Class-agnostic segmentation loss and its application to salient object detection and segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we present a novel loss function, called class-agnostic segmentation (CAS) loss. With CAS loss the class descriptors are learned during training of the network. We don’t require to define the label of a class a-priori, rather the CAS loss clusters regions with similar appearance together in a weakly-supervised manner. Furthermore, we show that the CAS loss function is sparse, bounded, and robust to class-imbalance. We first apply our CAS loss function with fully-convolutional ResNet101 and DeepLab-v3 architectures to the binary segmentation problem of salient object detection. We investigate the performance against the state-of-the-art methods in two settings of low and high-fidelity training data on seven salient object detection datasets. For low-fidelity training data (incorrect class label) class-agnostic segmentation loss outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on salient object detection datasets by staggering margins of around 50%. For high-fidelity training data (correct class labels) class-agnostic segmentation models perform as good as the state-of-the-art approaches while beating the state-of-the-art methods on most datasets. In order to show the utility of the loss function across different domains we then also test on general segmentation dataset, where class-agnostic segmentation loss outperforms competing losses by huge margins.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".