Play and Learn: Using Video Games to Train Computer Vision Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video games are a compelling source of annotated data as they can readily provide fine-grained groundtruth for diverse tasks. However, it is not clear whether the synthetically generated data has enough resemblance to the real-world images to improve the performance of computer vision models in practice. We present experiments assessing the effectiveness on real-world data of systems trained on synthetic RGB images that are extracted from a video game. We collected over 60000 synthetic samples from a modern video game with similar conditions to the real-world CamVid and Cityscapes datasets. We provide several experiments to demonstrate that the synthetically generated RGB images can be used to improve the performance of deep neural networks on both image segmentation and depth estimation. These results show that a convolutional network trained on synthetic data achieves a similar test error to a network that is trained on real-world data for dense image classification. Furthermore, the synthetically generated RGB images can provide similar or better results compared to the real-world datasets if a simple domain adaptation technique is applied. Our results suggest that collaboration with game developers for an accessible interface to gather data is potentially a fruitful direction for future work in computer vision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".