GANSeg: Learning to Segment by Unsupervised Hierarchical Image Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Segmenting an image into its parts is a common pre-process for high-level vision tasks such as image editing. However, annotating masks for supervised training is expensive. Weakly-supervised and unsupervised methods exist, but they depend on the comparison of pairs of images, such as from multi-views, frames of videos, and image augmentation, which limit their applicability. To address this, we propose a GAN-based approach that generates images conditioned on latent masks, thereby alleviating full or weak annotations required by previous approaches. We show that such mask-conditioned image generation can be learned faithfully when conditioning the masks in a hierarchical manner on 2D latent points that define the position of parts explicitly. Without requiring supervision of masks or points, this strategy increases robustness of mask to viewpoint and object position changes. It also lets us generate image-mask pairs for training a segmentation network, which outperforms state-of-the-art unsupervised segmentation methods on established benchmarks. Code can be found at https://github.com/xingzhehe/GANSeg.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".