Consistent Scene Graph Generation by Constraint Optimization
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
Scene graph generation takes an image and derives a graph representation of key objects in the image and their relations. This core computer vision task is often used in autonomous driving, where traditional software and machine learning (ML) components are used in tandem. However, in such a safety-critical context, valid scene graphs can be further restricted by consistency constraints captured by domain or safety experts. Existing ML approaches for scene graph generation focus exclusively on relation-level accuracy but provide little to no guarantee that consistency constraints are satisfied in the generated scene graphs. In this paper, we aim to complement existing ML-based approaches by a post-processing step using constraint optimization over probabilistic scene graphs that can (1) guarantee that no consistency constraints are violated and (2) improve the overall accuracy of scene graph generation by fixing constraint violations. We evaluate the effectiveness of our approach using well-known, and novel metrics in the context of two popular ML datasets augmented with consistency constraints and two ML-based scene graph generation approaches as baselines.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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