Commit graph

2 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
kiyo9w
0e23425ef0 feat: a live path that uses the enrolled store, and a demo server a phone can reach
The live session scored crops with the matcher regardless of the configured identity
backend, so a live scan used the old mechanism while the still path used the enrolled
gallery - measured, the matcher accepts look-alikes and cannot say "unknown", which is
exactly what a real shelf needs it to do. score_crop now routes to the gallery, and
the decision uses a similarity scale (accept at 0.60 with a 0.04 margin) rather than
inlier-count thresholds that mean nothing on a cosine.

The synthetic walk is gone: demo.py, demo_replay.py, the /v1/demo endpoints and the
walk benchmark are deleted, and the app's frame source is the camera on a device (the
single-image replay stays for the simulator, which has no camera).

stock-demo merges both demo shelves (27 products, 62 views, trained head) so one
server recognises either image, and run-demo-server.sh starts it bound to 0.0.0.0 and
prints the exact URL to put in Config.xcconfig.

Verified over the LAN with 1280x960 frames: 40 frames in 5.3s, 9 products recognised
on demo image 1.

Co-Authored-By: Devin <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
2026-09-25 10:51:57 +09:00
kiyo9w
f74366d6a4 test: evaluate on 54 real store photos the pipeline has never seen
Everything else here is measured on two photographs. This collects real store
shelves from Wikimedia Commons (scriptable API, explicit licences: CC0, CC BY,
CC BY-SA, public domain, each recorded in a manifest) and evaluates the pipeline on
them. 46 of 54 images carry a shelf; the rest are book scans and a shop front.

What it found, and it is not what I expected:

- **Detection transfers.** 2,258 detections across dairy cases, soy-sauce shelves,
  spice racks, a confectionery aisle, an Okinawan supermarket and a Hong Kong
  grocery - tight boxes on images the model has never seen, and correctly nothing on
  the book scans.
- **Identity transfers when the product is genuinely there.** On a 2011 milk-case
  photo it labelled six facings of 明治 おいしい牛乳 correctly, and 野菜生活100 and
  R-1 elsewhere. The matcher does reach new photographs of products it has templates
  for.
- **Precision is the failure, and rejection is missing.** In that same photograph it
  labelled 低脂肪殺菌牛乳, 有機豆乳, 特濃4.5, 無調整豆乳 and 北海道牛乳 as おいしい牛乳 -
  they are all white milk cartons. Across 24 shelves whose products are not in the
  catalog it accepted 451 identities, and the score cannot be thresholded to fix it:
  the real shelf's median is 18.2 with a p10 of 5.2, while the foreign shelves' median
  is 6.0 and the worst offenders score 50.5 (a bento), 80.6 (a shop interior) and
  189.9 (deer cookies). A threshold that catches the foreigners also throws away the
  real matches.

That confirms on real data what the literature and the review predicted: the
matcher's raw inlier score is not a confidence, and fine-grained look-alikes are the
failure mode. Step 4 of the plan - shortlist, local re-rank, calibrated rejection -
is the fix, not a refinement.

docs/EXTERNAL-EVAL.md records the numbers, the method and the attribution; the
images themselves are not redistributed. 175 tests pass.

Co-Authored-By: Devin <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
2026-09-25 02:21:00 +09:00