Salient object cutout using Google images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given any image input by users, how to automatically cutout the object-of-interest is a challenging problem due to lack of information of the object-of-interest and the background. Saliency detection techniques are able to provide some rough information about object-of-interest since they highlight high-contrast or high attention regions or pixels. However, the generated saliency map is often noisy and directly applying it for segmentation often leads to erroneous results. Motivated by the recent progress on image co-segmentation and internet image retrieval techniques, in this paper, we propose to use the user input image for segmentation as a query image to Google Images and then employ the top returned Google images to build up the knowledge about the object-of-interest in the user input image. Particularly, we develop a lightweight algorithm to learn the knowledge of the object-of-interest in the retrieved images to enhance the saliency map of the input image. Then, the enhanced saliency map is used to initialize the graph-cut to extract the object-of-interest. Experiments with the Mcgill dataset and multiple challenge cases demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in terms of producing a clean cutout.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".