Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Boundary-Aware Feature Propagation for Scene Segmentation

T0 review · 2 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 Boundary-aware feature propagation achieves state-of-the-art scene segmentation on three benchmarks.

desk verdict A solid incremental segmentation method: UAGs make context propagation much faster, and boundary gating helps, but the claimed equivalence to DAG-RNN is under-supported on the actual backbone. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00179 v1 pith:47NHAVBN submitted 2019-08-31 cs.CV

Henghui Ding , Xudong Jiang , Ai Qun Liu , Nadia Magnenat Thalmann , Gang Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semanticsegmentationsceneboundarydetectionfeaturepropagationunidirectionalacyclicgraphscontextaggregationPASCAL-ContextCityscapes
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

The paper tries to show that scene segmentation improves when features are propagated across an image under the control of semantic boundaries. It proposes treating boundaries as an extra semantic class, so the network learns a boundary-confidence map almost for free, and using that map to gate a fast graph-based feature propagation module. The module replaces the slow pixel-by-pixel directed acyclic graph scans of prior work with parallel row/column scans, called unidirectional acyclic graphs, that are much faster and shallower. With this boundary-aware propagation, the network reaches state-of-the-art mIoU on PASCAL-Context (53.6), CamVid (74.1), and Cityscapes (81.4) on a dilated ResNet-101 backbone. If correct, the work shows that boundary information can be folded into a segmentation network's context aggregation without a separate edge-detection branch.

What carries the argument

The central object is the unidirectional acyclic graph (UAG), a one-direction row/column scan that propagates features with 1D convolutions in parallel, and the boundary-aware feature propagation (BFP) module built on it. A propagation-confidence map $p_t = 1 - \beta f(\alpha b_t - \gamma)$ derived from the learned boundary confidence $b_t$ multiplies the incoming hidden state in the recurrence $h_t = g(U * i_t + W * h_{t-1} p_{t-1} + \delta)$, so boundary pixels pass weak signals and interior pixels pass strong ones. The UAGs realize DAG-style propagation with far fewer loops and shallower unrolled depth; the BFP module uses the boundary map to split propagation into semantic groups.

What would settle it

Train the identical BFP network with DAGs instead of UAGs on a dilated ResNet-101 backbone and compare mIoU on PASCAL-Context under the same training schedule. If the UAG version does not match the DAG version, or the reported 43.0 vs 42.6 VGG-16 gap is not reproduced, the claim that UAGs realize the same function as DAGs is false. Separately, ablate the boundary gate: if removing boundary control does not change boundary-band mIoU, the boundary-aware mechanism is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that feature propagation over the whole image can be made boundary-aware: features within a segment reinforce each other, while features in different segments are kept apart, and doing this improves segmentation. The paper argues two mechanisms deliver this: first, boundaries are learned as an additional (N+1)-th semantic class, producing a boundary-confidence map; second, this map is converted into a propagation-confidence map that scales how much hidden state passes from one pixel to the next. Alongside this, the paper claims each of the four DAGs used in DAG-RNN can be replaced by two unidirectional acyclic graphs, one scanning rows in parallel and one scanning columns, cutting loops from $H \times W$ to $H + W$ and reducing depth, without losing propagation quality (their VGG-16 comparison shows 43.0 vs 42.6 mIoU on PASCAL-Context). The combined BFP network reports state-of-the-art results on three benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the multi-directional pixel-by-pixel graph scans can be replaced by two straight row/column scans without changing how features spread across the image; if that equivalence fails on the deeper network, the speed gain and the boundary-controlled context results could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The UAG design makes graph-based context aggregation practical on high-resolution inputs, so it can be placed on top of dilated FCNs without the extreme slowdown of DAG-RNN.
  • Boundary-aware propagation should improve accuracy specifically near object boundaries, matching the paper's trimap analysis.
  • Because boundaries are learned as an extra class, segmentation and boundary detection are trained jointly with no separate edge-detection branch.
  • The method reaches new state-of-the-art mIoU values on PASCAL-Context, CamVid, and Cityscapes, suggesting the gains transfer across indoor, road-scene, and high-resolution settings.
  • Fewer loops and shallower propagation may also reduce the vanishing feature problem noted for DAGs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The row/column UAG decomposition suggests that long-range context can be approximated by separable 1D propagation, which might transfer to other dense prediction tasks such as depth estimation or instance segmentation.
  • Because the boundary gate is a per-pixel confidence multiplier, the same mechanism could be inserted into other recurrent or attention-based context modules, not just UAGs.
  • If boundary learning as an extra class is as cheap as the paper indicates, other segmentation losses could adopt it to get layout awareness without architectural changes.
  • A testable extension is to replace the hand-set $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ with learned scheduling or multi-scale boundary maps, which might improve small-object segmentation further.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a boundary-aware feature propagation (BFP) module for scene segmentation. It makes two main claims: first, that each three-neighbor directed acyclic graph (DAG) used in DAG-RNN can be replaced by two unidirectional acyclic graphs (UAGs) with no change in effective feature propagation, yielding a large speedup; second, that learning the boundary as an additional semantic class and using the resulting boundary-confidence map to gate propagation improves segmentation. Experiments on PASCAL-Context, CamVid, and Cityscapes report state-of-the-art mIoU values (53.6, 74.1, and 81.4, respectively) with a dilated ResNet-101 backbone.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper offers a practically useful speed-accuracy trade-off over DAG-RNN and a simple, end-to-end way to inject boundary information into context propagation. The ablation study in Table 2 attributes the gains to UAGs and to boundary control, the comparisons are on standard benchmarks, and the speed comparison in Table 1 quantifies the expected reduction in sequential loops. The main caveat is that the central equivalence claim is only verified on a VGG-16 backbone, while all headline results use dilated ResNet-101, and no code or run-to-run statistics are provided, so the reported margins cannot be independently checked.

major comments (2)
  1. [3.2, Eq. (4)] The formal definition of a two-direction UAG in Eq. (4) does not correspond to the row-then-column decomposition described in the text. As written, the cell takes h_j^{t-1} and h_{j-1}^{t-1} as the two hidden states, i.e., the horizontal predecessor and a diagonal predecessor, but omits the same-column vertical predecessor h_{j-1}^t. Therefore the equation does not demonstrate that a south pass followed by an east pass reproduces the three-neighbor recurrence of the corresponding DAG. Please provide a precise specification of the graph connectivity for each UAG and a derivation or explicit argument for equivalence.
  2. [4.2] The only quantitative support for the claim that UAGs realize the same function as DAGs is the VGG-16 encoder-decoder comparison (43.0 vs. 42.6 on PASCAL-Context). All ablation and state-of-the-art results use dilated ResNet-101 at 1/8 resolution. Since the propagation dynamics depend on spatial resolution and on the number of recurrent steps, equivalence on VGG-16 does not directly transfer to the backbone used for the headline numbers. Please add a DAG-vs-UAG comparison on the actual backbone, or at least report the effective receptive-field difference and show that the boundary-aware gating in Eq. (3) behaves equivalently on ResNet-101.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.2] The text states that "UAG_S is south directed that deals with pixels of the same row in parallel" and that "UAG_S.E is east directed ... deals with pixels of the same column in parallel", but a south/east direction should correspond to columns/rows respectively; the row and column wording appears swapped.
  2. [3.3, Eq. (2)] The constants alpha=20 and gamma=4 are described as chosen by experience, but no sensitivity analysis is reported. Since boundary control is a central contribution (Table 2, +2.0 mIoU), please provide a small study over alpha and gamma or at least report the range over which the gain is stable.
  3. [Table 1] The inference-time comparison shows that UAGs are about 35-80% slower than the FCN baseline (0.47s vs. 0.35s at 480x360; 0.76s vs. 0.42s at 960x720). The text should clarify that the speed advantage is relative to DAGs, not to a plain FCN, and should state the overhead relative to the base network.
  4. [4.3] The claim that DT and BFP are complementary, supported by a 0.7% gain after applying domain transform, is not shown in any table or figure. Please report this result explicitly in the ablation study or in a dedicated experiment.
  5. [4.1] There are several typos: "receptively" should be "respectively" in Section 4.1; "the the problem" appears in Section 3.2; and "changeling" in the conclusion should be "challenging".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper's claims are benchmark results on external held-out test sets, and the UAG/DAG equivalence is an empirical comparison rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The central claims are mIoU scores on PASCAL-Context, CamVid, and Cityscapes, which are external held-out benchmarks. No parameter is fitted to those target results: the propagation confidence uses fixed constants alpha=20 and gamma=4 plus a learnable beta, and these are not set by matching the reported mIoU. The UAG-DAG equivalence is asserted and supported by one VGG-16 comparison (UAGs 43.0% vs. DAGs 42.6%), but it is not derived from equations that presuppose the conclusion; Eq. (4) simply defines the two-hidden-state UAG recursion, and whether it 'realizes the same function as DAGs' is checked empirically, not by construction. The DAG-RNN baseline [66] shares an author, but the comparison is against an independently published architecture, and the conclusion is not forced by the citation itself. The ablation tables show UAG and boundary contributions on the same backbone, so the headline numbers do not reduce to a fitted input. Possible concerns such as the single VGG-16 equivalence check, lack of released code, and absence of run-to-run variance are correctness or reproducibility issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central performance claims rest on standard supervised learning assumptions plus three architectural choices: an extra boundary class generated from segmentation labels, a hand-designed propagation gate with two manually chosen constants, and an empirically checked but unproven equivalence between DAG and UAG propagation. The method introduces no new physical or conceptual entities.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha parameter (alpha) = 20
    Equation 2 sets alpha=20 as a constant chosen by experience; it controls the sharpness of the boundary-to-propagation confidence mapping.
  • gamma parameter (gamma) = 4
    Equation 2 sets gamma=4 as a constant chosen by experience; it shifts the sigmoid so low boundary confidence gives near-unrestricted propagation.
  • beta parameter (beta) = learnable
    Equation 2 multiplies f(alpha * b_t - gamma) by beta, a learnable parameter that scales boundary suppression.
  • boundary trimap width = 18 pixels (distance less than or equal to 9 pixels)
    Section 4.1 defines boundary pixels as those within 9 pixels of the semantic boundary; the paper notes that a 50-pixel trimap squeezes small objects, so this width is a hand-tuned choice.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Boundary labels generated from semantic ground truth are learnable as one extra semantic class and provide a useful boundary layout.
    Section 3.1 assumes boundary pixels are distinguishable enough from interior pixels for the N+1-class classifier; no independent boundary ground truth is used.
  • domain assumption Each DAG of DAG-RNN can be replaced by two UAGs without changing effective feature propagation.
    Section 3.2 and Eq. 4 assert the replacement; Section 4.2 supports it with one VGG-16 PASCAL-Context comparison (43.0 vs 42.6), not on the main ResNet-101 backbone.
  • ad hoc to paper The propagation confidence p_t = 1 - beta * f(alpha * b_t - gamma) gates information flow in a beneficial way.
    This is a hand-designed mapping introduced for this architecture; alpha and gamma are chosen by experience and beta is learned.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boundary-Aware Feature Propagation for Scene Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/47NHAVBN

@misc{pith2026190900179,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boundary-Aware Feature Propagation for Scene Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/47NHAVBN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00179}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we address the challenging issue of scene segmentation. To increase the feature similarity of the same object while keeping the feature discrimination of different objects, we explore to propagate information throughout the image under the control of objects' boundaries. To this end, we first propose to learn the boundary as an additional semantic class to enable the network to be aware of the boundary layout. Then, we propose unidirectional acyclic graphs (UAGs) to model the function of undirected cyclic graphs (UCGs), which structurize the image via building graphic pixel-by-pixel connections, in an efficient and effective way. Furthermore, we propose a boundary-aware feature propagation (BFP) module to harvest and propagate the local features within their regions isolated by the learned boundaries in the UAG-structured image. The proposed BFP is capable of splitting the feature propagation into a set of semantic groups via building strong connections among the same segment region but weak connections between different segment regions. Without bells and whistles, our approach achieves new state-of-the-art segmentation performance on three challenging semantic segmentation datasets, i.e., PASCAL-Context, CamVid, and Cityscapes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00179 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Best viewed in color) The boundary-aware feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of the proposed approach. We use the ResNet-101 (CNN) with the dilated network strategy [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Each point of the DAGs has three different directions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Image; (b) Original ground truth; (c) New generated ground truth: add a boundary class generated from the original ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As our UAGs are unidirectional and in parallel, we show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Segmentation performance within band (trimap) around [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative examples of inferred boundary map. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative segmentation examples on Cityscapes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Contour detection and hierarchical image seg- mentation

    Pablo Arbelaez, Michael Maire, Charless Fowlkes, and Ji- tendra Malik. Contour detection and hierarchical image seg- mentation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and ma- chine intelligence, 33(5):898–916, 2011

    2011

  2. [2]

    Higher order conditional random fields in deep neural networks

    Anurag Arnab, Sadeep Jayasumana, Shuai Zheng, and Philip HS Torr. Higher order conditional random fields in deep neural networks. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2016

    2016

  3. [3]

    Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation

    Vijay Badrinarayanan, Alex Kendall, and Roberto Cipolla. Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Anal- ysis & Machine Intelligence, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    PixelNet: Towards a General Pixel-level Architecture

    Aayush Bansal, Xinlei Chen, Bryan Russell, Abhinav Gupta, and Deva Ramanan. Pixelnet: Towards a general pixel-level architecture. arXiv:1609.06694, 2016

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Deepedge: A multi-scale bifurcated deep network for top- down contour detection

    Gedas Bertasius, Jianbo Shi, and Lorenzo Torresani. Deepedge: A multi-scale bifurcated deep network for top- down contour detection. In The IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4380–4389, 2015

    2015

  6. [6]

    High- for-low and low-for-high: Efficient boundary detection from deep object features and its applications to high-level vi- sion

    Gedas Bertasius, Jianbo Shi, and Lorenzo Torresani. High- for-low and low-for-high: Efficient boundary detection from deep object features and its applications to high-level vi- sion. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 504–512, 2015

    2015

  7. [7]

    Dense decoder shortcut connections for single-pass semantic segmentation

    Piotr Bilinski and Victor Prisacariu. Dense decoder shortcut connections for single-pass semantic segmentation. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Segmentation and recognition using struc- ture from motion point clouds

    Gabriel J Brostow, Jamie Shotton, Julien Fauqueur, and Roberto Cipolla. Segmentation and recognition using struc- ture from motion point clouds. In European conference on computer vision, 2008

    2008

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Breuel, Federico Raue, and Marcus Liwicki

    Wonmin Byeon, Thomas M. Breuel, Federico Raue, and Marcus Liwicki. Scene labeling with lstm recurrent neural networks. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    Semantic segmentation with second-order pooling

    Joao Carreira, Rui Caseiro, Jorge Batista, and Cristian Smin- chisescu. Semantic segmentation with second-order pooling. Computer Vision–ECCV 2012, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Semantic image segmen- tation with task-specific edge detection using cnns and a dis- criminatively trained domain transform

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Jonathan T Barron, George Papandreou, Kevin Murphy, and Alan L Yuille. Semantic image segmen- tation with task-specific edge detection using cnns and a dis- criminatively trained domain transform. In The IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni...

    2016

  4. [12]

    Semantic image segmen- tation with deep convolutional nets and fully connected crfs

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Murphy, and Alan L Yuille. Semantic image segmen- tation with deep convolutional nets and fully connected crfs. In ICLR, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolu- tion, and fully connected crfs

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Murphy, and Alan L Yuille. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolu- tion, and fully connected crfs. arXiv:1606.00915, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmenta- tion

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Yukun Zhu, George Papandreou, Flo- rian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmenta- tion. arXiv:1802.02611, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding

    Marius Cordts, Mohamed Omran, Sebastian Ramos, Timo Rehfeld, Markus Enzweiler, Rodrigo Benenson, Uwe Franke, Stefan Roth, and Bernt Schiele. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. InThe IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Boxsup: Exploit- ing bounding boxes to supervise convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Jifeng Dai, Kaiming He, and Jian Sun. Boxsup: Exploit- ing bounding boxes to supervise convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Semantic correlation promoted shape- variant context for segmentation

    Henghui Ding, Xudong Jiang, Bing Shuai, Ai Qun Liu, and Gang Wang. Semantic correlation promoted shape- variant context for segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR), pages 8885–8894, June 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Context contrasted feature and gated multi- scale aggregation for scene segmentation

    Henghui Ding, Xudong Jiang, Bing Shuai, Ai Qun Liu, and Gang Wang. Context contrasted feature and gated multi- scale aggregation for scene segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2393–2402, June 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Structured forests for fast edge detection

    Piotr Doll ´ar and C Lawrence Zitnick. Structured forests for fast edge detection. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1841–1848, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Fast edge detection us- ing structured forests

    Piotr Doll ´ar and C Lawrence Zitnick. Fast edge detection us- ing structured forests. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 37(8):1558–1570, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Dual attention network for scene segmentation

    Jun Fu, Jing Liu, Haijie Tian, Yong Li, Yongjun Bao, Zhiwei Fang, and Hanqing Lu. Dual attention network for scene segmentation. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3146–3154, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Adaptive context network for scene parsing

    Jun Fu, Jing Liu, Yuhang Wang, Yong Li, Yongjun Bao, Jin- hui Tang, and Hanqing Lu. Adaptive context network for scene parsing. In Proceedings of the IEEE international con- ference on computer vision, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Laplacian pyramid reconstruction and refinement for semantic segmentation

    Golnaz Ghiasi and Charless C Fowlkes. Laplacian pyramid reconstruction and refinement for semantic segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Decom- posing a scene into geometric and semantically consistent regions

    Stephen Gould, Richard Fulton, and Daphne Koller. Decom- posing a scene into geometric and semantically consistent regions. In International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 1–8. IEEE, 2009

    2009

  17. [25]

    Un- paired image captioning by language pivoting

    Jiuxiang Gu, Shafiq Joty, Jianfei Cai, and Gang Wang. Un- paired image captioning by language pivoting. In ECCV, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Unpaired image captioning via scene graph alignments

    Jiuxiang Gu, Shafiq Joty, Jianfei Cai, Handong Zhao, Xu Yang, and Gang Wang. Unpaired image captioning via scene graph alignments. In ICCV, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Scene graph generation with external knowledge and image reconstruction

    Jiuxiang Gu, Handong Zhao, Zhe Lin, Sheng Li, Jianfei Cai, and Mingyang Ling. Scene graph generation with external knowledge and image reconstruction. In CVPR, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Boundary-aware instance segmentation

    Zeeshan Hayder, Xuming He, and Mathieu Salzmann. Boundary-aware instance segmentation. In The IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5696–5704, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Dynamic multi- scale filters for semantic segmentation

    Junjun He, Zhongying Deng, and Yu Qiao. Dynamic multi- scale filters for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Adaptive pyramid context network for semantic seg- mentation

    Junjun He, Zhongying Deng, Lei Zhou, Yali Wang, and Yu Qiao. Adaptive pyramid context network for semantic seg- mentation. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Weinberger

    Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens van der Maaten, and Kil- ian Q. Weinberger. Densely connected convolutional net- works. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Pixel-wise deep learning for contour detection

    Jyh-Jing Hwang and Tyng-Luh Liu. Pixel-wise deep learning for contour detection. arXiv:1504.01989, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gated feedback refinement network for dense image labeling

    Md Amirul Islam, Mrigank Rochan, Neil DB Bruce, and Yang Wang. Gated feedback refinement network for dense image labeling. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Crisp boundary detection using pointwise mutual information

    Phillip Isola, Daniel Zoran, Dilip Krishnan, and Edward H Adelson. Crisp boundary detection using pointwise mutual information. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 799–814. Springer, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    Tsung-Wei Ke, Jyh-Jing Hwang, Ziwei Liu, and Stella X. Yu. Adaptive affinity fields for semantic segmentation. In The European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), Septem- ber 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Robust higher or- der potentials for enforcing label consistency

    Pushmeet Kohli, Philip HS Torr, et al. Robust higher or- der potentials for enforcing label consistency. International Journal of Computer Vision, 82(3):302–324, 2009

    2009

  30. [38]

    Pushing the boundaries of boundary de- tection using deep learning

    Iasonas Kokkinos. Pushing the boundaries of boundary de- tection using deep learning. arXiv:1511.07386, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Recurrent scene pars- ing with perspective understanding in the loop

    Shu Kong and Charless C Fowlkes. Recurrent scene pars- ing with perspective understanding in the loop. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Yuille, James M

    Scott Konishi, Alan L. Yuille, James M. Coughlan, and Song Chun Zhu. Statistical edge detection: Learning and evaluating edge cues.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 25(1):57–74, 2003

    2003

  33. [41]

    Efficient inference in fully connected crfs with gaussian edge potentials

    Philipp Kr ¨ahenb¨uhl and Vladlen Koltun. Efficient inference in fully connected crfs with gaussian edge potentials. In Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 2011

    2011

  34. [42]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural net- works

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural net- works. In Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Efficiently selecting re- gions for scene understanding

    M Pawan Kumar and Daphne Koller. Efficiently selecting re- gions for scene understanding. In Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), 2010 IEEE Conference on , pages 3217–3224. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  36. [44]

    Feature space optimization for semantic video segmentation

    Abhijit Kundu, Vibhav Vineet, and Vladlen Koltun. Feature space optimization for semantic video segmentation. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    Combining appearance models and markov random fields for category level object segmentation

    Diane Larlus and Fr ´ed´eric Jurie. Combining appearance models and markov random fields for category level object segmentation. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,

  38. [46]

    Not all pixels are equal: Difficulty-aware se- mantic segmentation via deep layer cascade

    Xiaoxiao Li, Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo, Chen Change Loy, and Xiaoou Tang. Not all pixels are equal: Difficulty-aware se- mantic segmentation via deep layer cascade. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3193–3202, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Semantic object parsing with local-global long short-term memory

    Xiaodan Liang, Xiaohui Shen, Donglai Xiang, Jiashi Feng, Liang Lin, and Shuicheng Yan. Semantic object parsing with local-global long short-term memory. In The IEEE Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Sketch tokens: A learned mid-level representation for contour and object detection

    Joseph J Lim, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Doll ´ar. Sketch tokens: A learned mid-level representation for contour and object detection. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 3158–3165, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    Multi-scale context intertwining for semantic segmentation

    Di Lin, Yuanfeng Ji, Dani Lischinski, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Hui Huang. Multi-scale context intertwining for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Refinenet: Multi-path refinement networks for high- resolution semantic segmentation

    Guosheng Lin, Anton Milan, Chunhua Shen, and Ian Reid. Refinenet: Multi-path refinement networks for high- resolution semantic segmentation. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    Sift flow: Dense correspondence across scenes and its applications

    Ce Liu, Jenny Yuen, and Antonio Torralba. Sift flow: Dense correspondence across scenes and its applications. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 33(5), 2011

    2011

  44. [52]

    Feature boosting network for 3d pose estimation

    Jun Liu, Henghui Ding, Amir Shahroudy, Ling-Yu Duan, Xudong Jiang, Gang Wang, and Alex Kot Chichung. Feature boosting network for 3d pose estimation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    Semantic image segmentation via deep parsing network

    Ziwei Liu, Xiaoxiao Li, Ping Luo, Chen-Change Loy, and Xiaoou Tang. Semantic image segmentation via deep parsing network. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Confer- ence on Computer Vision, 2015

    2015

  46. [54]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2015

    2015

  47. [55]

    The role of context for object detection and semantic segmentation in the wild

    Roozbeh Mottaghi, Xianjie Chen, Xiaobai Liu, Nam-Gyu Cho, Seong-Whan Lee, Sanja Fidler, Raquel Urtasun, and Alan Yuille. The role of context for object detection and semantic segmentation in the wild. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2014

    2014

  48. [56]

    Learning deconvolution network for semantic segmentation

    Hyeonwoo Noh, Seunghoon Hong, and Bohyung Han. Learning deconvolution network for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2015

    2015

  49. [57]

    On the difficulty of training recurrent neural networks

    Razvan Pascanu, Tomas Mikolov, and Yoshua Bengio. On the difficulty of training recurrent neural networks. In In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning , pages 1310– 1318, 2013

    2013

  50. [58]

    Enet: A deep neural network architecture for real-time semantic segmentation

    Adam Paszke, Abhishek Chaurasia, Sangpil Kim, and Euge- nio Culurciello. Enet: A deep neural network architecture for real-time semantic segmentation. arXiv:1606.02147, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Erfnet: Efficient residual factorized convnet for real-time semantic segmentation

    Eduardo Romera, Jos ´e M Alvarez, Luis M Bergasa, and Roberto Arroyo. Erfnet: Efficient residual factorized convnet for real-time semantic segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 19(1):263–272, 2018

    2018

  52. [60]

    In-place activated batchnorm for memory-optimized training of dnns

    Samuel Rota Bul `o, Lorenzo Porzi, and Peter Kontschieder. In-place activated batchnorm for memory-optimized training of dnns. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5639–5647, 2018

    2018

  53. [61]

    Asso- ciative hierarchical crfs for object class image segmentation

    Chris Russell, Pushmeet Kohli, Philip HS Torr, et al. Asso- ciative hierarchical crfs for object class image segmentation. In Computer Vision, 2009 IEEE 12th International Confer- ence on, pages 739–746. IEEE, 2009

    2009

  54. [62]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Evan Shelhamer, Jonathon Long, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 2016

    2016

  55. [63]

    Multi-stage multi-recursive-input fully convolutional networks for neuronal boundary detection

    Wei Shen, Bin Wang, Yuan Jiang, Yan Wang, and Alan Yuille. Multi-stage multi-recursive-input fully convolutional networks for neuronal boundary detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 2391–2400, 2017

    2017

  56. [64]

    Deepcontour: A deep convolutional feature learned by positive-sharing loss for contour detection

    Wei Shen, Xinggang Wang, Yan Wang, Xiang Bai, and Zhi- jiang Zhang. Deepcontour: A deep convolutional feature learned by positive-sharing loss for contour detection. InThe IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, pages 3982–3991, 2015

    2015

  57. [65]

    Toward achieving robust low-level and high- level scene parsing

    Bing Shuai, Henghui Ding, Ting Liu, Gang Wang, and Xudong Jiang. Toward achieving robust low-level and high- level scene parsing. IEEE Transactions on Image Process- ing, 28(3):1378–1390, 2019

    2019

  58. [66]

    Scene segmentation with dag-recurrent neural networks

    Bing Shuai, Zhen Zuo, Bing Wang, and Gang Wang. Scene segmentation with dag-recurrent neural networks. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 40(6):1480–1493, 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv:1409.1556, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Going deeper with convolutions

    Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolutions. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2015

    2015

  61. [69]

    Finding things: Im- age parsing with regions and per-exemplar detectors

    Joseph Tighe and Svetlana Lazebnik. Finding things: Im- age parsing with regions and per-exemplar detectors. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2013

    2013

  62. [70]

    Deep learning for light field saliency detection

    Tiantian Wang, Yongri Piao, Xiao Li, Lihe Zhang, and Huchuan Lu. Deep learning for light field saliency detection. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019

    2019

  63. [71]

    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

  64. [72]

    Detect globally, refine lo- cally: A novel approach to saliency detection

    Tiantian Wang, Lihe Zhang, Shuo Wang, Huchuan Lu, Gang Yang, Xiang Ruan, and Ali Borji. Detect globally, refine lo- cally: A novel approach to saliency detection. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3127–3135, 2018

    2018

  65. [73]

    Wider or deeper: Revisiting the resnet model for visual recognition

    Zifeng Wu, Chunhua Shen, and Anton Van Den Hengel. Wider or deeper: Revisiting the resnet model for visual recognition. Pattern Recognition, 2019

    2019

  66. [74]

    Holistically-nested edge de- tection

    Saining Xie and Zhuowen Tu. Holistically-nested edge de- tection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 1395–1403, 2015

    2015

  67. [75]

    Context driven scene parsing with attention to rare classes

    Jimei Yang, Brian Price, Scott Cohen, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Context driven scene parsing with attention to rare classes. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2014

    2014

  68. [76]

    Denseaspp for semantic segmentation in street scenes

    Maoke Yang, Kun Yu, Chi Zhang, Zhiwei Li, and Kuiyuan Yang. Denseaspp for semantic segmentation in street scenes. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018

    2018

  69. [77]

    Bisenet: Bilateral segmentation network for real-time semantic segmentation

    Changqian Yu, Jingbo Wang, Chao Peng, Changxin Gao, Gang Yu, and Nong Sang. Bisenet: Bilateral segmentation network for real-time semantic segmentation. In The Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018

    2018

  70. [78]

    Learning a discriminative fea- ture network for semantic segmentation

    Changqian Yu, Jingbo Wang, Chao Peng, Changxin Gao, Gang Yu, and Nong Sang. Learning a discriminative fea- ture network for semantic segmentation. arXiv:1804.09337, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Multi-scale context aggrega- tion by dilated convolutions

    Fisher Yu and Vladlen Koltun. Multi-scale context aggrega- tion by dilated convolutions. arXiv:1511.07122, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Learning to promote saliency detectors

    Yu Zeng, Huchuan Lu, Lihe Zhang, Mengyang Feng, and Ali Borji. Learning to promote saliency detectors. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2018

    2018

  73. [81]

    Joint learning of saliency detection and weakly supervised seman- tic segmentation

    Yu Zeng, Yunzhi Zhuge, Huchuan Lu, and Lihe Zhang. Joint learning of saliency detection and weakly supervised seman- tic segmentation. In Proceedings of the International Con- ference on Computer Vision, 2019

    2019

  74. [82]

    Con- text encoding for semantic segmentation

    Hang Zhang, Kristin Dana, Jianping Shi, Zhongyue Zhang, Xiaogang Wang, Ambrish Tyagi, and Amit Agrawal. Con- text encoding for semantic segmentation. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2018

    2018

  75. [83]

    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 The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018

    2018

  76. [84]

    Fast video object segmentation via dynamic targeting network

    Lu Zhang, Zhe Lin, Jianming Zhang, Huchuan Lu, and You He. Fast video object segmentation via dynamic targeting network. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019

    2019

  77. [85]

    Icnet for real-time semantic segmentation on high-resolution images

    Hengshuang Zhao, Xiaojuan Qi, Xiaoyong Shen, Jianping Shi, and Jiaya Jia. Icnet for real-time semantic segmentation on high-resolution images. In The European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), September 2018

    2018

  78. [86]

    Pyramid scene parsing network

    Hengshuang Zhao, Jianping Shi, Xiaojuan Qi, Xiaogang Wang, and Jiaya Jia. Pyramid scene parsing network. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), 2017

    2017

  79. [87]

    PSANet: Point- wise spatial attention network for scene parsing

    Hengshuang Zhao, Yi Zhang, Shu Liu, Jianping Shi, Chen Change Loy, Dahua Lin, and Jiaya Jia. PSANet: Point- wise spatial attention network for scene parsing. In ECCV, 2018

    2018

  80. [2008]

    IEEE Conference on , pages 1–7

    CVPR 2008. IEEE Conference on , pages 1–7. IEEE, 2008

    2008

Pith tools

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