MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306830744 · doi:10.1109/tip.2022.3189828

FindNet: Can You Find Me? Boundary-and-Texture Enhancement Network for Camouflaged Object Detection

2022· article· en· W4306830744 on OpenAlexaff
Peng Li, Xuefeng Yan, Hongwei Zhu, Mingqiang Wei, Xiao–Ping Zhang, Jing Qin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBoundary (topology)Focus (optics)Artificial intelligenceTexture (cosmology)Computer visionComputer scienceObject (grammar)Fuzzy logicObject detectionPattern recognition (psychology)Benchmark (surveying)Complement (music)CamouflageMathematicsImage (mathematics)GeographyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Camouflaged objects share very similar colors but have different semantics with the surroundings. Cognitive scientists observe that both the global contour (i.e., boundary) and the local pattern (i.e., texture) of camouflaged objects are key cues to help humans find them successfully. Inspired by the cognitive scientist's observation, we propose a novel boundary-and-texture enhancement network (FindNet) for camouflaged object detection (COD) from single images. Different from most of existing COD methods, FindNet embeds both the boundary-and-texture information into the camouflaged object features. The boundary enhancement (BE) module is leveraged to focus on the global contour of the camouflaged object, and the texture enhancement (TE) module is utilized to focus on the local pattern. The enhanced features from BE and TE, which complement each other, are combined to obtain the final prediction. FindNet performs competently on various conditions of COD, including slightly clear boundaries but very similar textures, fuzzy boundaries but slightly differentiated textures, and simultaneous fuzzy boundaries and textures. Experimental results exhibit clear improvements of FindNet over fifteen state-of-the-art methods on four benchmark datasets, in terms of detection accuracy and boundary clearness. The code will be publicly released.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.263
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations68
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207