MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392856651 · doi:10.3390/jimaging10030071

FishSegSSL: A Semi-Supervised Semantic Segmentation Framework for Fish-Eye Images

2024· article· en· W4392856651 on OpenAlexafffund
Sneha Paul, Zachary Patterson, Nizar Bouguila

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Imaging · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSegmentationThresholdingComputer visionBenchmark (surveying)Perspective (graphical)Image segmentationSupervised learningPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Artificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of large field-of-view (FoV) cameras equipped with fish-eye lenses brings notable advantages to various real-world computer vision applications, including autonomous driving. While deep learning has proven successful in conventional computer vision applications using regular perspective images, its potential in fish-eye camera contexts remains largely unexplored due to limited datasets for fully supervised learning. Semi-supervised learning comes as a potential solution to manage this challenge. In this study, we explore and benchmark two popular semi-supervised methods from the perspective image domain for fish-eye image segmentation. We further introduce FishSegSSL, a novel fish-eye image segmentation framework featuring three semi-supervised components: pseudo-label filtering, dynamic confidence thresholding, and robust strong augmentation. Evaluation on the WoodScape dataset, collected from vehicle-mounted fish-eye cameras, demonstrates that our proposed method enhances the model's performance by up to 10.49% over fully supervised methods using the same amount of labeled data. Our method also improves the existing image segmentation methods by 2.34%. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work on semi-supervised semantic segmentation on fish-eye images. Additionally, we conduct a comprehensive ablation study and sensitivity analysis to showcase the efficacy of each proposed method in this research.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ImagingSame topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207