Semantic segmentation of textured mosaics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates deep learning (DL)-based semantic segmentation of textured mosaics. Existing popular datasets for mosaic texture segmentation, designed prior to the DL era, have several limitations: (1) training images are single-textured and thus differ from the multi-textured test images; (2) training and test textures are typically cut out from the same raw images, which may hinder model generalization; (3) each test image has its own limited set of training images, thus forcing an inefficient training of one model per test image from few data. We propose two texture segmentation datasets, based on the existing Outex and DTD datasets, that are suitable for training semantic segmentation networks and that address the above limitations: SemSegOutex focuses on materials acquired under controlled conditions, and SemSegDTD focuses on visual attributes of textures acquired in the wild. We also generate a synthetic version of SemSegOutex via texture synthesis that can be used in the same way as standard random data augmentation. Finally, we study the performance of the state-of-the-art DeepLabv3+ for textured mosaic segmentation, which is excellent for SemSegOutex and variable for SemSegDTD. Our datasets allow us to analyze results according to the type of material, visual attributes, various image acquisition artifacts, and natural versus synthetic aspects, yielding new insights into the possible usage of recent DL technologies for texture analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".