FindNet: Can You Find Me? Boundary-and-Texture Enhancement Network for Camouflaged Object Detection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it