Active self-training for weakly supervised 3D scene semantic segmentation
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
Since the preparation of labeled data for training semantic segmentation networks of point clouds is a time-consuming process, weakly supervised approaches have been introduced to learn from only a small fraction of data. These methods are typically based on learning with contrastive losses while automatically deriving per-point pseudo-labels from a sparse set of user-annotated labels. In this paper, our key observation is that the selection of which samples to annotate is as important as how these samples are used for training. Thus, we introduce a method for weakly supervised segmentation of 3D scenes that combines self-training with active learning. Active learning selects points for annotation that are likely to result in improvements to the trained model, while self-training makes efficient use of the user-provided labels for learning the model. We demonstrate that our approach leads to an effective method that provides improvements in scene segmentation over previous work and baselines, while requiring only a few user annotations.
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