In Proceedings of CVPR’04. IEEE, 2004. 1
[17] Ce Liu, Jenny Yuen, and Antonio Torralba. SIFT Flow: Dense Correspondence across Scenes
and its Applications. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , pages
1–17, August 2010. 1
7
[18] C. Farabet R. Collobert, K. Kavukcuoglu. Torch7: A matlab-like environment for machines
learning. In Big Learning Workshop (@ NIPS’11), Sierra Nevada, Spain, 2011. 3.1
[19] Xiaofeng Ren, Liefeng Bo, and D. Fox. Rgb-(d) scene labeling: Features and algorithms.
In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2012 IEEE Conference on, pages 2759
–2766, june 2012. 1
[20] Richard Socher and Brody Huval and Bharath Bhat and Christopher D. Manning and Andrew
Y . Ng. Convolutional-Recursive Deep Learning for 3D Object Classiﬁcation. In Advances in
Neural Information Processing Systems 25. 2012. 1
[21] Hannes Schulz and Sven Behnke. Learning object-class segmentation with convolutional neu-
ral networks. In 11th European Symposium on Artiﬁcial Neural Networks (ESANN) , 2012.
1
[22] Nathan Silberman and Rob Fergus. Indoor scene segmentation using a structured light sensor.
In 3DRR Workshop, ICCV’11, 2011. 1
[23] Nathan Silberman, Derek Hoiem, Pushmeet Kohli, and Rob Fergus. Indoor segmentation and
support inference from rgbd images. In ECCV, 2012. 1, 3, 3.2, 2
8


Peer review:
[Review]:
This work builds on recent object-segmentation work by Farabet et al., by augmenting the pixel-processing pathways with ones that processes a depth map from a Kinect RGBD camera. This work seems to me a well-motivated and natural extension now that RGBD sensors are readily available.

The incremental value of the depth channel is not entirely clear from this paper. In principle, the depth information should be valuable. However, Table 1 shows that for the majority of object types, the network that ignores depth is actually more accurate.  Although the averages at the bottom of Table 1 show that depth-enhanced segmentation is slightly better, I suspect that if those averages included error bars (and they should), the difference would be insignificant.  In fact, all the accuracies in Table 1 should have error bars on them.  The comparisons with the work of Silberman et al. are more favorable to the proposed model, but again, the comparison would be strengthened by discussion of statistical confidence.

Qualitatively, I would have liked to see the ouput from the convolutional network of Farabet et al. without the depth channel, as a point of comparison in Figures 2 and 3. Without that point of comparison, Figures 2 and 3 are difficult to interpret as supporting evidence for the model using depth.

Pro(s)
- establishes baseline RGBD results with convolutional networks
   
Con(s)
- quantitative results lack confidence intervals
- qualitative results missing important comparison to non-rgbd network