Weakly Supervised Underwater Fish Segmentation Using Affinity LCFCN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Estimating fish body measurements like length, width, and mass has received considerable research due to its potential in boosting productivity in marine and aquaculture applications. Some methods are based on manual collection of these measurements using tools like a ruler which is time consuming and labour intensive. Others rely on fully-supervised segmentation models to automatically acquire these measurements but require collecting per-pixel labels which are also time consuming. It can take up to 2 minutes per fish to acquire accurate segmentation labels. To address this problem, we propose a segmentation model that can efficiently train on images labeled with point-level supervision, where each fish is annotated with a single click. This labeling scheme takes an average of only 1 second per fish. Our model uses a fully convolutional neural network with one branch that outputs per-pixel scores and another that outputs an affinity matrix. These two outputs are aggregated using a random walk to get the final, refined per-pixel output. The whole model is trained end-to-end using the LCFCN loss and thus we call our method Affinity-LCFCN (A-LCFCN). We conduct experiments on the DeepFish dataset, which contains several fish habitats from north-eastern Australia. The results show that A-LCFCN outperforms a fully-supervised segmentation model when the annotation budget is fixed. They also show that A-LCFCN achieves better segmentation results than LCFCN and a standard baseline.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".