Weakly Supervised Few-shot Object Segmentation using Co-Attention with Visual and Semantic Embeddings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant progress has been made recently in developing few-shot object segmentation methods. Learning is shown to be successful in few-shot segmentation settings, using pixel-level, scribbles and bounding box supervision. This paper takes another approach, i.e., only requiring image-level label for few-shot object segmentation. We propose a novel multi-modal interaction module for few-shot object segmentation that utilizes a co-attention mechanism using both visual and word embedding. Our model using image-level labels achieves 4.8% improvement over previously proposed image-level few-shot object segmentation. It also outperforms state-of-the-art methods that use weak bounding box supervision on PASCAL-5^i. Our results show that few-shot segmentation benefits from utilizing word embeddings, and that we are able to perform few-shot segmentation using stacked joint visual semantic processing with weak image-level labels. We further propose a novel setup, Temporal Object Segmentation for Few-shot Learning (TOSFL) for videos. TOSFL can be used on a variety of public video data such as Youtube-VOS, as demonstrated in both instance-level and category-level TOSFL experiments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".