MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402727719 · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02215

Visual Prompting for Generalized Few-shot Segmentation: A Multi-scale Approach

2024· article· en· W4402727719 on OpenAlexaff
Mir Rayat Imtiaz Hossain, Mennatullah Siam, Leonid Sigal, James J. Little

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShot (pellet)Computer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceSegmentationScale (ratio)Image segmentationOne shotComputer graphics (images)EngineeringGeographyCartographyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of attention-based transformer models has led to their extensive use in various tasks, due to their superior generalization and transfer properties. Recent research has demonstrated that such models, when prompted appropriately, are excellent for few-shot inference. However, such techniques are under-explored for dense prediction tasks like semantic segmentation. In this work, we examine the effectiveness of prompting a transformer-decoder with learned visual prompts for the generalized few-shot segmentation (GFSS) task. Our goal is to achieve strong performance not only on novel categories with limited examples, but also to retain performance on base cat-egories. We propose an approach to learn visual prompts with limited examples. These learned visual prompts are used to prompt a multiscale transformer decoder to facilitate accurate dense predictions. Additionally, we introduce a unidirectional causal attention mechanism between the novel prompts, learned with limited examples, and the base prompts, learned with abundant data. This mecha-nism enriches the novel prompts without deteriorating the base class performance. Overall, this form of prompting helps us achieve state-of-the-art performance for GFSS on two different benchmark datasets: COCO-20i and Pascal-Si, without the need for test-time optimization (or transduction). Furthermore, test-time optimization leveraging unlabelled test data can be used to improve the prompts, which we refer to as transductive prompt tuning.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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