MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810734829

Learning Regularization Weight for CRF Optimization

2018· article· en· W2810734829 on OpenAlexaff
Wu Jiaxiao, Olga Veksler

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegularization (linguistics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimizationMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are leading the way in many computer vision problems. Since the development of fully convolutional networks, CNNs have been widely employed for low-level pixel-labeling problems, and successfully pushed the performance to a new level. Although CNNs are able to extract highly discriminative features, they typically assign a class label to each image pixel individually. This leads to various spatial inconsistencies. Therefore, CNNs are commonly combined with graphical models, such as conditional random fields (CRFs), to impose spatial coherence. CRFs were invented precisely for the task of imposing spatial coherence among image pixels. The coherence regularization weight serves an important role of controlling the regularization strength in the CRF optimization, and has a great influence on the quality of the final result. Traditionally this weight value is set to a fixed number for all images.\nIn this thesis, we propose a novel approach to learn the coherence regularization weight for each individual image using a CNN, and then apply this per-image-learned weight in the CNN+CRF system. We first construct a dataset where the optimal regularization weight for the CRF optimization has been pre-computed for each image. We adopt convolutional regression networks with standard architecture for learning, and tailor the input according to our problem. We test the effectiveness of our approach on the task of salient object segmentation where a graph-cut based CRF optimizer can generate globally optimal solution. We show that consistent performance improvements can be achieved by using the regularization weight learned on per-image basis as opposed to a fixed regularization weight for all images in the dataset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207