Selective Segmentation Networks Using Top-Down Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Convolutional neural networks model the transformation of the input sensory data at the bottom of a network hierarchy to the semantic information at the top of the visual hierarchy. Feedforward processing is sufficient for some object recognition tasks. Top-Down selection is potentially required in addition to the Bottom-Up feedforward pass. It can, in part, address the shortcoming of the loss of location information imposed by the hierarchical feature pyramids. We propose a unified 2-pass framework for object segmentation that augments Bottom-Up \convnets with a Top-Down selection network. We utilize the top-down selection gating activities to modulate the bottom-up hidden activities for segmentation predictions. We develop an end-to-end multi-task framework with loss terms satisfying task requirements at the two ends of the network. We evaluate the proposed network on benchmark datasets for semantic segmentation, and show that networks with the Top-Down selection capability outperform the baseline model. Additionally, we shed light on the superior aspects of the new segmentation paradigm and qualitatively and quantitatively support the efficiency of the novel framework over the baseline model that relies purely on parametric skip connections.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".