Evaluates monocular depth estimation models across diverse real-world environments (natural, agricultural, urban, indoor) using high-quality LiDAR ground truth. Probes zero-shot generalization, boundary interpolation accuracy, and robustness to scene diversity and image artifacts. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SYNS-Patches, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports F-Score.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill mdec-syns-patches-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Mdec Syns Patches Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-mdec-syns-patches-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: mdec-syns-patches-eval
description: Evaluates monocular depth estimation models across diverse real-world environments (natural, agricultural, urban, indoor) using high-quality LiDAR ground truth. Probes zero-shot generalization, boundary interpolation accuracy, and robustness to scene diversity and image artifacts. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SYNS-Patches, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports F-Score.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2304.07051
bibtex_key: spencer2023mdec
confidence: high
---
# mdec-syns-patches-eval
> The Second Monocular Depth Estimation Challenge — Spencer et al. (2023) (arXiv:2304.07051, 2023)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates monocular depth estimation models across diverse real-world environments (natural, agricultural, urban, indoor) using high-quality LiDAR ground truth. Probes zero-shot generalization, boundary interpolation accuracy, and robustness to scene diversity and image artifacts.
## Datasets
- **SYNS-Patches** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `F-Score` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Harmonic mean of precision and recall for depth estimation, typically computed at a specific threshold or for edge detection. Used as the primary ranking metric.
- `F-Edges` — range: percent
- F-Score computed specifically on depth boundaries/edges to evaluate contour accuracy.
- `MAE` — range: other
- Mean Absolute Error between predicted and ground truth depth values.
- `RMSE` — range: other
- Root Mean Squared Error between predicted and ground truth depth values.
- `AbsRel` — range: other
- Mean absolute relative error, calculated as the mean of |pred - gt| / gt across valid pixels.
- `Acc-Edges` — range: percent
- Edge accuracy metric measuring the proportion of correctly predicted edge pixels.
- `Comp-Edges` — range: percent
- Edge completion metric measuring the proportion of ground truth edges successfully recovered by the prediction.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Monocular RGB image
**Output**: Predicted depth map (single-channel float tensor)
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(pred, gt):
# Median alignment for fair comparison across supervision types
pred_aligned = pred * (gt.median() / pred.median())
# F-Score & F-Edges (edge-based)
pred_edges = detect_edges(pred_aligned)
gt_edges = detect_edges(gt)
tp = (pred_edges & gt_edges).sum()
precision = tp / pred_edges.sum() if pred_edges.sum() > 0 else 0
recall = tp / gt_edges.sum() if gt_edges.sum() > 0 else 0
f_score = 2 * precision * recall / (precision + recall) if (precision + recall) > 0 else 0
# MAE, RMSE, AbsRel
mae = np.mean(np.abs(pred_aligned - gt))
rmse = np.sqrt(np.mean((pred_aligned - gt)**2))
absrel = np.mean(np.abs(pred_aligned - gt) / gt)
return f_score, f_edges, mae, rmse, absrel
```
## Common pitfalls
- Models must be median-aligned to the ground truth before evaluation to ensure fair comparisons across different supervision types.
- Self-supervised methods trained exclusively on automotive data fail to generalize to indoor or non-automotive scenes.
- Thin structures (e.g., railings, branches) and transparent surfaces (e.g., glass) are consistently poorly estimated due to interpolation halos and lack of LiDAR/photometric constraints.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Participant submissions were evaluated on SYNS-Patches [1, 78]. As previously mentioned, this paper only discusses submissions that outperformed the baseline in any pointcloud-/image-based metric across the Overall dataset. Since both challenge phases ran independently and participants were responsible for generating the predictions, we cannot guarantee that the testing/Validation metrics used the same model. We therefore report results only for the test split. All methods were median aligned w.r.t. the ground-truth, regardless of the supervision used. This ensures that the evaluations are identical and comparisons are fair. Table 2 shows the overall performance for each submission across the whole dataset, as well as each category. Each subset is ordered using F-Score performance.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{spencer2023mdec,
title={The Second Monocular Depth Estimation Challenge},
author={Spencer et al. (2023)},
year={2023},
note={arXiv:2304.07051}
}
```
- arXiv: 2304.07051
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!