MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319323278 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.01403

Self-Supervised Relation Alignment for Scene Graph Generation

2023· preprint· en· W4319323278 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bicheng Xu, Renjie Liao, Leonid Sigal

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMultimodal Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaCompute CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsComputer scienceScene graphGraphMessage passingArtificial intelligenceRegularization (linguistics)Machine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Theoretical computer scienceParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of scene graph generation is to predict a graph from an input image, where nodes correspond to identified and localized objects and edges to their corresponding interaction predicates. Existing methods are trained in a fully supervised manner and focus on message passing mechanisms, loss functions, and/or bias mitigation. In this work we introduce a simple-yet-effective self-supervised relational alignment regularization designed to improve the scene graph generation performance. The proposed alignment is general and can be combined with any existing scene graph generation framework, where it is trained alongside the original model's objective. The alignment is achieved through distillation, where an auxiliary relation prediction branch, that mirrors and shares parameters with the supervised counterpart, is designed. In the auxiliary branch, relational input features are partially masked prior to message passing and predicate prediction. The predictions for masked relations are then aligned with the supervised counterparts after the message passing. We illustrate the effectiveness of this self-supervised relational alignment in conjunction with two scene graph generation architectures, SGTR and Neural Motifs, and show that in both cases we achieve significantly improved performance.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.110 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207