Dynamic-budget superpixel active learning for semantic segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Active learning can significantly decrease the labeling cost of deep learning workflows by prioritizing the limited labeling budget to high-impact data points that have the highest positive impact on model accuracy. Active learning is especially useful for semantic segmentation tasks where we can selectively label only a few high-impact regions within these high-impact images. Most established regional active learning algorithms deploy a static-budget querying strategy where a fixed percentage of regions are queried in each image. A static budget could result in over- or under-labeling images as the number of high-impact regions in each image can vary. Methods: In this paper, we present a novel dynamic-budget superpixel querying strategy that can query the optimal numbers of high-uncertainty superpixels in an image to improve the querying efficiency of regional active learning algorithms designed for semantic segmentation. Results: For two distinct datasets, we show that by allowing a dynamic budget for each image, the active learning algorithm is more effective compared to static-budget querying at the same low total labeling budget. We investigate both low- and high-budget scenarios and the impact of superpixel size on our dynamic active learning scheme. In a low-budget scenario, our dynamic-budget querying outperforms static-budget querying by 5.6% mIoU on a specialized agriculture field image dataset and 2.4% mIoU on Cityscapes. Discussion: The presented dynamic-budget querying strategy is simple, effective, and can be easily adapted to other regional active learning algorithms to further improve the data efficiency of semantic segmentation tasks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".