Training-Based Model Refinement and Representation Disagreement for Semi-Supervised Object Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semi-supervised object detection (SSOD) aims to improve the performance and generalization of existing object detectors by utilizing limited labeled data and extensive unlabeled data. Despite many advances, recent SSOD methods are still challenged by inadequate model refinement using the classical exponential moving average (EMA) strategy, the consensus of Teacher-Student models in the latter stages of training (i.e., losing their distinctiveness), and noisy/misleading pseudo-labels. This paper proposes a novel training-based model refinement (TMR) stage and a simple yet effective representation disagreement (RD) strategy to address the limitations of classical EMA and the consensus problem. The TMR stage of Teacher-Student models optimizes the lightweight scaling operation to refine the model’s weights and prevent overfitting or forgetting learned patterns from unlabeled data. Meanwhile, the RD strategy helps keep these models diverged to encourage the student model to explore additional patterns in unlabeled data. Our approach can be integrated into established SSOD methods and is empirically validated using two baseline methods, with and without cascade regression, to generate more reliable pseudo-labels. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superior performance of our approach over state-of-the-art SSOD methods. Specifically, the proposed approach outperforms the baseline Unbiased-Teacher-v2 (& Unbiased-Teacher-v1) method by an average mAP margin of 2.23, 2.1, and 3.36 (& 2.07, 1.9 and 3.27) on COCO-standard, COCO-additional, and Pascal VOC datasets, respectively.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".