Standardized Max Logits: A Simple yet Effective Approach for Identifying Unexpected Road Obstacles in Urban-Scene Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying unexpected objects on roads in semantic segmentation (e.g., identifying dogs on roads) is crucial in safetycritical applications. Existing approaches use images of unexpected objects from external datasets or require additional training (e.g., retraining segmentation networks or training an extra network), which necessitate a non-trivial amount of labor intensity or lengthy inference time. One possible alternative is to use prediction scores of a pretrained network such as the max logits (i.e., maximum values among classes before the final softmax layer) for detecting such objects. However, the distribution of max logits of each predicted class is significantly different from each other, which degrades the performance of identifying unexpected objects in urban-scene segmentation. To address this issue, we propose a simple yet effective approach that standardizes the max logits in order to align the different distributions and reflect the relative meanings of max logits within each predicted class. Moreover, we consider the local regions from two different perspectives based on the intuition that neighboring pixels share similar semantic information. In contrast to previous approaches, our method does not utilize any external datasets or require additional training, which makes our method widely applicable to existing pretrained segmentation models. Such a straightforward approach achieves a new state-of-the-art performance on the publicly available Fishyscapes Lost & Found leader-board with a large margin. Our code is publicly available at this link1.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".