MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399368960 · doi:10.21428/d82e957c.0941aa68

BACS: Background Aware Continual Semantic Segmentation

2024· article· en· W4399368960 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa ElAraby, Ali Harakeh, Liam Paull

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semantic segmentation plays a crucial role in enabling comprehensive scene understanding for robotic systems. However, generating annotations is challenging, requiring labels for every pixel in an image. In scenarios like autonomous driving, there’s a need to progressively incorporate new classes as the operating environment of the deployed agent becomes more complex. For enhanced annotation efficiency, ideally, only pixels belonging to new classes would be annotated. This approach is known as Continual Semantic Segmentation (CSS). Besides the common problem of classical catastrophic forgetting in the continual learning setting, CSS suffers from the inherent ambiguity of the background, a phenomenon we refer to as the “background shift”, since pixels labeled as background could correspond to future classes (forward background shift) or previous classes (backward background shift). As a result, continual learning approaches tend to fail. This paper proposes a Backward Background Shift Detector (BACS) to detect previously observed classes based on their distance in the latent space from the foreground centroids of previous steps. Moreover, we propose a modified version of the cross-entropy loss function, incorporating the BACS detector to down-weight background pixels associated with formerly observed classes. To combat catastrophic forgetting, we employ masked feature distillation alongside dark experience replay. Additionally, our approach includes a transformer decoder capable of adjusting to new classes without necessitating an additional classification head. We validate BACS’s superior performance over existing state-of-the-art methods on standard CSS benchmarks.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207