Evaluates category-level 6D object pose estimation on photometrically challenging objects (reflective, transparent, occluded). It tests both in-distribution generalization (seen objects) and out-of-distribution generalization (novel objects within the same category), comparing RGB-D and monocular approaches. Use when the user wants to benchmark on PhoCaL, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports 3D IoU.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill phocal-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Phocal Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-phocal-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: phocal-eval
description: Evaluates category-level 6D object pose estimation on photometrically challenging objects (reflective, transparent, occluded). It tests both in-distribution generalization (seen objects) and out-of-distribution generalization (novel objects within the same category), comparing RGB-D and monocular approaches. Use when the user wants to benchmark on PhoCaL, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports 3D IoU.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2205.08811
bibtex_key: wang2022phocal
confidence: high
---
# phocal-eval
> PhoCaL: A Multi-Modal Dataset for Category-Level Object Pose Estimation with Photometrically Challenging Objects — Wang et al. (2022) (arXiv:2205.08811, 2022)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates category-level 6D object pose estimation on photometrically challenging objects (reflective, transparent, occluded). It tests both in-distribution generalization (seen objects) and out-of-distribution generalization (novel objects within the same category), comparing RGB-D and monocular approaches.
## Datasets
- **PhoCaL** — total 24; splits: train (-1), test (-1)
## Metrics
- `3D IoU` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Intersection over Union (IoU) between predicted and ground-truth 3D bounding boxes. Mean Average Precision (mAP) is computed at IoU thresholds of 25% and 50% across all categories and images.
## Input / output format
**Input**: RGB or RGB-D image sequences containing household objects under varying illumination, occlusion, and partial visibility.
**Output**: 6D object pose (rotation and translation), scale, and 3D bounding box or point cloud shape.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_3d_iou(pred_box, gt_box):
intersection = volume_of_intersection(pred_box, gt_box)
union = volume_of_union(pred_box, gt_box)
return intersection / union if union > 0 else 0.0
def compute_mAP(predictions, ground_truths, iou_thresh=0.25):
matches = []
for pred, gt in zip(predictions, ground_truths):
if compute_3d_iou(pred, gt) >= iou_thresh:
matches.append(1.0)
else:
matches.append(0.0)
return sum(matches) / len(matches) * 100
```
## Common pitfalls
- Depth sensor artifacts on reflective/transparent objects cause significant performance drops for RGB-D methods, independent of the pose algorithm itself.
- Monocular methods suffer severe performance degradation on novel objects without extensive synthetic pretraining.
- Deformable objects (e.g., empty boxes) are difficult to annotate accurately and are not well-represented in the benchmark.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> The evaluation metric is the intersection over union (IoU) result with a threshold of 25% and 50%. The mean average precision (mAP) for 3D IoU at 25% is 43.34%.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{wang2022phocal,
title={PhoCaL: A Multi-Modal Dataset for Category-Level Object Pose Estimation with Photometrically Challenging Objects},
author={Wang et al. (2022)},
year={2022},
note={arXiv:2205.08811}
}
```
- arXiv: 2205.08811
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!