A Bottom-Up Approach to Class-Agnostic Image Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Class-agnostic image segmentation is a crucial component in automating image editing workflows, especially in contexts where object selection traditionally involves interactive tools. Existing methods in the literature often adhere to top-down formulations, following the paradigm of class-based approaches, where object detection precedes per-object segmentation. In this work, we present a novel bottom-up formulation for addressing the class-agnostic segmentation problem. We supervise our network directly on the projective sphere of its feature space, employing losses inspired by metric learning literature as well as losses defined in a novel segmentation-space representation. The segmentation results are obtained through a straightforward mean-shift clustering of the estimated features. Our bottom-up formulation exhibits exceptional generalization capability, even when trained on datasets designed for class-based segmentation. We further showcase the effectiveness of our generic approach by addressing the challenging task of cell and nucleus segmentation. We believe that our bottom-up formulation will offer valuable insights into diverse segmentation challenges in the literature.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".