MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self-Superflow: Self-Supervised Scene Flow Prediction in Stereo Sequences

2022· article· en· W4308234157 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Katharina Bendig, René Schuster, Didier Stricker

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCODE
KeywordsComputer scienceGround truthArtificial intelligenceBenchmark (surveying)GeneralizationFlow (mathematics)Convergence (economics)Representation (politics)Artificial neural networkDeep learningMachine learningTest dataSupervised learningComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, deep neural networks showed their exceeding capabilities in addressing many computer vision tasks including scene flow prediction. However, most of the advances are dependent on the availability of a vast amount of dense per pixel ground truth annotations, which are very difficult to obtain for real life scenarios. Therefore, synthetic data is often relied upon for supervision, resulting in a representation gap between the training and test data. Even though a great quantity of unlabeled real world data is available, there is a huge lack in self-supervised methods for scene flow prediction. Hence, we explore the extension of a self-supervised loss based on the Census transform and occlusion-aware bidirectional displacements for the problem of scene flow prediction. Regarding the KITTI scene flow benchmark, our method outperforms the corresponding supervised pre-training of the same network and shows improved generalization capabilities while achieving much faster convergence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP)Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207