skip to main content
10.1145/3349614.3356028acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobicomConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Sensor Training Data Reduction for Autonomous Vehicles

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 October 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Ensuring safety and reliability of autonomous vehicles requires good learning models which, in turn, require a large amount of real-world training data. Data produced by in-vehicle sensors (e.g., cameras, LIDARs, IMUs, etc.) can be used for training; however, both local storage and transmission of this sensor data to the cloud for subsequent use in training can be prohibitively expensive due to the staggering volume of data produced by these sensors, especially the cameras. In this paper, we perform the first exploration of techniques for reducing video frames in a way that the quality of training for autonomous vehicles is minimally affected. We particularly focus on utility aware data reduction schemes where the potential contribution of a video frame to enhancing the quality of learning (or utility) is explicitly considered during data reduction. Since actual utility of a video frame cannot be computed online, we use surrogate utility metrics to decide what video frames to keep for training and which ones to discard. Our results show that utility-aware data reduction schemes can reduce the amount of camera data required for training by as much as $16\times$ compared to random sampling for the same quality of learning (in terms of IoU).

References

  1. Chen, L.-C., Papandreou, G., Kokkinos, I., Murphy, K., and Yuille, A. L. DeepLab: Semantic Image Segmentation with Deep Convolutional Nets, Atrous Convolution, and Fully Connected CRFs. arXiv:1606.00915 [cs] (June 2016). arXiv: 1606.00915.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, L.-C., Papandreou, G., Schroff, F., and Adam, H. Rethinking AtrousConvolution for Semantic Image Segmentation. arXiv:1706.05587 [cs] (June 2017). arXiv: 1706.05587.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Denker, J. S., and LeCun, Y. Transforming Neural-Net Output Levels to Probability Distributions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 3, R. P. Lippmann, J. E.Moody, andD. S. Touretzky, Eds. Morgan- Kaufmann, 1991, pp. 853--859.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Everingham, M., Van Gool, L., Williams, C. K. I., Winn, J., and Zisserman, A. The PASCAL Visual Object Classes Challenge 2012 (VOC2012) Results. http://www.pascalnetwork. org/challenges/VOC/voc2012/workshop/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Gal, Y., and Ghahramani, Z. Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning. arXiv:1506.02142 [cs, stat] (June 2015). arXiv: 1506.02142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Geiger, A., Lenz, P., and Urtasun, R. Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. In Proc. CVPR (2012).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Harris, D. Baidu's chief scientist explains why computers won't take over the world just yet, Sept. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Kendall, A., Badrinarayanan, V., and Cipolla, R. Bayesian SegNet: Model Uncertainty in Deep Convolutional Encoder-Decoder Architectures for Scene Understanding. arXiv:1511.02680 [cs] (Nov. 2015). arXiv: 1511.02680.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Pedregosa, F., Varoqaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011), 2825--2830.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Real, R., and Vargas, J. M. The Probabilistic Basis of Jaccard's Index of Similarity. Systematic Biology 45, 3 (Sept. 1996), 380--385.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Winter, K. For self-driving cars, thereâ's big meaning behind one big number: 4 terabytes. "https://newsroom.intel.com/editorials/ self-driving-cars-big-meaning-behind-one-number-4-terabytes/".Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Xfinity. What is the median usage of people on your network today?, June 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Sensor Training Data Reduction for Autonomous Vehicles

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                HotEdgeVideo'19: Proceedings of the 2019 Workshop on Hot Topics in Video Analytics and Intelligent Edges
                October 2019
                50 pages
                ISBN:9781450369282
                DOI:10.1145/3349614

                Copyright © 2019 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 7 October 2019

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader