Image-Level or Object-Level? A Tale of Two Resampling Strategies for Long-Tailed Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training on datasets with long-tailed distributions has been challenging for major recognition tasks such as classification and detection. To deal with this challenge, image resampling is typically introduced as a simple but effective approach. However, we observe that long-tailed detection differs from classification since multiple classes may be present in one image. As a result, image resampling alone is not enough to yield a sufficiently balanced distribution at the object-level. We address object-level resampling by introducing an object-centric sampling strategy based on a dynamic, episodic memory bank. Our proposed strategy has two benefits: 1) convenient object-level resampling without significant extra computation, and 2) implicit feature-level augmentation from model updates. We show that image-level and object-level resamplings are both important, and thus unify them with a joint resampling strategy. Our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on the rare categories of LVIS, with 1.89% and 3.13% relative improvements over Forest R-CNN on detection and instance segmentation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".