Dual Convolutional LSTM Network for Referring Image Segmentation
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
We consider referring image segmentation. It is a problem at the intersection of computer vision and natural language understanding. Given an input image and a referring expression in the form of a natural language sentence, the goal is to segment the object of interest in the image referred by the linguistic query. To this end, we propose a dual convolutional LSTM (ConvLSTM) network to tackle this problem. Our model consists of an encoder network and a decoder network, where ConvLSTM is used in both encoder and decoder networks to capture spatial and sequential information. The encoder network extracts visual and linguistic features for each word in the expression sentence, and adopts an attention mechanism to focus on words that are more informative in the multimodal interaction. The decoder network integrates the features generated by the encoder network at multiple levels as its input and produces the final precise segmentation mask. Experimental results on four challenging datasets demonstrate that the proposed network achieves superior segmentation performance compared with other state-of-the-art methods.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it