Semi-Supervised Semantic Image Segmentation With Self-Correcting Networks
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
Building a large image dataset with high-quality object masks for semantic segmentation is costly and time-consuming. In this paper, we introduce a principled semi-supervised framework that only use a small set of fully supervised images (having semantic segmentation labels and box labels) and a set of images with only object bounding box labels (we call it the weak-set). Our framework trains the primary segmentation model with the aid of an ancillary model that generates initial segmentation labels for the weak-set and a self-correction module that improves the generated labels during training using the increasingly accurate primary model. We introduce two variants of the self-correction module using either linear or convolutional functions. Experiments on the PASCAL VOC 2012 and Cityscape datasets show that our models trained with a small fully supervised set perform similar to, or better than, models trained with a large fully supervised set while requiring 7x less annotation effort.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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