MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

IMPROVING CNN-BASED BUILDING SEMANTIC SEGMENTATION USING OBJECT BOUNDARIES

2022· article· en· W4293069434 on OpenAlexafffund
Evangelos Bousias Alexakis, C. Armenakis

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaYork University
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationLeverage (statistics)Artificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkEncoderDeep learningGround truthPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Semantic segmentation is an active area of research with a wide range of applications including autonomous driving, digital mapping, urban monitoring, land use analysis and disaster management. For the past few years approaches based on Convolutional Neural Networks, especially end-to-end approaches based on architectures like the Fully Convolutional Networks (FCN) and UNet, have made great progress and are considered the current state-of-the-art. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement as CNN-based supervised-learning models require a very large amount of labelled data in order to generalize effectively to new data and the segmentation results often lack detail, mostly in areas near the boundaries between objects. In this work we leverage the semantic information provided by the objects’ boundaries to improve the quality and detail of an encoder-decoder model’s semantic segmentation output. We use a UNet-based model with ResNet as an encoder for our backbone architecture in which we incorporate a decoupling module that separates the boundaries from the main body of the objects and thus learns explicit representations for both body and edges of each object. We evaluate our proposed approach on the Inria Aerial Image Labelling dataset and compare the results to a more traditional Unet-based architecture. We show that the proposed approach marginally outperforms the baseline on the mean precision, F1-score and IoU metrics by 1.1 to 1.6%. Finally, we examine certain cases of misclassification in the ground truth data and discuss how the trained models perform in such cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207