MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293868328 · doi:10.1109/crv55824.2022.00018

Adaptive Memory Management for Video Object Segmentation

2022· article· en· W4293868328 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Pourganjalikhan, Charalambos Poullis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer visionSegmentationObject (grammar)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Matching-based networks have achieved state-of-the-art performance for video object segmentation (VOS) tasks by storing every-k frames in an external memory bank for future inference. Storing the intermediate frames' predictions provides the network with richer cues for segmenting an object in the current frame. However, the size of the memory bank gradually increases with the length of the video, which slows down inference speed and makes it impractical to handle arbitrary length videos. This paper proposes an adaptive memory bank strategy for matching-based networks for semi-supervised video object segmentation (VOS) that can handle videos of arbitrary length by discarding obsolete features. Features are indexed based on their importance in the segmentation of the objects in previous frames. Based on the index, we discard unimportant features to accommodate new features. We present our experiments on DAVIS 2016, DAVIS 2017, and Youtube-VOS that demonstrate that our method outperforms state-of-the-art that employ first-and-latest strategy with fixed-sized memory banks and achieves comparable performance to the every-k strategy with increasing-sized memory banks. Furthermore, experiments show that our method increases inference speed by up to 80% over the every-k and 35% over first-and-latest strategies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.255 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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 topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207