React / USAGE.md
yxma's picture
refresh the published scripts and USAGE.md from the repo
b2ab1c3 verified
|
Raw
History Blame
24.8 kB

React — loading, preprocessing, and the tools that post-process it

Everything a consumer touches, in one place: what the columns mean, what the loader does, what was done to the data before you got it, and what is known to be wrong with it.

Companion docs: test_sets/probes_v1/README.md for the action-following probe set, toolbox/quickstart.md for a five-minute tour.


Start here

Two bimanual tasks recorded with three cameras, two touch sensors and motion capture. Each episode is a parquet table (one row per camera frame) plus five videos.

from react_video_dataset import ReactVideoDataset
ds  = ReactVideoDataset("data/motherboard", split="train", window_length=16)
cal = ds.calibration()          # poses and cameras in the SAME convention

Six things that bite, each explained below:

Up is +z recorded Y-up, published Z-up. Take poses and cameras from the same place, or every overlay moves by up to 165 px. §1
Quaternions are xyzw scalar-last, as scipy wants. §1
Touch updates on ~29 % of rows the rest repeat the previous value. Check tactile_*_is_new before averaging. §2
Force is a magnitude direction comes from the sensor's own frame, not from world "down". §2
Held-out data is intervals, not episodes a training window that starts just before one still sees it; the loader raises instead of leaking. §3
Frame rate is not 30 Hz everywhere read timestamp, never assume. §5

0. Terms

Plain definitions for the words used throughout.

term what it means here
motion capture / OptiTrack cameras that track reflective markers and report where an object is, at ~120 Hz
rigid body a marker cluster the system treats as one object. Its local axes are fixed when the body is created, and are not a property of the hardware
pose position + orientation: [x, y, z, qx, qy, qz, qw], metres and a unit quaternion
scalar-last (xyzw) the w of the quaternion comes last. wxyz is the other common order and silently gives wrong rotations
world frame the shared coordinate system all poses are in — here, OptiTrack's, with the 2026-05-10 origin
up axis which axis points away from gravity. This release: +z
extrinsics (T_mocap_to_cam) where a camera sits in the world frame, as a 4×4 matrix
intrinsics a camera's focal lengths and optical centre, which turn a 3-D point into a pixel
GelSight Mini a touch sensor: a soft gel pad filmed from inside, so contact shows up as an image
gel that soft pad. Gel centre is its middle, gel normal the direction perpendicular to its surface
normal force how hard the gel is pressed, in newtons. A single number, no direction attached
penetration how far the gel would be pushed in: force / k, with stiffness k = 2 N/mm
virtual target the pose a stiffness controller would have been commanded to reach: the observed pose pushed penetration further along the gel normal
held-out interval a stretch of frames inside an episode reserved for testing
guard frames next to a held-out interval that training must also avoid, because a window starting there would contain held-out frames
segment a stretch curated as clean; mode="segment" uses only these
bad frame a frame flagged as corrupt: a sensor spike, a pose jump, a tracking dropout
calibration epoch one camera-calibration session. Sessions recorded under different epochs need different extrinsics
probe set synthetic single-axis motions used to ask whether a model follows a commanded action, as opposed to predicting a recording
reprojection error how far a known 3-D point lands from where the calibration says it should, in pixels or millimetres — the noise floor for any overlay
fingerprint a few stored pixel coordinates you can recompute from your own poses to confirm you are in the same frame as the release
trim the offset between a published row and its frame in the original recording (source_h5_frame)

1. Conventions, stated once

Pose layout [x, y, z, qx, qy, qz, qw]
Position units metres (millimetres everywhere inside the toolbox)
Quaternion order scalar-last (xyzw)scipy...Rotation.from_quat
Rotation deltas world-frame: dq = q[i+1] · q[i]⁻¹, integrate q[i+1] = dq · q[i]
World frame OptiTrack, 2026-05-10 reference
Up axis +z, right-handed. Recorded Y-up, published Z-up. See below.
Images 640×480, three colour views (left, middle, right) + two tactile

Up is +z — converted, not recorded

OptiTrack records Y-up. This release is published Z-up, because most robotics code assumes Z-up.

Why it matters: under Y-up, pose[2] is not height — it is a horizontal coordinate. The numbers still look reasonable and the plots still look fine. The only symptom is a model that never learns which way gravity points.

So the conversion was done once, in the data:

ds  = ReactVideoDataset(root)                # up_axis="z" is the default
cal = ds.calibration()                       # extrinsics in the SAME convention

Measured on the published tree, the table normal is [-0.015, -0.029, 0.999] — +z, 1.9° off — and every rotation has determinant +1. Pass up_axis="y" to get the raw OptiTrack convention back; the calibration comes back with it.

Never take the two halves from different places. The conversion is a rotation of the world frame, so it applies to the poses and to T_mocap_to_cam. Applied to one only it moves every projection by up to 165 px and raises nothing. That is not hypothetical: the probe test set drew poses from the converted release and calibration from an unconverted tree, and every overlay was a median 153 px off while all of its self-consistency checks stayed green — the same wrong matrix was used to draw and to re-verify.

Two things now prevent it. Each camera calibration declares its convention:

{"T_mocap_to_cam": [...], "up_axis": "z"}

and toolbox/frames.py exposes require_up_axis(cal), which raises rather than letting a mismatched pair through. A file with no up_axis key is treated as the pre-conversion Y-up it was, not waved past.

scripts/test_frames.py asserts both directions: converting poses and cameras together leaves projections identical to 8.5e-14 px, and converting one alone moves them 165 px. The second check is what makes the first mean anything.

One field is deliberately not Z-up. Each parquet's twm.world_frame declaration carries raw_h5_offset_m, whose job is to be added to a pose read straight out of the source HDF5 — and that file is Y-up, as recorded. It ships with raw_h5_offset_up_axis: "y" saying so. Everything else in that blob describes the published poses and is Z-up.

The rotation is R_x(-90°): (x, y, z) → (x, -z, y). There are two right-handed candidates; the other one leaves the world upside down with det = +1 and no handedness check would notice. toolbox/frames.py exposes convert_poses, convert_calibration and to_zup(poses, cal) — prefer the last, since the whole point is that they move as one piece.

The gel centre is in the sensor's own rigid frame and is untouched.

toolbox/actions.py once documented "quat wxyz" while its code was scalar-last. The code was right; a reader who trusted the text would have swapped w into x. If a docstring and the data disagree, trust a round-trip test, not prose.

2. Parquet columns

Per episode, one row per camera frame.

group columns
index frame_idx, timestamp, source_h5_frame, episode, episode_index, frame_index, task, task_index
poses sensor_left_pose, sensor_right_pose, object_pose — 7-vectors
tactile tactile_{side}_{intensity,area,mixed}, tactile_{side}_is_new
force force_{side}_normal_n, force_{side}_penetration_mm, force_{side}_target_pose, force_{side}_source_frame

tactile_*_is_new is not decoration. Tactile — and therefore force — updates on only ~29 % of rows: the GelSight stream ran slower than the cameras. A row where is_new is false repeats the previous tactile frame. Averaging force over all rows silently weights repeats.

penetration_mm = force_normal_n / k, with k = dexforce.STIFFNESS_N_PER_M / 1000 = 2.0 N/mm. Import it; do not retype it. A hard-coded k = 1.0 in a test went stale against the data and failed silently on 12 episode-sides.

force_{side}_source_frame names the tactile frame a force came from, so an alignment claim is checkable rather than asserted.

Which direction the force acts along

force_normal_n is a magnitude. It acts along the gel normal expressed in the sensor's own body frame — not along world vertical, which is a median 7.7° away on motherboard and 23.3° on pushT, where 70 % of contact frames exceed 15°. force_{side}_target_pose already has the direction applied:

from force_recovery.dexforce import gel_axis, STIFFNESS_N_PER_M
n_hat = R_from_quat(pose[3:7]) @ gel_axis(task, side)   # world unit vector
target_xyz = pose[:3] + (force_n / STIFFNESS_N_PER_M) * n_hat

The default is local -y: the GelSight Mini's sensing face is normal to the body's y axis, so a compression acts along -y.

The calibration files also carry gel_axis_in_rigid, reachable as gel_axis(task, side, source="dual_ball"). It is normalize(gelball_centre - refball_centre) — the line between two calibration ball centres 57 mm apart, from three poses. It never measured the gel surface, and equals the normal only if the fixture held both balls along it. It sits 21.2° (left) and 22.4° (right) from -y.

Which is right is not settled, and the two sensors do not agree. Measured:

test left right
angle from board normal, pressing >6 N on a level board (38 k frames) dual_ball 7.1°, -y 25.6° dual_ball 18.1°, -y 7.7°
corr(dF, v·n̂) — no world-frame or table assumption (31 episodes) dual_ball +0.085, -y +0.053; -y better on only 3 % of episodes +0.116 vs +0.116, a tie

So the left sensor's dual-ball axis looks right by both tests, and the right sensor's looks wrong by one and indifferent by the other. The right calibration also carries depth_offset_mm = 0.0 where the left carries -5.0, i.e. its ball centre was never backed off by a ball radius to reach the gel surface — a second sign of trouble in the same file.

Kinematics cannot arbitrate: over contact frames sum(R_i) has singular-value ratio 1.09 (left) and 1.04 (right), so the axis is unidentifiable from motion alone, and the two candidates' concentration scores differ by 0.013.

Choosing -y moves force_*_target_pose by a median 0.57 mm (max 1.53 mm), because F/k is itself only a few mm. Pass source="dual_ball" to reproduce the earlier published values.

3. The loader

from react_video_dataset import ReactVideoDataset

ds = ReactVideoDataset(
    "data/motherboard",
    window_length=16, stride=1, window_step=16,
    streams=("view_middle", "tactile_left", "tactile_right"),
    split="train",            # "train" | "test" | "all"
    skip_bad=True,
    tactile_latency=0,
)
argument what it does
window_length, stride, window_step window shape and how far the index advances
mode "segment" (default, clean intervals from segments.json) or "window" (whole episode)
streams any of the three views, two tactile, plus depth if load_depth=True
skip_bad drop windows touching bad_frames.json
tactile_latency pairs view[i] with tactile[i+lat]; see §5
split reads splits.json; raises if your window is longer than the guard

The split, and the part that leaks

Held-out data is carved as intervals from inside episodes, not whole episodes. There are 32 motherboard episodes; spending them on episode-level held-out data buys independence a short-horizon world model does not need — what it must generalise over is dynamics within a scene, not scenes.

Measured with a 64-frame training window: test 12.1 %, guard 9.4 %, train 78.5 %, over 147 intervals plus 2 wholly-held-out episodes.

A window of length S that starts shortly before a held-out interval still contains part of it. So the rejected range is [a-(S-1), b], not just [a, b] — that is what the guard is for. splits.json stores guard_frames = max_train_window - 1, and the loader raises rather than leak if your window is longer:

ValueError: window spans 128 frames but the split has guard_frames=63 …
            Rebuild with max_train_window >= 128.

That failure mode leaves no trace in any metric until the numbers are suspiciously good. Enumerated: 159,890 admissible training windows, none touch a held-out frame; drop the guard and 1,827 leak in the first six episodes alone.

Rebuild for a longer horizon:

python scripts/build_splits.py --max-train-window 128

4. Two evaluation sets, two questions

question data
split="test" can the model predict what actually happened? real frames, real actions, real futures
probe set does it follow the action it is given? commanded motions nobody performed; ground truth is geometric

The held-out split cannot test action-following on its own: in a recording, the action is whatever the person happened to do, so you cannot ask "what if it had moved 5 mm the other way".

The probes command one axis at a time, so a failure names a direction. Their start frames come only from held-out intervals.

5. What was done to the data before you got it

  1. Trim. source_h5_frame maps a row back to its raw HDF5 frame; row r is camera frame trim + r. Do not add any other lag term here — a fifth inline copy of a +15 shift put the force disc half a second from its tile in every published preview.
  2. Bad-frame flagging. bad_frames.json marks intensity spikes, pose teleports and OptiTrack dropouts. skip_bad=True honours it.
  3. Segments. segments.json holds 81 clean intervals; mode="segment" uses only those.
  4. Rest-gel reference. Per-episode fuzzy-mode background, falling back to a per-session reference only for episodes that are ~100 % contact. (data/<task>/reference/validation.md.)
  5. Force. Estimated from tactile, then penetration = F/k and a DexForce virtual target pose. Only ~29 % of rows carry a fresh estimate.
  6. World frame. 2026-05-19's OptiTrack origin was redefined mid-collection; the release bakes in a translation correction. See §7.

Tactile latency. Recordings before 2026-06-27 have a V4L2 buffer bug: the tactile stream was captured before the view at the same index. Pass tactile_latency=15 to pair view[i] with tactile[i+15] if your task needs tight tactile-visual sync. All motherboard episodes predate the fix.

Frame rate is not 30 Hz everywhere. 2026-05-10 and 2026-05-11 run at 29.9 Hz; 2026-05-19 runs at 11.7–23.5 Hz, and varies between its own episodes. Anything that converts frames to seconds must read timestamp, not assume a rate.

6. Post-processing tools

module what it is for
toolbox/calibration.py load calibration; project the gel centre or its full frame into a camera
toolbox/viz.py draw a projection, a sensor triad, a collision circle, a force disc
toolbox/actions.py derive actions from recorded poses (delta_pose_action / integrate_delta)
toolbox/synth_actions.py generate the synthetic single-axis probes
toolbox/probe_eval.py project ground truth, overlay it, score a rollout
toolbox/world_frame.py declare and verify which world frame a pose array is in
toolbox/conformance.py check your poses against this release's conventions — see §6b
toolbox/splits.py build / read the held-out interval split
toolbox/calib_epoch.py which calibration epoch and world transform a session uses

Overlaying ground truth on an image

from react_toolbox.calibration import load_calibration
from react_toolbox.probe_eval import overlay_gt, rollout_error

cal = load_calibration(root)               # the calibration IN the package
vis = overlay_gt(frame, gt_poses, cal["gel_left"], cal["cams"]["middle"],
                 held_pose7=held, held_gel_mm=cal["gel_right"])
vis = overlay_gt(vis, my_rollout, cal["gel_left"], cal["cams"]["middle"],
                 color=(255, 90, 90))
err = rollout_error(my_rollout, gt_poses, cal["gel_left"], cal["cams"]["middle"])

All projection goes through calibration.project_gel_to_pixel, the same function the previews and the release fingerprint use, so an overlay you draw cannot disagree with a stored one.

What "correct" means. Two error sources set the floor. Camera reprojection rmse is 4.7 / 5.3 / 7.5 mm for left / middle / right, which is 3.6 / 4.0 / 5.7 px at 800 mm. The gel centre is good to ~5 mm, another ~3.8 px.

So agreement within about 6 px is as good as this rig can tell. Do not read a 3 px difference as a result. rollout_error gives millimetres and pixels, because the same millimetre is more pixels up close.

6b. Checking your own usage

Every other test here validates the dataset. This one validates your use of it, which is the half that goes wrong. The data can be perfect and still be read in millimetres, or with w first, or paired with extrinsics from the other up-axis. None of those raise. They shift every projection and leave your own self-consistency checks green, because the same wrong assumption both draws and re-verifies.

python -m react_toolbox.conformance --release data/motherboard \
    --task motherboard --episode 2026-05-10/episode_000
conformance: PASS
  ok    quaternion norm deviates by at most 2.22e-16 from 1
  ok    median |position| = 0.435; expected metres, not millimetres
  ok    6890 poses given, episode has 6890 valid rows
  ok    worst-camera fingerprint error 0.00 px (tolerance 6)
        would read: other up-axis 364 px, quaternion as wxyz 55 px

Exit code 0 on pass, 1 on failure, so it drops into CI. Pass --poses my.npy to check an array your own pipeline produced, or call check_poses(...) and read Report.failures.

A passing report still prints what each mistake would have read. A validator that only ever says "ok" tells you nothing about whether it can say anything else.

Is there a standard process for this?

Yes, and it has a name: a conformance suite over a golden fixture. The same shape appears in BIDS for neuroimaging, Frictionless for tabular data, and Croissant for ML dataset metadata. Four parts, and where each one lives here:

part here
1. Machine-readable declaration of every convention up_axis in each calibration JSON and in each parquet's twm.world_frame
2. Golden values the consumer recomputes the projection fingerprint in that same blob — stored pixels you reproduce from your own poses
3. A validator the consumer runs on their own code python -m react_toolbox.conformance
4. Negative controls — it must fail when you are wrong printed on every report, and asserted by scripts/test_conformance.py

Part 4 is the one usually skipped, and it is the one that matters. This project shipped a self-consistency check that returned 0.0 for every input, and an overlay test that was 153 px wrong with all its checks green. A check nobody has watched fail is not evidence.

So test_conformance.py feeds the checker each classic mistake and requires it to object, by name: millimetres, wxyz, the recorded Y-up convention, unnormalised quaternions, and a row subset. Measured, those read 11,732 px, 55 px, 364 px, a norm error of 0.4, and 10.4 px respectively — against 0.00 px for correct input.

That last one is not a mistake in your data, it is a mistake in how you call the checker: the fingerprint is a median over the whole episode, so a subset shifts it by real motion. The checker refuses the subset instead of reporting a frame error that is not there. Pass rows= with your indices and it compares row-wise against the release instead.

7. Known problems, stated rather than hidden

2026-05-19's world frame. Its OptiTrack calibration was re-run mid-collection. The release applies a translation-only correction, (230, 0, 175) mm. What remains unmeasured:

  • rotation about the table normal (yaw). An estimate from board-outline matching gave +2.4°, but the reference date — zero by construction — scattered −1.8° to +3.3° over the same settings, so the method has no power and the number was withdrawn.
  • Coupling mocap to the depth camera puts 05-19 20–26 mm from the reference frame, against a reference-to-reference floor of 8.7–11 mm: about twice the instrument's own noise, so it is recorded, not corrected.

A tilt about an in-plane axis is not possible: the OptiTrack ground plane is set with an L-bracket laid on the table, so two calibrations differ only by yaw and in-plane translation. A 3.38° tilt measured here once was an artefact of a non-planar contact cloud and has been retracted.

calib_epoch.world_residual("motherboard", date) returns all of this programmatically. Use it to bound your own error rather than assuming zero.

7b. Running the scripts

Everything the sections above tell you to run ships under scripts/. They read their roots from the environment, so:

REACT_RELEASE=/path/to/react/data python scripts/build_splits.py
REACT_RELEASE=... python scripts/test_splits.py
variable what it points at published?
REACT_RELEASE the release tree — episodes.jsonl, splits.json, meta/, videos/ yes, this dataset
REACT_FORCE a release whose meta/ has the force columns; defaults to REACT_RELEASE yes
REACT_TESTSET the probe package yes, test_sets/probes_v1
REACT_OUT where build scripts write
REACT_RAW the original HDF5 capture tree no, ~1 TB

What needs REACT_RAW, and therefore cannot be reproduced from the release alone: build_probe_testset.py and render_probe_overlays.py read original camera frames for the probe context images, and test_frame_consistency.py reads the depth stream. Everything else — the split, its tests, the probe package's own tests, the pages — runs from what is published.

8. Adding a session or a task

The pieces that must be told about a new session, in order:

  1. calib_epoch.CALIB_DIRS — which camera-extrinsics epoch the task uses. calib_dir() raises on an unknown task rather than falling back; a wrong epoch does not look wrong, it looks like a slightly miscalibrated rig, which is how it shipped unnoticed once.

  2. episodes.jsonl — one record per episode, including world_frame_offset. Read by calib_epoch.world_offset_m; never retype the offset in code.

  3. calib_epoch.WORLD_TRANSFORM / WORLD_RESIDUAL — only if the world frame moved. Record what you could not measure as None with a reason.

  4. bad_frames.json, segments.json — from the curation pass.

  5. splits.jsonpython scripts/build_splits.py.

  6. Validate:

    python scripts/check_session_ready.py --task <task>   # is it registered?
    python scripts/validate_all.py                        # 22 checks
    python scripts/test_frame_consistency.py              # same world frame?
    python scripts/test_site.py                           # if pages were rebuilt
    

    check_session_ready answers steps 1–5 mechanically rather than leaving them to this list — a prose checklist gets skipped, and each omission has a silent failure mode: a wrong calibration epoch looks like a slightly miscalibrated rig (it shipped that way once, 35–73 px off), a missing splits.json entry puts the whole session in train.

If a new session's world frame moved and you cannot measure the change, say so in WORLD_RESIDUAL and keep the session. Dropping data to hide a bounded, declared error is the wrong trade — that mistake was made here once and undone.