MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386249616 · doi:10.1109/crv60082.2023.00046

Gradient-Based Maximally Interfered Retrieval for Domain Incremental 3D Object Detection

2023· article· en· W4386249616 on OpenAlexaff
Barza Nisar, Hruday Vishal Kanna Anand, Steven L. Waslander

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceForgettingArtificial intelligenceDomain (mathematical analysis)Object detectionSoftware deploymentScratchMachine learningData miningPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate 3D object detection in all weather conditions remains a key challenge to enable the widespread deployment of autonomous vehicles, as most work to date has been performed on clear weather data. In order to generalize to adverse weather conditions, supervised methods perform best if trained from scratch on all weather data instead of finetuning a model pretrained on clear weather data. Training from scratch on all data will eventually become computationally infeasible and expensive as datasets continue to grow and encompass the full extent of possible weather conditions. On the other hand, naive finetuning on data from a different weather domain can result in catastrophic forgetting of the previously learned domain. Inspired by the success of replay-based continual learning methods, we propose Gradient-based Maximally Interfered Retrieval (GMIR), a gradient based sampling strategy for replay. During finetuning, GMIR periodically retrieves samples from the previous domain dataset whose gradient vectors show maximal interference with the gradient vector of the current update. Our 3D object detection experiments on the SeeingThroughFog (STF) dataset [1] show that GMIR not only overcomes forgetting but also offers competitive performance compared to scratch training on all data with a 46.25% reduction in total training time.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningFrench-language works237,207