3.8 Proceedings Paper

Semi-Supervised Semantic Segmentation Using Unreliable Pseudo-Labels

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.00421

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [62176152]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The crux of semi-supervised semantic segmentation is to assign pseudo-labels to unlabeled pixels. This research proposes a method that effectively separates reliable and unreliable pixels to make full use of unlabeled data. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of this approach over state-of-the-art alternatives.
The crux of semi-supervised semantic segmentation is to assign adequate pseudo-labels to the pixels of unlabeled images. A common practice is to select the highly confident predictions as the pseudo ground-truth, but it leads to a problem that most pixels may be left unused due to their unreliability. We argue that every pixel matters to the model training, even its prediction is ambiguous. Intuitively, an unreliable prediction may get confused among the top classes (i.e., those with the highest probabilities), however, it should be confident about the pixel not belonging to the remaining classes. Hence, such a pixel can be convincingly treated as a negative sample to those most unlikely categories. Based on this insight, we develop an effective pipeline to make sufficient use of unlabeled data. Concretely, we separate reliable and unreliable pixels via the entropy of predictions, push each unreliable pixel to a category-wise queue that consists of negative samples, and manage to train the model with all candidate pixels. Considering the training evolution, where the prediction becomes more and more accurate, we adaptively adjust the threshold for the reliable-unreliable partition. Experimental results on various benchmarks and training settings demonstrate the superiority of our approach over the state-of-the-art alternatives.(1)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available