Generalized Few-Shot Semantic Segmentation in Remote Sensing: Challenge and Benchmark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning with limited labeled data is a challenging problem in various applications, including remote sensing. Few-shot semantic segmentation is one approach that can encourage deep learning models to learn from few labeled examples for novel classes not seen during the training. The generalized few-shot segmentation setting has an additional challenge which encourages models not only to adapt to the novel classes but also to maintain strong performance on the training base classes. While previous datasets and benchmarks discussed the few-shot segmentation setting in remote sensing, we are the first to propose a generalized few-shot segmentation benchmark for remote sensing. The generalized setting is more realistic and challenging, which necessitates exploring it within the remote sensing context. We release the dataset augmenting OpenEarthMap (OEM) with additional classes labeled for the generalized few-shot evaluation setting. The dataset is released during the OEM land cover mapping generalized few-shot challenge in the learning with limited labeled data for image and video understanding (L3D-IVU) workshop in conjunction with computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR) 2024. In this work, we summarize the dataset and challenge details in addition to providing the benchmark results on the two phases of the challenge for the validation and test sets.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".