Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 69 references

EGNet:Edge Guidance Network for Salient Object Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Explicitly modeling edges alongside objects yields the best reported saliency results on six benchmarks.

desk verdict Solid incremental SOD architecture with genuine edge-guidance novelty and strong benchmark numbers, but the ablation story does not isolate edge guidance from added capacity. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08297 v1 pith:A6BLLTDX submitted 2019-08-22 cs.CV

Jia-Xing Zhao , Jiangjiang Liu , Den-Ping Fan , Yang Cao , Jufeng Yang , Ming-Ming Cheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords salientobjectdetectionedgeguidancecomplementaryfeaturesfullyconvolutionalnetworkdeepsupervisiontop-downlocationpropagationone-to-onemoduleboundaryrefinement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that salient-object detection is held back by ignoring a complementary signal: the salient edge. It introduces EGNet, a single end-to-end network that explicitly predicts salient edges and salient objects at the same time, then lets the edge features guide the object features at several resolutions. The claim is that this complementary modeling improves both the sharpness of object boundaries and the accuracy of object localization. On six standard datasets, the reported F-measure, mean absolute error, and S-measure are the best among the compared methods, without any pre- or post-processing. A sympathetic reader would take the central discovery to be that edge information is not just a boundary polish but a lane marker that helps find the object.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a pair of modules. The non-local salient edge features extraction module takes the low-level layer that best preserves edge detail and adds to it a top-down propagated signal from the deepest, most location-aware layer, then supervises the result with a salient-edge loss; this yields edge features that respond only to edges belonging to salient objects, not background clutter. The one-to-one guidance module adds those same edge features into every resolution of the object-feature pyramid before further convolution and deep supervision, so the edge cues are not diluted by progressive fusion. The whole system is trained end-to-end with cross-entropy losses on every side output plus the fused output.

What would settle it

Train a matched-capacity baseline that adds the same convolutional side branches and the same number of deep-supervision losses but without edge features or the one-to-one guidance; if it ties EGNet on DUTS-TE and SOD under F-measure and MAE, then the edge-guidance claim fails. Alternatively, re-run the ablation with the edge branch fed random noise features of the same shape; if performance does not drop, the guidance is not carrying information.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that salient edge information and salient object information are complementary, and that modeling both in one network, with the edge features propagated to guide the object features, yields sharper saliency maps and better localization simultaneously. The paper states this as three steps: progressive fusion of multi-scale object features from a backbone; extraction of salient edge features by combining local edge cues from a low-level layer with top-down global location information; and a one-to-one guidance module that fuses the same edge features into each resolution of object features. With joint supervision on both tasks, the final fused prediction is reported to outperform 15 previous methods on ECSSD, PASCAL-S, DUT-OMRON, HKU-IS, SOD, and DUTS-TE, under max F-measure, MAE, and S-measure, without pre-processing or post-processing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured gains come from the edge-guidance mechanism itself; the paper's ablations do not hold parameter count, number of side outputs, or loss-weight budget fixed, and the salient-edge ground truth used for supervision is never specified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Saliency maps from the fused output have sharper boundaries and more accurate localization than the baseline that fuses only object features, without any extra inference-time processing.
  • On six standard benchmarks, the reported numbers are the best among the compared methods, so a method that wants to claim state of the art now has EGNet as the reference point.
  • The edge branch provides an additional supervision signal during training, so the object branch is trained with richer information than it would get from saliency masks alone.
  • The one-to-one fusion beats both fusing edge features at the top only and progressive upward fusion, so how edge cues are injected matters as much as whether they are injected.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The unspecified salient-edge ground truth, presumably derived as boundaries of the saliency mask, makes the method a form of self-supervision; a testable extension is to verify whether richer human-annotated contours change the gain.
  • The same complementary-guidance design could transfer to other paired prediction problems, such as semantic segmentation with contour heads or depth estimation with edge-aware refinement; the paper does not test this.
  • If the benefit persists when the edge branch is replaced with a fixed edge detector such as a morphological gradient, then the gain would come from the location-propagation path rather than learned edge semantics; the paper does not run this control.
  • The comparison against a loss-level edge penalty suggests that feature-level guidance, not loss shaping, drives the improvement; an untested corollary is that feature-level guidance would also help when applied to that penalty-based baseline.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes EGNet, a fully convolutional network for salient object detection that explicitly models salient edge information alongside salient object information. The architecture has three components: a progressive salient object feature extraction module (PSFEM), a non-local salient edge feature extraction module (NLSEM) that combines local edge cues from Conv2-2 with top-down location propagation, and a one-to-one guidance module (O2OGM) that fuses the edge features with multi-resolution object features. The network is trained with deep supervision on both edge and object side outputs. Experiments on six benchmarks (ECSSD, PASCAL-S, DUT-OMRON, HKU-IS, SOD, DUTS-TE) report state-of-the-art results under max F-measure, MAE, and S-measure, with and without a ResNet backbone, and without pre- or post-processing. The paper also includes ablations on SOD and DUTS-TE in Table 3.

Significance. If the central claim holds, EGNet demonstrates that explicitly modeling and fusing salient edge features improves both boundary quality and localization in salient object detection, with consistent gains across six datasets and three metrics. The paper's strengths are the breadth of evaluation (15 competing methods, six datasets, three metrics, two backbones), the release of source code, and the use of standard external evaluation protocols. The conceptual contribution—treating salient edge detection and salient object detection as complementary tasks in one network—is timely and has influenced subsequent work. However, the empirical attribution of the gains to edge guidance is currently under-supported by the ablation analysis, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table 3] The ablations do not control for parameter count or for the number of auxiliary losses, so the reported gains cannot be cleanly attributed to the edge-guidance mechanism. Row 6 (B + edge TDLP + MRF OTO) adds, relative to row 1 (B): the S(2) edge branch with its T layers, the top-down propagation convolution in Eq. (2), the extra edge loss in Eq. (4), four sub-side paths each with new T' and D' layers, four additional side losses in Eq. (8), and the fused-map loss in Eq. (9). Any of these additions—especially extra capacity and deep supervision—could explain part or all of the improvements in F-measure, MAE, and S-measure. The comparison to row 4 (B + edge NLDF) is also not parameter-matched, since row 4 only adds an IOU loss to the baseline without adding any of the new branches. To support the causal story in the abstract and Section 5, the authors should add a parameter-matched control (e.g., a baseline with the same number of added convolutional layers and auxiliary losses but without edge supervision) and an ablation that adds the OTO sub-side paths without the edge features.
  2. [Equation (4) and Section 3.2.2] The edge supervision in Eq. (4) requires a salient-edge ground-truth label set Z+ and Z−, but the paper never specifies how this edge ground truth is generated from the saliency masks. This is a load-bearing detail for reproducibility and for interpreting the edge-guidance results: different edge extraction procedures (e.g., morphological boundary extraction, Sobel-like filtering, or manual annotation) could substantially change both the training signal and the reported edge-quality numbers in Table 4. Please specify the exact procedure, including any morphological thinning/thickening operations and parameter settings, and if possible report sensitivity to this choice.
  3. [Section 4.3.2] The claim that the improvement from row 1 to row 3 is obtained 'without additional time and space consumption' is not supported by the architecture as described. Row 3 (B + edge TDLP) introduces at least the Trans convolution and the upsampling operation in Eq. (2) and the S(2) edge branch with its T layers, all of which add parameters and computation relative to row 1. Unless the authors intend a different baseline comparison (for example, against a U-Net of matched total capacity), this sentence should be corrected or substantiated with parameter counts and FLOPs for the relevant configurations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] In the RFCN row, the S-measure value '0852' on PASCAL-S appears to be missing the decimal point and should likely read '0.852'.
  2. [Section 2] The phrase 'fixed sober operator' should be 'fixed Sobel operator' when describing the NLDF loss.
  3. [Table 3 caption] The caption uses 'edge TDLF' while the text and table rows use 'edge TDLP'; these should be made consistent.
  4. [Equation (10)] The summation notation in Eq. (10) is awkward as printed ('i=6∑ i=3'); it should be written as a standard sum over i from 3 to 6.
  5. [General] All experimental results are reported from a single training run with no error bars or significance tests. Given that the central claim rests on small numerical differences (e.g., Table 3 row-to-row gaps of 0.5–1.5%), a note on run-to-run variance or at least multiple-seed evaluation would strengthen confidence in the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the saliency predictions are evaluated on held-out test sets, and no equation or fitted parameter reduces the reported results to the model's own inputs.

full rationale

EGNet is a standard supervised salient-object-detection paper. The model is trained on the public DUTS-TR set (Sec. 4.1: "We train our model on DUTS [46] dataset") and evaluated on held-out test sets ECSSD, PASCAL-S, DUT-OMRON, HKU-IS, SOD, and DUTS-TE (Sec. 4.2, Table 2). The final saliency map is the fused prediction map used directly at inference (Sec. 4.1: "we directly use the fused prediction map as the final saliency map"), so the headline numbers are not obtained by fitting test-set statistics. The edge guidance is implemented as an auxiliary cross-entropy loss in Eq. (4) supervised by salient edge pixels, which is a standard auxiliary-supervision design rather than a quantity derived from the model output. No equation in the paper defines a predicted quantity in terms of the same quantity, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The S-measure metric [10] is a published external evaluation measure even though some authors overlap with the paper; citing it for evaluation is not circular. The ablation study in Table 3 does have a methodological weakness: rows add capacity, side outputs, and auxiliary losses along with the edge-guidance mechanism, so the causal claim that edge guidance alone drives the gains is not fully isolated. However, that is an experimental-confound concern about attribution, not a circularity in which the result is equivalent to its input by construction. Similarly, the paper does not specify how the salient edge ground truth for Eq. (4) is generated from the saliency masks, which is a transparency gap, but the edge supervision is an input, not a disguised form of the output. Overall, the central empirical claim is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical architecture contribution. The only invented entity is the network itself, which is not a physical or conceptual entity with independent falsifiability beyond the experimental comparison. The free parameters are training hyperparameters and the unreported fusion weights beta_i; none are fitted to test data, so they do not threaten circularity. The main axiomatic burden is the unstated generation of edge labels and the assumed superiority of early-layer edge features.

free parameters (5)
  • Learning rate = 5e-5
    Reported in Sec. 4.1; standard training hyperparameter not fitted to test data.
  • Weight decay = 0.0005
    Reported in Sec. 4.1; standard regularizer.
  • Momentum = 0.9
    Reported in Sec. 4.1; standard SGD setting.
  • Side-output loss weight = 1.0
    Sec. 4.1 states each side output has equal loss weight; chosen without sensitivity analysis.
  • Fusion weights beta_i in Eq. (9) = not stated
    Eq. (9) defines a weighted sum of multi-scale predictions; the values of beta_i are not reported, so the final loss depends on unreported hyperparameters.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pretrained VGG/ResNet weights trained on ImageNet transfer to saliency detection.
    Sec. 4.1 uses VGG and ResNet backbones initialized from prior training; no fine-tuning from scratch. This is standard in the literature.
  • domain assumption Conv2-2 features preserve edge information better than other layers.
    Sec. 3.2 states this and uses it to choose S(2) as the edge branch; cited to [61] but not independently verified here.
  • ad hoc to paper Salient edge ground truth can be derived from saliency masks, though the derivation is not specified.
    The edge supervision loss in Eq. (4) requires edge labels, but the paper never states how they are computed from the saliency ground truth. This is an unstated but load-bearing implementation detail.
  • domain assumption Edge information is complementary to object information for saliency detection.
    This is the motivating premise of the paper; ablation results support it but it remains an empirical assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EGNet:Edge Guidance Network for Salient Object Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A6BLLTDX

@misc{pith2026190808297,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EGNet:Edge Guidance Network for Salient Object Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A6BLLTDX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08297}
}
read the original abstract

Fully convolutional neural networks (FCNs) have shown their advantages in the salient object detection task. However, most existing FCNs-based methods still suffer from coarse object boundaries. In this paper, to solve this problem, we focus on the complementarity between salient edge information and salient object information. Accordingly, we present an edge guidance network (EGNet) for salient object detection with three steps to simultaneously model these two kinds of complementary information in a single network. In the first step, we extract the salient object features by a progressive fusion way. In the second step, we integrate the local edge information and global location information to obtain the salient edge features. Finally, to sufficiently leverage these complementary features, we couple the same salient edge features with salient object features at various resolutions. Benefiting from the rich edge information and location information in salient edge features, the fused features can help locate salient objects, especially their boundaries more accurately. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method performs favorably against the state-of-the-art methods on six widely used datasets without any pre-processing and post-processing. The source code is available at http: //mmcheng.net/egnet/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08297 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visual examples of our method. After we model and fuse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pipeline of the proposed approach. We use brown thick lines to represent information flows between the scales. PSFEM: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Precision (vertical axis) recall (horizontal axis) curves on three popular salient object datasets. It can be seen that the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual examples before and after adding edge cues. B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons with state-of-the-arts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Salient object detection: A survey

    Ali Borji, Ming-Ming Cheng, Qibin Hou, Huaizu Jiang, and Jia Li. Salient object detection: A survey. CVM, 5(2):117– 150, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Salient object detection: A benchmark

    Ali Borji, Ming-Ming Cheng, Huaizu Jiang, and Jia Li. Salient object detection: A benchmark. IEEE TIP , 24(12):5706–5722, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Re- verse attention for salient object detection

    Shuhan Chen, Xiuli Tan, Ben Wang, and Xuelong Hu. Re- verse attention for salient object detection. In ECCV, pages 234–250, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Sketch2photo: Internet image montage

    Tao Chen, Ming-Ming Cheng, Ping Tan, Ariel Shamir, and Shi-Min Hu. Sketch2photo: Internet image montage. ACM TOG, 28(5):124:1–10, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Global contrast based salient region detection

    Ming Cheng, Niloy J Mitra, Xumin Huang, Philip HS Torr, and Song Hu. Global contrast based salient region detection. IEEE TPAMI, 37(3):569–582, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Repfinder: finding approx- imately repeated scene elements for image editing

    Ming-Ming Cheng, Fang-Lue Zhang, Niloy J Mitra, Xi- aolei Huang, and Shi-Min Hu. Repfinder: finding approx- imately repeated scene elements for image editing. ACM TOG, 29(4):83, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Does luminance- contrast contribute to a saliency map for overt visual atten- tion? European Journal of Neuroscience, 17(5):1089–1097, 2003

    Wolfgang Einh ¨auser and Peter K ¨onig. Does luminance- contrast contribute to a saliency map for overt visual atten- tion? European Journal of Neuroscience, 17(5):1089–1097, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge

    Mark Everingham, Luc Van Gool, Christopher KI Williams, John Winn, and Andrew Zisserman. The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge. IJCV, 88(2):303–338, 2010

    2010

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Salient objects in clut- ter: Bringing salient object detection to the foreground

    Deng-Ping Fan, Ming-Ming Cheng, Jiang-Jiang Liu, Shang- Hua Gao, Qibin Hou, and Ali Borji. Salient objects in clut- ter: Bringing salient object detection to the foreground. In ECCV, pages 186–202. Springer, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Structure-measure: A new way to evaluate foreground maps

    Deng-Ping Fan, Ming-Ming Cheng, Yun Liu, Tao Li, and Ali Borji. Structure-measure: A new way to evaluate foreground maps. In ICCV, pages 4548–4557, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Rethinking rgb-d salient object detection: Mod- els, datasets, and large-scale benchmarks

    Deng-Ping Fan, Zheng Lin, Jia-Xing Zhao, Yun Liu, Zhao Zhang, Qibin Hou, Menglong Zhu, and Ming-Ming Cheng. Rethinking rgb-d salient object detection: Mod- els, datasets, and large-scale benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06781, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Shifting more attention to video salient object detection

    Deng-Ping Fan, Wenguan Wang, Ming-Ming Cheng, and Jianbing Shen. Shifting more attention to video salient object detection. In CVPR, pages 8554–8564, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Deep saliency with encoded low level distance map and high level features

    Lee Gayoung, Tai Yu-Wing, and Kim Junmo. Deep saliency with encoded low level distance map and high level features. In CVPR, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Edge-aware convolution neural network based salient object detection

    Wenlong Guan, Tiantian Wang, Jinqing Qi, Lihe Zhang, and Huchuan Lu. Edge-aware convolution neural network based salient object detection. IEEE SPL, 26(1):114–118, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Mobile prod- uct search with bag of hash bits and boundary reranking

    Junfeng He, Jinyuan Feng, Xianglong Liu, Tao Cheng, Tai- Hsu Lin, Hyunjin Chung, and Shih-Fu Chang. Mobile prod- uct search with bag of hash bits and boundary reranking. In CVPR, pages 3005–3012, 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In ICCV, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Deeply supervised salient ob- ject detection with short connections

    Qibin Hou, Ming-Ming Cheng, Xiaowei Hu, Ali Borji, Zhuowen Tu, and Philip Torr. Deeply supervised salient ob- ject detection with short connections. In CVPR, pages 3203– 3212, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Deeply supervised salient object detection with short connections

    Qibin Hou, Ming-Ming Cheng, Xiaowei Hu, Ali Borji, Zhuowen Tu, and Philip Torr. Deeply supervised salient object detection with short connections. IEEE TPAMI , 41(4):815–828, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Self-erasing network for integral object attention

    Qibin Hou, Peng-Tao Jiang, Yunchao Wei, and Ming-Ming Cheng. Self-erasing network for integral object attention. In NIPS, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Deep level sets for salient object detection

    Ping Hu, Bing Shuai, Jun Liu, and Gang Wang. Deep level sets for salient object detection. In CVPR, pages 2300–2309, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Computational modeling of visual attention

    Laurent Itti and Christof Koch. Computational modeling of visual attention. Nature reviews neuroscience, 2(3):194–203, 2001

    2001

  14. [22]

    A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis

    Laurent Itti, Christof Koch, and Ernst Niebur. A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis. IEEE TPAMI, 20(11):1254–1259, 1998

    1998

  15. [23]

    Richer and deeper supervi- sion network for salient object detection

    Sen Jia and Neil DB Bruce. Richer and deeper supervi- sion network for salient object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.02425, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Center-surround di- vergence of feature statistics for salient object detection

    Dominik A Klein and Simone Frintrop. Center-surround di- vergence of feature statistics for salient object detection. In ICCV, pages 2214–2219. IEEE, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recog- nition

    Yann LeCun, L ´eon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recog- nition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998

    1998

  18. [26]

    Instance- level salient object segmentation

    Guanbin Li, Yuan Xie, Liang Lin, and Yizhou Yu. Instance- level salient object segmentation. In CVPR, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Visual saliency based on multi- scale deep features

    Guanbin Li and Yizhou Yu. Visual saliency based on multi- scale deep features. In CVPR, pages 5455–5463, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Deep contrast learning for salient object detection

    Guanbin Li and Yizhou Yu. Deep contrast learning for salient object detection. In CVPR, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Contour knowledge transfer for salient object detec- tion

    Xin Li, Fan Yang, Hong Cheng, Wei Liu, and Dinggang Shen. Contour knowledge transfer for salient object detec- tion. In ECCV, pages 355–370, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    The secrets of salient object segmentation

    Yin Li, Xiaodi Hou, Christof Koch, James M Rehg, and Alan L Yuille. The secrets of salient object segmentation. In CVPR, pages 280–287, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Deep reasoning with multi-scale context for salient object detection

    Zun Li, Congyan Lang, Yunpeng Chen, Junhao Liew, and Jiashi Feng. Deep reasoning with multi-scale context for salient object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08362 , 2019

    1901 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Dhsnet: Deep hierarchical saliency network for salient object detection

    Nian Liu and Junwei Han. Dhsnet: Deep hierarchical saliency network for salient object detection. InCVPR, pages 678–686, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Picanet: Learning pixel-wise contextual attention for saliency detec- tion

    Nian Liu, Junwei Han, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Picanet: Learning pixel-wise contextual attention for saliency detec- tion. In CVPR, pages 3089–3098, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In CVPR, pages 3431–3440, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Non- local deep features for salient object detection

    Zhiming Luo, Akshaya Kumar Mishra, Andrew Achkar, Justin A Eichel, Shaozi Li, and Pierre-Marc Jodoin. Non- local deep features for salient object detection. In CVPR, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    A database of human segmented natural images and its application to evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics

    David Martin, Charless Fowlkes, Doron Tal, and Jitendra Malik. A database of human segmented natural images and its application to evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics. In ICCV, volume 2, pages 416–423, 2001

    2001

  29. [37]

    Design and perceptual validation of performance measures for salient object seg- mentation

    Vida Movahedi and James H Elder. Design and perceptual validation of performance measures for salient object seg- mentation. In IEEE CVPRW, pages 49–56. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    Optimal approximations by piecewise smooth functions and associated variational problems

    David Mumford and Jayant Shah. Optimal approximations by piecewise smooth functions and associated variational problems. CPAM, 42(5):577–685, 1989

    1989

  31. [39]

    Modeling the role of salience in the allocation of overt visual attention

    Derrick Parkhurst, Klinton Law, and Ernst Niebur. Modeling the role of salience in the allocation of overt visual attention. Vision research, 42(1):107–123, 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In International Conference on Medical image com- puting and computer-assisted intervention , pages 234–241. Springer, 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Artistic minimal rendering with lines and blocks

    Paul L Rosin and Yu-Kun Lai. Artistic minimal rendering with lines and blocks. Graphical Models, 75(4):208–229, 2013

    2013

  34. [42]

    Is bottom-up attention useful for object recognition? In CVPR, 2004

    Ueli Rutishauser, Dirk Walther, Christof Koch, and Pietro Perona. Is bottom-up attention useful for object recognition? In CVPR, 2004

    2004

  35. [43]

    Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition. InICLR, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    Salient object detection: A discriminative regional feature integration ap- proach

    Jingdong Wang, Huaizu Jiang, Zejian Yuan, Ming-Ming Cheng, Xiaowei Hu, and Nanning Zheng. Salient object detection: A discriminative regional feature integration ap- proach. IJCV, 123(2):251–268, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Deep networks for saliency detection via local esti- mation and global search

    Lijun Wang, Huchuan Lu, Xiang Ruan, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Deep networks for saliency detection via local esti- mation and global search. In ICCV, pages 3183–3192, 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    Learning to de- tect salient objects with image-level supervision

    Lijun Wang, Huchuan Lu, Yifan Wang, Mengyang Feng, Dong Wang, Baocai Yin, and Xiang Ruan. Learning to de- tect salient objects with image-level supervision. In CVPR, pages 136–145, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Saliency detection with recurrent fully con- volutional networks

    Linzhao Wang, Lijun Wang, Huchuan Lu, Pingping Zhang, and Xiang Ruan. Saliency detection with recurrent fully con- volutional networks. In ECCV, pages 825–841. Springer, 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Saliency detection with recurrent fully con- volutional networks

    Linzhao Wang, Lijun Wang, Huchuan Lu, Pingping Zhang, and Xiang Ruan. Saliency detection with recurrent fully con- volutional networks. In ECCV, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    A stagewise refinement model for detecting salient objects in images

    Tiantian Wang, Ali Borji, Lihe Zhang, Pingping Zhang, and Huchuan Lu. A stagewise refinement model for detecting salient objects in images. In ICCV, pages 4019–4028, 2017

    2017

  42. [50]

    Deep learning for light field saliency detec- tion

    Tiantian Wang, Yongri Piao, Li Xiao, Lihe Zhang, and Huchuan Lu. Deep learning for light field saliency detec- tion. In ICCV, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Kernelized subspace ranking for saliency detec- tion

    Tiantian Wang, Lihe Zhang, Huchuan Lu, Chong Sun, and Jinqing Qi. Kernelized subspace ranking for saliency detec- tion. In ECCV, pages 450–466, 2016

    2016

  44. [52]

    Detect globally, refine locally: A novel approach to saliency detection

    Tiantian Wang, Lihe Zhang, Shuo Wang, Huchuan Lu, Gang Yang, Xiang Ruan, and Ali Borji. Detect globally, refine locally: A novel approach to saliency detection. In CVPR, pages 3127–3135, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    Salient object detection driven by fixation prediction

    Wenguan Wang, Jianbing Shen, Xingping Dong, and Ali Borji. Salient object detection driven by fixation prediction. In ICCV, pages 1711–1720, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Ranet: Ranking attention network for fast video object segmenta- tion

    Ziqin Wang, Jun Xu, Li Liu, Fan Zhu, and Ling Shao. Ranet: Ranking attention network for fast video object segmenta- tion. In ICCV, Oct 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Holistically-nested edge de- tection

    Saining Xie and Zhuowen Tu. Holistically-nested edge de- tection. In ICCV, pages 1395–1403, 2015

    2015

  48. [56]

    Hierarchical saliency detection

    Qiong Yan, Li Xu, Jianping Shi, and Jiaya Jia. Hierarchical saliency detection. In CVPR, pages 1155–1162, 2013

    2013

  49. [57]

    Saliency detection via graph-based man- ifold ranking

    Chuan Yang, Lihe Zhang, Huchuan Lu, Xiang Ruan, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Saliency detection via graph-based man- ifold ranking. In CVPR, pages 3166–3173, 2013

    2013

  50. [58]

    Deep edge-aware saliency detection

    Jing Zhang, Yuchao Dai, Fatih Porikli, and Mingyi He. Deep edge-aware saliency detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.04366, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A bi-directional message passing model for salient object de- tection

    Lu Zhang, Ju Dai, Huchuan Lu, You He, and Gang Wang. A bi-directional message passing model for salient object de- tection. In ICCV, pages 1741–1750, 2018

    2018

  52. [60]

    Salient object detection with lossless feature reflection and weighted structural loss

    Pingping Zhang, Wei Liu, Huchuan Lu, and Chunhua Shen. Salient object detection with lossless feature reflection and weighted structural loss. IEEE TIP, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    Amulet: Aggregating multi-level convolu- tional features for salient object detection

    Pingping Zhang, Dong Wang, Huchuan Lu, Hongyu Wang, and Xiang Ruan. Amulet: Aggregating multi-level convolu- tional features for salient object detection. In ICCV, pages 202–211, 2017

    2017

  54. [62]

    Learning uncertain convolutional features for accurate saliency detection

    Pingping Zhang, Dong Wang, Huchuan Lu, Hongyu Wang, and Baocai Yin. Learning uncertain convolutional features for accurate saliency detection. In ICCV, pages 212–221. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  55. [63]

    Progressive attention guided recurrent net- work for salient object detection

    Xiaoning Zhang, Tiantian Wang, Jinqing Qi, Huchuan Lu, and Gang Wang. Progressive attention guided recurrent net- work for salient object detection. In CVPR, pages 714–722, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    Flic: Fast linear iterative clustering with active search

    Jiaxing Zhao, Ren Bo, Qibin Hou, Ming-Ming Cheng, and Paul Rosin. Flic: Fast linear iterative clustering with active search. CVM, 4(4):333–348, Dec 2018

    2018

  57. [65]

    Flic: Fast linear iterative clustering with active search

    Jiaxing Zhao, Bo Ren, Qibin Hou, and Ming-Ming Cheng. Flic: Fast linear iterative clustering with active search. In AAAI, 2018

    2018

  58. [66]

    Contrast prior and fluid pyramid integration for rgbd salient object detection

    Jia-Xing Zhao, Yang Cao, Deng-Ping Fan, Ming-Ming Cheng, Xuan-Yi Li, and Le Zhang. Contrast prior and fluid pyramid integration for rgbd salient object detection. In CVPR, 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    Optimizing the f-measure for threshold-free salient object detection

    Kai Zhao, Shanghua Gao, Wenguan Wang, and Ming-Ming Cheng. Optimizing the f-measure for threshold-free salient object detection. In ICCV, Oct 2019

    2019

  60. [68]

    Saliency optimization from robust background detection

    Wangjiang Zhu, Shuang Liang, Yichen Wei, and Jian Sun. Saliency optimization from robust background detection. In CVPR, pages 2814–2821, 2014

    2014

  61. [69]

    Boundary-guided feature aggregation network for salient object detection

    Yunzhi Zhuge, Gang Yang, Pingping Zhang, and Huchuan Lu. Boundary-guided feature aggregation network for salient object detection. IEEE SPL, 25(12):1800–1804, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.