Soft Self-labeling and Potts Relaxations for Weakly-Supervised Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider weakly supervised segmentation where only a fraction of pixels have ground truth labels (scribbles) and focus on a self-labeling approach optimizing relaxations of the standard unsupervised CRF/Potts loss on unlabeled pixels. While WSSS methods can directly optimize such losses via gradient descent, prior work suggests that higher-order optimization can improve network training by introducing hidden pseudo-labels and powerful CRF sub-problem solvers, e.g. graph cut. However, previously used hard pseudo-labels can not represent class uncertainty or errors, which motivates soft self-labeling. We derive a principled auxiliary loss and systematically evaluate standard and new CRF relaxations (convex and non-convex), neighborhood systems, and terms connecting network predictions with soft pseudo-labels. We also propose a general continuous sub-problem solver. Using only standard architectures, soft self-labeling consistently improves scribble-based training and outperforms significantly more complex specialized WSSS systems. It can outperform full pixel-precise supervision. Our general ideas apply to other weakly-supervised problems/systems.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".