Learning Deep Structured Active Contours End-to-End
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world is covered with millions of buildings, and precisely knowing each instance's position and extents is vital to a multitude of applications. Recently, automated building footprint segmentation models have shown superior detection accuracy thanks to the usage of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN). However, even the latest evolutions struggle to precisely delineating borders, which often leads to geometric distortions and inadvertent fusion of adjacent building instances. We propose to overcome this issue by exploiting the distinct geometric properties of buildings. To this end, we present Deep Structured Active Contours (DSAC), a novel framework that integrates priors and constraints into the segmentation process, such as continuous boundaries, smooth edges, and sharp corners. To do so, DSAC employs Active Contour Models (ACM), a family of constraint- and prior-based polygonal models. We learn ACM parameterizations per instance using a CNN, and show how to incorporate all components in a structured output model, making DSAC trainable end-to-end. We evaluate DSAC on three challenging building instance segmentation datasets, where it compares favorably against state-of-the-art. Code will be made available on https://github.com/dmarcosg/DSAC.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it