Few-shot classifiers of rock thin sections are meta-trained on many rock types that a petrographer has identified slide by slide, and this identification is the costly step that new collections lack. We study few-shot recognition of unseen rock types when no training slide is identified, and the only information available is what the microscope records anyway: which slide an image comes from, and whether it was taken in plane-polarized (PPL) or cross-polarized (XPL) light. We first show why generic unsupervised pseudo-tasks fit this setting poorly: the positives they find without labels are either wrong or near-duplicates of the anchor, so they teach the model little. Polarized-light microscopy provides positives that avoid both problems. The PPL and XPL views of one field show the same grains, so they are correct by construction, yet they look very different. We propose cross-polarization pairing (XPP), which treats each slide as a pseudo-class and pairs its PPL and XPL views of the same field location, so that matching must rely on grain shape and texture rather than on colour. On the Nanjing University collection of 108 rock types, with support and query images taken from different slides, XPP is the best label-free method on average over three random splits, and matches a supervised model trained on 78 identified rock types. Controls show that colour augmentation and other acquisition positives do not reproduce the gain. We also show that the image-level protocol of earlier work is saturated, and propose a cross-slide protocol in its place.
Figures & tables
Rock class
Rock types
Slides
Images
Igneous
40
120
963
Metamorphic
40
120
972
Sedimentary
28
84
699
Total
108
324
2634
Table 1: Nanjing University thin-section collection (counts from released archives).
Figure 1: Aligned XPL and PPL frames of one field for an igneous (anorthosite), a metamorphic (metadiabase) and a sedimentary (bauxite) slide, after preprocessing. Dashed box: one XPP anchor box; right columns: two 224-px shots it yields. Interference colours and extinction (XPL) are replaced by relief and absorption colour (PPL), while every grain boundary stays in place.
Positive source (thin sections)
Needs labels?
Precision
Mean cosine
Augmentation of the same crop
no
1
0.931
Feature nearest neighbour, other slides
no
0.348
0.860
XPL at another angle, same location
no
1
0.857
Non-overlapping region, same image
no
1
0.840
XPL at another angle, another region
no
1
0.826
PPL ↔ XPL, same location
no
1
0.689
Table 2: Candidate positive sources on thin sections, measured with ImageNet ResNet-50 features (323 slides, 108 rock types, 969 pairs per row).
Figure 2: Positive sources on thin sections: mean cosine to anchor (ImageNet ResNet-50). Filled markers have precision 1; vertical line marks oracle (another slide of same rock type). Only PPL view of same box is both correct and less similar than oracle.
Figure 3: XPP framework, drawn with real slides from Nanjing collection (igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary). (a) Each unlabelled slide is one pseudo-class; its shots are one box cropped from aligned XPL frame and from PPL frame of same field. (b) One ImageNet-pretrained ResNet-50 embeds both views; conv1–layer3 are frozen and only layer4 is updated. (c) Shots are pulled to normalized mean of their slide’s support shots by a cosine softmax over 32 slides of each task. (d) At test time, an XPL image is described by mean feature of a 2 × 3 grid of crops and assigned to nearest prototype built from another slide. Network is standard; contribution lies in how pseudo-tasks are built.
Method
Rock identifications
Cross-slide 1-shot
Cross-slide 5-shot
Image-level 1-shot
Image-level 5-shot
ImageNet features
0
84.96
86.43
89.49
97.31
Instance training
0
87.32 ± 0.19
88.27 ± 0.20
91.19 ± 0.14
97.65 ± 0.05
Colour-jitter control
0
84.50 ± 0.18
85.83 ± 0.26
88.99 ± 0.24
95.80 ± 0.09
Neighbour pseudo-tasks
0
87.12 ± 0.47
88.06 ± 0.48
91.05 ± 0.31
97.62 ± 0.05
XPP (ours)
0
89.32 ± 0.27
90.48 ± 0.30
92.62 ± 0.19
98.04 ± 0.09
Supervised
78 types
88.85 ± 0.36
89.79 ± 0.34
92.24 ± 0.25
96.83 ± 0.10
Table 3: Main results on primary split: 5-way accuracy (%), mean ± sd over three seeds, 2000 test episodes.
Figure 4: Cross-slide 5-way 1-shot accuracy on primary split (mean ± sd over three seeds). Diamonds use rock identifications.
Shots drawn from
Cross-slide 1-shot
vs instance training
Same XPL box (instance training)
87.32 ± 0.19
–
+ other regions of the slide
86.11 ± 0.31
− 1.21
+ other rotation angles, same box
86.89 ± 0.24
− 0.42
+ other regions + other angles
85.69 ± 0.08
− 1.63
+ PPL, same box (XPP)
89.32 ± 0.27
+2.00
+ PPL + other regions + other angles
87.85 ± 0.38
+0.53
Table 4: Acquisition positives added to instance training (primary split, cross-slide 5-way 1-shot, %).
Figure 5: Change in cross-slide 1-shot accuracy when acquisition positives are added to instance training (primary split, three seeds).
Gentle
Aggressive
Method
(layer4, lr 1e-5, 1500 it)
(layers 3–4, lr 1e-4, 4000 it)
Instance training
87.32
76.03
Other regions + angles
85.69
80.42
PPL + regions + angles
87.85
79.50
Neighbour pseudo-tasks
87.12
82.36
Supervised
88.85
89.46
Table 5: Gentle versus aggressive label-free adaptation (primary split, cross-slide 5-way 1-shot, %). Gentle: mean of three seeds; aggressive: one seed.
Figure 6: Gentle (blue) versus aggressive (grey) adaptation. Dashed line marks ImageNet features without training.
Split
ImageNet
Instance
Colour jitter
Neighbour
XPP
Supervised
0 (primary)
84.96
87.32 ± 0.19
84.50 ± 0.18
87.12 ± 0.47
89.32 ± 0.27
88.85 ± 0.36
1
85.35
85.39 ± 0.36
88.89 ± 0.25
89.56 ± 0.39
89.87 ± 0.10
88.57 ± 0.38
2
81.58
84.36 ± 0.28
85.34 ± 0.14
84.29 ± 0.16
85.04 ± 0.62
87.19 ± 0.20
Mean of splits
83.96
85.69
86.24
86.99
88.08
88.20
Table 6: Cross-slide 5-way 1-shot accuracy (%) on three random rock-type splits.
Training signal
Rock identifications
Cross-slide 1-shot
Cross-slide 5-shot
ImageNet features
0
84.96
86.43
Supervised
10 types (30 slides)
85.78 ± 0.09
87.15 ± 0.08
Supervised
20 types
86.13 ± 0.31
87.04 ± 0.32
Supervised
40 types
87.22 ± 0.23
88.27 ± 0.30
Supervised
78 types (all)
88.85 ± 0.36
89.79 ± 0.34
XPP
0
89.32 ± 0.27
90.48 ± 0.30
Table 7: Label efficiency on primary split: supervised meta-training with k identified rock types versus XPP (%).
Figure 7: Supervised meta-training with k identified rock types (black) compared with XPP, which uses none (blue line).
PPL–XPL cosine
PPL retrieves its
Encoder
Same field
Other fields
XPL field (top-1)
ImageNet
0.743
0.636
25.0%
Instance training
0.740
0.615
16.7%
Colour-jitter control
0.699
0.460
33.3%
XPP
0.819
0.651
50.0%
Supervised
0.674
0.491
13.3%
Table 8: Cross-illumination alignment of encoders (primary split, seed 1, 20 unseen test rock types). Retrieval: share of PPL images whose nearest XPL image among all test fields is their own field.
Cross-slide
Cross-slide 1-shot,
20-way, leave-
Encoder
1-shot
greyscale images
one-slide-out
ImageNet
84.96
83.55
75.95
Instance training
87.23
88.34
79.29
Colour-jitter control
84.34
85.83
–
XPP
89.02
88.72
85.71
Supervised
88.80
85.43
–
Table 9: Recognition accuracy of same encoders (primary split, seed 1, %). Greyscale: test images converted to greyscale. 20-way: all test rock types at once, prototypes from other slides.
Figure 8: Left: share of PPL images whose nearest XPL image among all test fields is their own field. Right: cross-slide 1-shot accuracy on original (coloured dot) and greyscale (grey dot) test images.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Injected positives
Setting
correct
1-shot
5-shot
No replacement (own views only)
–
48.71
65.87
PETD
about 10%
49.47
64.47
PETD, false positives removed by oracle
100%
52.61
68.94
PETD, false negatives removed by oracle
about 10%
49.81
64.78
Appendix
Table A.1: Oracle decomposition of pseudo-task errors of PETD on miniImageNet (Conv4, T=100 , 5-way test accuracy, %).
Training
Same-class pairs
False negatives
ways N
per batch
ProtoCLR
removed
Difference
5
0.16
40.89
41.17
+0.28
10
0.70
42.37
42.29
−0.07
20
2.96
42.98
43.20
+0.22
50
19.12
43.68
43.36
−0.32
Appendix
Table A.2: False negatives in ProtoCLR on miniImageNet (Conv4, 84 × 84 images, 150 000 iterations, single seed, 5-way 1-shot test accuracy, %).
Precision of injected positives
Anchors using positives
1-shot
5-shot
0.30
100%
50.36
65.78
0.50
100%
51.63
67.23
0.70
100%
52.26
68.07
1.00
25%
50.94
67.78
1.00
50%
52.14
68.84
Appendix
Table A.3: Accuracy as a function of precision of injected positives and of share of anchors that receive them (miniImageNet, T=100 , %). Precision is controlled with class labels.
Figure A.1: Test 5-way 1-shot accuracy of PETD on miniImageNet when injected positives are replaced by an oracle. Left: precision of injected positives at full coverage; right: share of anchors that receive correct positives.
Label-free selector
Precision of used neighbours
Query slots replaced (final epoch)
1-shot
5-shot
PETD (random co-clustered)
about 0.10
60%
49.47
64.47
Nearest co-clustered (kNN)
0.18
60%
49.76
65.83
Episodic prototype gate
0.22
17%
49.50
66.20
kNN + gate
0.25
32%
49.56
66.30
Global nearest neighbours
0.31
60%
49.74
66.59
Global NN, densest 50% of anchors
0.39
30%
49.17
66.09
Appendix
Table A.4: Label-free neighbour selectors on miniImageNet ( T=100 ). Precision is measured on neighbours actually injected; replaced share is for final epoch.
Few-shot segmentation asks a model to delineate a target class in a query image from only a handful of annotated examples, a setting most acute in remote sensing, where labels are scarce and the imagery departs sharply from the natural images on which vision backbones are pretrained. Prevailing approaches either train a segmenter on labelled episodes, which raises accuracy within the training distribution but binds the model to it, or reduce each class to a lossy summary of frozen features, a single prototype, a few cluster prototypes, or a discrete clustering, none of which preserves the internal structure of a multimodal class. We argue that a class is better described by a distribution than by a point, and that frozen self-supervised features already carry enough structure to estimate that distribution directly. We introduce FROST, a training-free few-shot segmenter that treats the reference foreground and background as two point clouds on the unit sphere of frozen DINOv3 features and labels each query token by a nonparametric density ratio, with a threshold the Bayes rule fixes at zero under equal priors. Because the variance of a density estimate shrinks as its sample grows, the decision sharpens as references accumulate, and every remaining quantity from the kernel bandwidth to the spatial gate is read from the support set rather than tuned. We develop FROST for overhead imagery, where a class is typically a scatter of many small and dissimilar instances that a density tracks but a lossy summary blurs. Across seventeen remote-sensing benchmarks FROST surpasses both training-free and learning-based methods, leading by 5.6 mIoU from a single annotated example and widening its lead as the support set grows, all while remaining among the smallest models compared. Code is available at https://github.com/jhpark-ai/FROST.
We present a quantum--classical hybrid pipeline for polarimetric material classification that casts this as a point-matching problem. Voxel cubes, containing polarized light reflections, are used to train an encoder to produce 32-dimensional embeddings for the voxels of the cubes. At inference, the encoder head is discarded and the embeddings are encoded as probability amplitudes of quantum states. Next, a SWAP-test circuit estimates the fidelity between each of the 32D embeddings from the query cube and a dataset of anchor cubes. The aggregated fidelity serves as materials similarity scores, and the class of the anchor with highest aggregated fidelity is deemed as the class of the queried material. We evaluate our approach on a dataset of 23 materials (≈800 samples each) derived from their Mueller matrices. The point-matching approaches from the proposed quantum SWAP-test and a classical classifier using Optimal Transport are compared. Our results demonstrate the competitive classification accuracy alongside open-set discrimination potential, establishing it as a viable path toward NISQ-based material recognition.
Sara Shojaei, Seyed Mohamad Ali Tousi, Emma Bennett +6
University of Missouri–Columbia, MO, USA · Saint Louis University, MO, USA
We show that, with polarization cues, a lightweight model trained on a small dataset can outperform RGB-only vision foundation models (VFMs) in single-shot object-level surface normal estimation. Shape from polarization (SfP) has long been studied due to the strong physical relationship between polarization and surface geometry. Meanwhile, driven by scaling laws, RGB-only VFMs trained on large datasets have recently achieved impressive performance and surpassed existing SfP methods. This situation raises questions about the necessity of polarization cues, which require specialized hardware and have limited training data. We argue that the weaker performance of prior SfP methods does not come from the polarization modality itself, but from domain gaps. These domain gaps mainly arise from two sources. First, existing synthetic datasets use limited and unrealistic 3D objects, with simple geometry and random texture maps that do not match the underlying shapes. Second, real-world polarization signals are often affected by sensor noise, which is not well modeled during training. To address the first issue, we render a high-quality polarization dataset using 1,954 3D-scanned real-world objects. We further incorporate pretrained DINOv3 priors to improve generalization to unseen objects. To address the second issue, we introduce polarization sensor-aware data augmentation that better reflects real-world conditions. With only 40K training scenes, our method significantly outperforms both state-of-the-art SfP approaches and RGB-only VFMs. Extensive experiments show that polarization cues enable a 33x reduction in training data or an 8x reduction in model parameters, while still achieving better performance than RGB-only counterparts.