3 ms·

Thanks for the valuable feedback, we really appreciate it! We'll make sure to update the format and change the description to explain how it's useful for deepfa

Thanks for the valuable feedback, we really appreciate it! We'll make sure to update the format and change the description to explain how it's useful for deepfake detection. In terms of QA on segmentation masks, we did do a manual review of the output and removed ~15% of the original images that had invalid or empty segmentation masks, interestingly we found out this way that most segmentation models tend to generate incomplete or inaccurate masks when the aspect ratio of the input is not 1:1 . We're writing some code snippets that use multiple models to vote on the segments based on semantic class that is generated by the model, we plan to use this to speed up our assessment so we can release more image samples in the future, we could turn this into an open source library if that sounds useful. Happy to stay in touch!

maalber 2y ago
Thank you for elaborating, and interesting insight regarding the aspect ratio! I would be interested to know a bit more about the manual review process, e.g. how the invalid masks were classified and how many hours were dedicated to this. At Rapidata, we have/are developing an API for easily creating and getting responses on small validation or annotation tasks from annotators around the world. On-demand and in near real-time. Maybe some form of collaboration could be interesting if you need similar validation in the future. Feel free to reach out, my email is in my profile. We also recently published a dataset to huggingface which we collected using our system: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Rapidata/text-2-image-Rich-Human-Feedback https://huggingface.co/datasets/Rapidata/text-2-image-Rich-H...