Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

Beyond Argmax: A Mechanistic Study of Semantic Retention in Frozen Foundation-Model Composition for Generalized Few-Shot 3D Segmentation

Summary

arXiv:2609.12099v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Classical classifier-combination work distinguishes score-level fusion from hard decision-level voting. We revisit this distinction where independently pretrained, frozen foundation models are composed at inference time for generalized few-shot 3D segmentation. We ask: how much useful semantic information is lost when heterogeneous sources are collapsed to a single class before they can interact? We answer with a same-input semantic-retention intervention. Dense RegionPLC and sparse cross-view SAM3 evidence, model weights, masks, geometry, vocabularies, and fusion rules are frozen; only the number of semantic alternatives retained before interaction is varied via a matched top-k ladder. On 156 held-out ScanNet200 scenes, top-1 reaches 28.47…

SourcearXiv Computer VisionAuthor: Silas Kwabla Gah, Ebenezer Owusu
Beyond Argmax: A Mechanistic Study of Semantic Retention in Frozen Foundation-Model Composition for Generalized Few-Shot 3D Segmentation
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 10 Sep 2026]

Title:Beyond Argmax: A Mechanistic Study of Semantic Retention in Frozen Foundation-Model Composition for Generalized Few-Shot 3D Segmentation

View a PDF of the paper titled Beyond Argmax: A Mechanistic Study of Semantic Retention in Frozen Foundation-Model Composition for Generalized Few-Shot 3D Segmentation, by Silas Kwabla Gah and Ebenezer Owusu

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Classical classifier-combination work distinguishes score-level fusion from hard decision-level voting. We revisit this distinction where independently pretrained, frozen foundation models are composed at inference time for generalized few-shot 3D segmentation. We ask: how much useful semantic information is lost when heterogeneous sources are collapsed to a single class before they can interact?

We answer with a same-input semantic-retention intervention. Dense RegionPLC and sparse cross-view SAM3 evidence, model weights, masks, geometry, vocabularies, and fusion rules are frozen; only the number of semantic alternatives retained before interaction is varied via a matched top-k ladder. On 156 held-out ScanNet200 scenes, top-1 reaches 28.47 harmonic-mean (HM) IoU while full distribution fusion reaches 34.87 HM (+6.40, 95% CI [+5.24,+7.64]). The pattern replicates on 50 ScanNet++ scenes: 23.02 vs. 26.50 HM (+3.48, 95% CI [+1.64,+5.93]).

The conclusion is robust: full-distribution HM is stable across sparse-source weights 0.3--0.7; alternative operators (max, geometric pooling) also outperform top-1; and a GroundingDINO--SAM2.1 source-replacement diagnostic shows monotonic HM increase from 14.77 to 18.75 with full retention. Calibration diagnostics reveal opposite miscalibration of the two sources, yet correcting calibration does not eliminate the retention advantage.

Across datasets and source stacks, most information is recovered by retaining a compact set of plausible alternatives. The contribution is a controlled diagnosis of premature semantic collapse as a repeatable information bottleneck in heterogeneous frozen-model composition.

Subjects:

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.12099 [cs.CV]

(or arXiv:2609.12099v1 [cs.CV] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.12099

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Silas Gah Mr [view email] [v1] Thu, 10 Sep 2026 18:25:53 UTC (8,032 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Beyond Argmax: A Mechanistic Study of Semantic Retention in Frozen Foundation-Model Composition for Generalized Few-Shot 3D Segmentation, by Silas Kwabla Gah and Ebenezer Owusu

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CV

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.12099v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Classical classifier-combination work distinguishes score-level fusion from hard decision-level voting. We revisit this distinction…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.