Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 64 references

Domain Randomization and Pyramid Consistency: Simulation-to-Real Generalization without Accessing Target Domain Data

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 By stylizing synthetic driving images into many real-looking auxiliary domains and enforcing pyramid consistency across styles and scales, a segmentation network trained without any target-domain data can match or beat domain-adaptation…

desk verdict Practical domain-generalization method for synthetic-to-real segmentation with honest ablations, but the 'no target data' claim needs a stricter auxiliary-domain disclosure. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00889 v2 pith:GOA5CRHH submitted 2019-09-02 cs.CV

Xiangyu Yue , Yang Zhang , Sicheng Zhao , Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli , Kurt Keutzer , Boqing Gong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords domaingeneralizationsemanticsegmentationrandomizationpyramidconsistencysimulation-to-realtransfersyntheticdatastyleautonomousdriving
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 tries to establish that a semantic segmentation network can be trained entirely on synthetic driving images and still generalize to real-world street scenes it has never seen, without using any target-domain images during training. The proposed method stylizes each synthetic image into several auxiliary domains whose visual appearance is borrowed from real image categories, then adds a pyramid consistency loss that forces the network's pooled feature representations to stay similar across styles and image scales. On GTA and SYNTHIA to Cityscapes, BDDS, and Mapillary transfers, the paper reports mIoU 36.11 with a VGG-16 backbone and 42.53 with ResNet-101 from GTA to Cityscapes. These numbers are higher than the source-only baselines and comparable to or better than several published domain-adaptation results that are allowed to see the target domain during training.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pyramid consistency loss built on spatial pyramid pooling. For each stylized copy of a synthetic image, hidden feature maps from the last several layers are average-pooled at pyramid levels $1\times1$, $2\times2$, $4\times4$, and $8\times8$; the pooled vectors are squeezed, concatenated, and pushed toward the mean pooled vector across all styles with an $\ell^1$ loss. A second, within-image variant pools the feature map of a random crop and matches it to the pooled features of the corresponding region in the full image. The pyramid pooling serves as a tolerant target: unlike raw activation matching, it lets the network keep some per-domain flexibility while still enforcing scale- and style-invariance at multiple resolutions.

What would settle it

Have human annotators re-label a sample of the stylized training copies and compare with the original synthetic labels; if label mismatch is high for small or thin objects, the central assumption fails, and retraining with corrected labels would isolate whether label preservation carries the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that domain randomization combined with consistency-enforced training is enough to close most of the simulation-to-real gap for semantic segmentation, even when the target domain is completely unknown at training time. Each synthetic image is translated into multiple stylized copies using unpaired image-to-image translation, and the network is trained to produce the same high-level pooled features for all copies of the same scene, both across styles and for random crops of the same image. The paper reports that this yields strong generalization from GTA and SYNTHIA to three real-world test sets, and that the gains hold across VGG-16, ResNet-50, and ResNet-101 backbones. The author's claim to a fair reader is that, under the domain-generalization setting, a model trained without target data can match or exceed the performance of state-of-the-art simulation-to-real domain adaptation methods that access target data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the style-transferred copies of each synthetic image keep the same semantic labels as the original; if the transfer changes object boundaries, adds artifacts, or erases small objects, the training labels become unreliable and the claimed gains may reflect denoising rather than domain invariance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A model trained only on GTA or SYNTHIA, plus unlabeled real-style images, can reach mIoU 36.11 with VGG-16 and 42.53 with ResNet-101 on Cityscapes without ever seeing Cityscapes data.
  • Generalization improves as more auxiliary styles are added, up to roughly 15 domains, after which gains saturate.
  • Domain randomization alone accounts for most of the improvement over the source-only baseline, and both pyramid consistency terms add further, smaller gains.
  • Because the method is target-agnostic, the same trained model can be evaluated on multiple unseen real-world domains without retraining or target-side data collection.
  • The approach is complementary to normalization-based domain generalization and could be combined with it, as the paper notes for IBN-Net.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's comparison to domain adaptation uses published numbers from different backbones and training budgets, so a strict head-to-head with identical backbones and compute would clarify how much of the gap is due to method versus setup.
  • The result that the number of auxiliary domains matters more than their semantic content suggests a cheap testable proxy: replacing style transfer with a diverse set of random color and texture distortions may capture most of the benefit, though the paper's own color-augmentation experiment is slightly worse.
  • The within-image pyramid consistency is a scale regularizer that should transfer to other dense prediction tasks, such as monocular depth estimation or object detection, where scale shift is also a domain gap.
  • The method still requires a small labeled real-world validation set from a domain other than the test target to select hyperparameters; the 'no target data' claim applies to the test domain only.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DRPC, a domain-generalization method for semantic segmentation trained without target-domain data. It augments synthetic GTA/SYNTHIA images with style-transferred copies in K auxiliary real-image domains, then trains FCNs with a segmentation loss and two pyramid-consistency regularizers: one across stylized versions of the same image and one between random crops and full images. The method is evaluated on GTA/SYNTHIA to Cityscapes, BDDS, and Mapillary with VGG-16, ResNet-50, and ResNet-101 backbones, reporting consistent mIoU gains over source-only baselines and favorable comparisons with IBN-Net and with target-data-using domain adaptation methods.

Significance. If the no-target-data claim holds, this is a significant advance: it would show that synthetic data plus auxiliary real-image styles, without any target-domain images, can reach the level of unsupervised domain adaptation methods. The paper's strengths include a clean component-wise ablation, consistent gains across multiple backbones and source datasets, a thoughtful cross-validation protocol that avoids using the target for model selection, and an open-source implementation. The pyramid-pooled consistency loss is a sensible design choice, and the within-image crop consistency is a novel addition. However, the significance is conditional on resolving target-domain leakage in the auxiliary style sets, and the statistical evidence for the smaller component gains is currently weak.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1–4.2, Appendix B] The central claim that no target-domain data are accessed during training is not verifiable as written. Section 4.1 says the auxiliary domains are 'a small subset of ImageNet as well as datasets used in CycleGAN,' and Section 4.2 states that auxiliary set A contains 5 domains from CycleGAN, but the paper never lists which datasets these are. The official CycleGAN repository includes Cityscapes, which is exactly the target of the GTA→Cityscapes and SYNTHIA→Cityscapes experiments. Appendix B explicitly uses '15 real-world styles from the BDD dataset' as auxiliary domains, and BDD100K is the dataset from which the BDDS target used in the main experiments is drawn. If Cityscapes or BDD images were used to train the style-transfer models, the stylized training images carry target-domain appearance, the no-access claim collapses, and the comparison with domain adaptation methods in Tables 4 and 5 is unfair. The authors must list all auxiliary datasets, exclude any that overlap with the targets, and re-run the affected experiments.
  2. [§4.3, Table 1] All reported numbers are single runs with no error bars or number of seeds. The incremental gains from the consistency losses are small: PCD adds 0.83 mIoU on Cityscapes (35.47 vs 34.64), 1.07 on BDDS, and 0.42 on Mapillary; PCI adds 0.48, 0.73, and 0.48 over DR. These margins are comparable to run-to-run variation for FCN training on this task, so the claim that PCD and PCI 'further enhance' performance is not yet established. I request means and standard deviations over at least three seeds for the main ablations, and ideally for the headline comparisons in Tables 2, 4, and 5.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The method assumes that each stylized copy I^k_n shares the source label map Y_n. The paper states only that semantic content is 'retained at most parts of the images' and defers edge-preserving style transfer to future work, but provides no quantitative check of label preservation. If CycleGAN-style translation shifts object boundaries, erases small objects, or introduces spurious texture, the cross-entropy loss in Eq. (1) is applied to corrupted labels, and the observed gains of DR could come from memorizing target-like appearance rather than from learning domain-invariant features. I ask for a label-preservation evaluation on a held-out set of stylized images, e.g., mIoU of a reference segmentation model on stylized versus source images, or a manual/automated measure of boundary and small-object consistency.
  4. [§4.5, Tables 4 and 5] The headline comparison to domain adaptation methods is not controlled: the cited DA methods use different backbones, pre-training routines, training budgets, and target-data protocols, and the meaning of the 'Train w/ Tgt' and 'Val on Tgt' columns is ambiguous because the check marks appear in the NonAdapt rows. As a result, the statement that the generalization results are 'on par with or even better than' DA methods is suggestive but not rigorously established. The authors should either run matched baselines under a common protocol or present the comparison as approximate with the protocol differences clearly stated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2] Please list the specific ImageNet classes and the specific CycleGAN datasets used for the two auxiliary-domain sets A and B. The current description does not allow a reader to verify which real images influence the stylized training data.
  2. [Figure 4] The plot would benefit from error bars or at least an explicit statement that each point is a single run. The x-axis skips values (0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 15) but that is fine; please clarify the axis scale in the caption.
  3. [Tables 4 and 5] Add a legend explaining the check marks under 'Train w/ Tgt' and 'Val on Tgt.' Currently the marks appear adjacent to the NonAdapt rows, making it unclear whether they refer to the NonAdapt baseline or to the adaptation method listed in the same row.
  4. [Appendix B, Table 6] The column header 'Semantics Safe?' is not explained. Also, the 'Random' style set is said to come from 'ImageNet and Artworks,' but Artworks are not defined in the paper, and the 'Weather-TOD' set from BDD is at odds with the no-target-data claim; this should be reconciled or removed.
  5. [References] References [50] and [51] are the same paper (Tremblay et al., 'Training deep networks with synthetic data: Bridging the reality gap by domain randomization'). Please merge the duplicate.
  6. [§3.2.2] The notation ρ = h^k_n / h is used without defining h. Please state explicitly that h is the full image height, and also define h^k_n as the crop height before resizing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the training objective and consistency losses are defined on synthetic and auxiliary stylized data, while target-domain performance is measured on held-out test sets.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (1) trains the segmenter with cross-entropy on the synthetic source plus stylized copies that share labels, and Eq. (2) adds L1 pyramid-consistency regularizers between activations. Neither objective contains a target-domain quantity or the reported mIoU; target data enter only at evaluation (Section 4.1: 'whose official validation sets are used as our test sets'). The headline comparison to domain-adaptation methods is an empirical outcome reported in Tables 4-5, not an identity forced by the loss. The ablation in Table 1 measures incremental gains on Cityscapes, BDDS, and Mapillary, which are external to training. Self-citations ([57], [58]) are related-work pointers and are not used as axioms. The one substantive concern is data hygiene rather than circularity: Section 4.1 lists 'datasets used in CycleGAN' among auxiliary domains, and if one of the unspecified five CycleGAN domains happened to include Cityscapes, the no-target-data claim could be compromised; however, the paper does not enumerate those five domains, so no specific reduction from auxiliary-domain choice to the target result can be exhibited from the text. Appendix B's BDD-style experiment is reported only on Cityscapes and Mapillary, not on BDDS, so it does not show direct target leakage on the text as given. Likewise, the label-preservation assumption of style transfer is a validity condition, not a circular definition. Therefore no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

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

The method introduces no new physical or formal entities. The main loads are the assumption that stylized images preserve labels, the representativeness of auxiliary domains, and the hand-chosen hyperparameters for pyramid pooling and loss weights. These are standard empirical assumptions for a method paper, but the label-preservation assumption is the most critical for training validity.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of auxiliary domains (K=15) = 15
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.2; experiments show accuracy saturates with this number, but no principled selection is given.
  • Pyramid pooling levels (1x1, 2x2, 4x4, 8x8) = 1, 2, 4, 8
    Fixed configuration from prior pyramid pooling literature, used without tuning evidence in Section 3.2.1.
  • Consistency loss weights (lambda per layer) = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 for last five layers
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.1; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Random crop height range for within-image consistency = Not specified
    Section 3.2.2 describes random crops but does not report the distribution of crop heights or the ratio h_k_n/h, which affects the scale invariance objective.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Stylized images retain the semantic content and label correctness of the original synthetic images.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 when assigning the same segmentation map to all stylized copies; if style transfer alters content, the training signal is corrupted.
  • domain assumption The auxiliary real-image styles (ImageNet classes, CycleGAN datasets) cover the appearance variations of the unseen target street scenes.
    The method's success depends on the stylized domains spanning the target domain's appearance distribution, as stated in Section 3.1 and evaluated in Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption A validation set from one real street dataset (e.g., BDDS) is a good proxy for another unseen target dataset (e.g., Cityscapes) for model selection.
    The validation protocol in Section 4.1 uses 500 images from a non-target real dataset to select hyperparameters and checkpoints for each target dataset.
  • ad hoc to paper Spatial pyramid pooling with average pooling provides a suitable low-dimensional representation for feature consistency without overly constraining the network.
    The authors note in Section 3.2 that identity mapping fails and pyramid pooling works better, but the theoretical justification is limited to intuition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Domain Randomization and Pyramid Consistency: Simulation-to-Real Generalization without Accessing Target Domain Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GOA5CRHH

@misc{pith2026190900889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Domain Randomization and Pyramid Consistency: Simulation-to-Real Generalization without Accessing Target Domain Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GOA5CRHH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00889}
}
read the original abstract

We propose to harness the potential of simulation for the semantic segmentation of real-world self-driving scenes in a domain generalization fashion. The segmentation network is trained without any data of target domains and tested on the unseen target domains. To this end, we propose a new approach of domain randomization and pyramid consistency to learn a model with high generalizability. First, we propose to randomize the synthetic images with the styles of real images in terms of visual appearances using auxiliary datasets, in order to effectively learn domain-invariant representations. Second, we further enforce pyramid consistency across different "stylized" images and within an image, in order to learn domain-invariant and scale-invariant features, respectively. Extensive experiments are conducted on the generalization from GTA and SYNTHIA to Cityscapes, BDDS and Mapillary; and our method achieves superior results over the state-of-the-art techniques. Remarkably, our generalization results are on par with or even better than those obtained by state-of-the-art simulation-to-real domain adaptation methods, which access the target domain data at training time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00889 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Domain randomization and pyramid consistency enforce [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The domain randomization process. Top: an original synthetic image from the source domain; Mid: auxiliary image sets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pyramid Consistency across Domains. After feeding the images from different domains with the same content into the neural [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accuracy of FCN8s-VGG16 with varying numbers of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative semantic segmentation results of the generalization from GTA to Cityscapes, BDDS, and Mapillary. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Metareg: Towards domain generalization using meta- regularization

    Yogesh Balaji, Swami Sankaranarayanan, and Rama Chel- lappa. Metareg: Towards domain generalization using meta- regularization. In Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, pages 1006–1016, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Using sim- ulation and domain adaptation to improve efficiency of deep robotic grasping

    Konstantinos Bousmalis, Alex Irpan, Paul Wohlhart, Yunfei Bai, Matthew Kelcey, Mrinal Kalakrishnan, Laura Downs, Julian Ibarz, Peter Pastor, Kurt Konolige, et al. Using sim- ulation and domain adaptation to improve efficiency of deep robotic grasping. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 4243–4250. IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Road: Reality ori- ented adaptation for semantic segmentation of urban scenes

    Yuhua Chen, Wen Li, and Luc Van Gool. Road: Reality ori- ented adaptation for semantic segmentation of urban scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7892–7901, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Multi- column deep neural networks for image classification

    Dan Ciregan, Ueli Meier, and Jurgen Schmidhuber. Multi- column deep neural networks for image classification. In 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, page 36423649, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    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. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3213–3223, 2016

    2016

  6. [6]

    Autoaugment: Learning augmentation policies from data

    Ekin D Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Dandelion Mane, Vijay Vasude- van, and Quoc V Le. Autoaugment: Learning augmentation policies from data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09501, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Embodied question answer- ing

    Abhishek Das, Samyak Datta, Georgia Gkioxari, Stefan Lee, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Embodied question answer- ing. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , volume 5, page 6, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 248–255, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Dataset augmen- tation in feature space

    Terrance DeVries and Graham W Taylor. Dataset augmen- tation in feature space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.05538 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    CARLA: An open urban driving simulator

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, German Ros, Felipe Codevilla, Antonio Lopez, and Vladlen Koltun. CARLA: An open urban driving simulator. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Robot Learning, pages 1–16, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Counterexample-guided data augmentation

    Tommaso Dreossi, Shromona Ghosh, Xiangyu Yue, Kurt Keutzer, Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, and Sanjit A Se- shia. Counterexample-guided data augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.06962, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Learning at- tributes equals multi-source domain generalization

    Chuang Gan, Tianbao Yang, and Boqing Gong. Learning at- tributes equals multi-source domain generalization. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 87–97, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation

    Yaroslav Ganin and Victor Lempitsky. Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1180–1189, 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    Domain generalization for object recog- nition with multi-task autoencoders

    Muhammad Ghifary, W Bastiaan Kleijn, Mengjie Zhang, and David Balduzzi. Domain generalization for object recog- nition with multi-task autoencoders. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 2551–2559, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Reshaping visual datasets for domain adaptation

    Boqing Gong, Kristen Grauman, and Fei Sha. Reshaping visual datasets for domain adaptation. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1286–1294, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition. In European conference on computer vi- sion, pages 346–361, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Efros, and Trevor Dar- rell

    Judy Hoffman, Eric Tzeng, Taesung Park, Jun-Yan Zhu, Phillip Isola, Kate Saenko, Alexei A. Efros, and Trevor Dar- rell. Cycada: Cycle consistent adversarial domain adap- tation. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Fcns in the wild: Pixel-level adversarial and constraint-based adaptation

    Judy Hoffman, Dequan Wang, Fisher Yu, and Trevor Darrell. Fcns in the wild: Pixel-level adversarial and constraint-based adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.02649, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Conditional generative adversarial network for struc- tured domain adaptation

    Weixiang Hong, Zhenzhen Wang, Ming Yang, and Junsong Yuan. Conditional generative adversarial network for struc- tured domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1335–1344, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Domain transfer through deep activation matching

    Haoshuo Huang, Qixing Huang, and Philipp Krahenbuhl. Domain transfer through deep activation matching. In Pro- ceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 590–605, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. CoRR, abs/1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ai2-thor: An interactive 3d environment for visual ai

    Eric Kolve, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Daniel Gordon, Yuke Zhu, Abhinav Gupta, and Ali Farhadi. Ai2-thor: An interactive 3d environment for visual ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05474, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Be- yond bags of features: spatial pyramid matching for rec- ognizing natural scene categories

    Svetlana Lazebnik, Cordelia Schmid, and Jean Ponce. Be- yond bags of features: spatial pyramid matching for rec- ognizing natural scene categories. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2169– 2178, 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    Smart augmentation learning an optimal data augmentation strategy

    Joseph Lemley, Shabab Bazrafkan, and Peter Corcoran. Smart augmentation learning an optimal data augmentation strategy. IEEE Access, pages 5858–5869, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Deeper, broader and artier domain generaliza- tion

    Da Li, Yongxin Yang, Yi-Zhe Song, and Timothy M Hospedales. Deeper, broader and artier domain generaliza- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 5542–5550, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Learning to generalize: Meta-learning for do- main generalization

    Da Li, Yongxin Yang, Yi-Zhe Song, and Timothy M Hospedales. Learning to generalize: Meta-learning for do- main generalization. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Domain generalization with adversarial feature learning

    Haoliang Li, Sinno Jialin Pan, Shiqi Wang, and Alex C Kot. Domain generalization with adversarial feature learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5400–5409, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Laplacian-steered neural style transfer

    Shaohua Li, Xinxing Xu, Liqiang Nie, and Tat-Seng Chua. Laplacian-steered neural style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Multimedia Conference, pages 1716–1724. ACM, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Bidirectional learning for domain adaptation of semantic segmentation

    Yunsheng Li, Lu Yuan, and Nuno Vasconcelos. Bidirectional learning for domain adaptation of semantic segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.10620, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition, pages 3431–3440, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    Taking a closer look at domain shift: Category- level adversaries for semantics consistent domain adaptation

    Yawei Luo, Liang Zheng, Tao Guan, Junqing Yu, and Yi Yang. Taking a closer look at domain shift: Category- level adversaries for semantics consistent domain adaptation. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Domain generalization via invariant fea- ture representation

    Krikamol Muandet, David Balduzzi, and Bernhard Sch¨olkopf. Domain generalization via invariant fea- ture representation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10–18, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Image to image translation for domain adaptation

    Zak Murez, Soheil Kolouri, David Kriegman, Ravi Ra- mamoorthi, and Kyungnam Kim. Image to image translation for domain adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.00479, 13, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    The mapillary vistas dataset for semantic understanding of street scenes

    Gerhard Neuhold, Tobias Ollmann, Samuel Rota Bulo, and Peter Kontschieder. The mapillary vistas dataset for semantic understanding of street scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4990– 4999, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Two at once: Enhancing learning and generalization capacities via ibn-net

    Xingang Pan, Ping Luo, Jianping Shi, and Xiaoou Tang. Two at once: Enhancing learning and generalization capacities via ibn-net. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 484–500, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Visda: The visual domain adaptation challenge

    Xingchao Peng, Ben Usman, Neela Kaushik, Judy Hoffman, Dequan Wang, and Kate Saenko. Visda: The visual domain adaptation challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.06924 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Structured domain randomization: Bridg- ing the reality gap by context-aware synthetic data

    Aayush Prakash, Shaad Boochoon, Mark Brophy, David Acuna, Eric Cameracci, Gavriel State, Omer Shapira, and Stan Birchfield. Structured domain randomization: Bridg- ing the reality gap by context-aware synthetic data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.10093, 2018

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Playing for data: Ground truth from computer games

    Stephan R Richter, Vibhav Vineet, Stefan Roth, and Vladlen Koltun. Playing for data: Ground truth from computer games. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 102–118, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    The synthia dataset: A large collection of synthetic images for semantic segmentation of urban scenes

    German Ros, Laura Sellart, Joanna Materzynska, David Vazquez, and Antonio M Lopez. The synthia dataset: A large collection of synthetic images for semantic segmentation of urban scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 323...

    2016

  33. [41]

    Cad2rl: Real single- image flight without a single real image

    Fereshteh Sadeghi and Sergey Levine. Cad2rl: Real single- image flight without a single real image. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.04201, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Maximum classifier discrepancy for unsuper- vised domain adaptation

    Kuniaki Saito, Kohei Watanabe, Yoshitaka Ushiku, and Tat- suya Harada. Maximum classifier discrepancy for unsuper- vised domain adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.02560, 3, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Learning from synthetic data: Addressing domain shift for semantic segmentation

    Swami Sankaranarayanan, Yogesh Balaji, Arpit Jain, Ser Nam Lim, and Rama Chellappa. Learning from synthetic data: Addressing domain shift for semantic segmentation. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Apac: Augmented pattern classification with neural networks

    Ikuro Sato, Hiroki Nishimura, and Kensuke Yokoi. Apac: Augmented pattern classification with neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.03229, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Best practices for convolutional neural networks applied to visual document analysis

    PY Simard, D Steinkraus, and JC Platt. Best practices for convolutional neural networks applied to visual document analysis. In Document Analysis and Recognition, 2003. Pro- ceedings. Seventh International Conference on , pages 958– 963, 2003

    2003

  38. [46]

    Simonyan and A

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolu- tional networks for large-scale image recognition. CoRR, abs/1409.1556, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Implicit 3d orientation learning for 6d object detection from rgb images

    Martin Sundermeyer, Zoltan-Csaba Marton, Maximilian Durner, Manuel Brucker, and Rudolph Triebel. Implicit 3d orientation learning for 6d object detection from rgb images. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 712– 729, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world

    Josh Tobin, Rachel Fong, Alex Ray, Jonas Schneider, Woj- ciech Zaremba, and Pieter Abbeel. Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pages 2...

    2017

  41. [49]

    A bayesian data augmentation approach for learn- ing deep models

    Toan Tran, Trung Pham, Gustavo Carneiro, Lyle Palmer, and Ian Reid. A bayesian data augmentation approach for learn- ing deep models. In Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, pages 2797–2806, 2017

    2017

  42. [51]

    Training deep networks with synthetic data: Bridging the reality gap by domain randomization

    Jonathan Tremblay, Aayush Prakash, David Acuna, Mark Brophy, Varun Jampani, Cem Anil, Thang To, Eric Camer- acci, Shaad Boochoon, and Stan Birchfield. Training deep networks with synthetic data: Bridging the reality gap by domain randomization. In Proceedings of the IEEE Con- f...

    2018

  43. [52]

    Learning to adapt structured output space for semantic seg- mentation

    Yi-Hsuan Tsai, Wei-Chih Hung, Samuel Schulter, Ki- hyuk Sohn, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Manmohan Chandraker. Learning to adapt structured output space for semantic seg- mentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 7472–7481, 2018

    2018

  44. [53]

    Regularization of neural networks using drop- connect

    Li Wan, Matthew Zeiler, Sixin Zhang, Yann Le Cun, and Rob Fergus. Regularization of neural networks using drop- connect. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1058–1066, 2013

    2013

  45. [54]

    Dcan: Dual channel-wise alignment networks for unsuper- vised scene adaptation

    Zuxuan Wu, Xintong Han, Yen-Liang Lin, Mustafa Gkhan Uzunbas, Tom Goldstein, Ser Nam Lim, and Larry S Davis. Dcan: Dual channel-wise alignment networks for unsuper- vised scene adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.05827 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Zamir, Zhi-Yang He, Alexander Sax, Jiten- dra Malik, and Silvio Savarese

    Fei Xia, Amir R. Zamir, Zhi-Yang He, Alexander Sax, Jiten- dra Malik, and Silvio Savarese. Gibson env: real-world per- ception for embodied agents. In IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018

    2018

  47. [56]

    Bdd100k: A diverse driving video database with scalable annotation tool- ing

    Fisher Yu, Wenqi Xian, Yingying Chen, Fangchen Liu, Mike Liao, Vashisht Madhavan, and Trevor Darrell. Bdd100k: A diverse driving video database with scalable annotation tool- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04687, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  48. [57]

    A lidar point cloud generator: from a virtual world to autonomous driving

    Xiangyu Yue, Bichen Wu, Sanjit A Seshia, Kurt Keutzer, and Alberto L Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. A lidar point cloud generator: from a virtual world to autonomous driving. In Proceedings on International Conference on Multimedia Re- trieval, pages 458–464, 2018

    2018

  49. [58]

    A curriculum domain adaptation approach to the se- mantic segmentation of urban scenes

    Yang Zhang, Philip David, Hassan Foroosh, and Boqing Gong. A curriculum domain adaptation approach to the se- mantic segmentation of urban scenes. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2019

    2019

  50. [59]

    Curricu- lum domain adaptation for semantic segmentation of urban scenes

    Yang Zhang, Philip David, and Boqing Gong. Curricu- lum domain adaptation for semantic segmentation of urban scenes. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 2039–2049, 2017

    2017

  51. [60]

    Fully convolutional adaptation networks for seman- tic segmentation

    Yiheng Zhang, Zhaofan Qiu, Ting Yao, Dong Liu, and Tao Mei. Fully convolutional adaptation networks for seman- tic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6810– 6818, 2018

    2018

  52. [61]

    Pyramid scene parsing network

    Hengshuang Zhao, Jianping Shi, Xiaojuan Qi, Xiaogang Wang, and Jiaya Jia. Pyramid scene parsing network. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, pages 2881–2890, 2017

    2017

  53. [62]

    Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle- consistent adversarial networks

    Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle- consistent adversarial networks. In IEEE International Con- ference on Computer Vision, 2017

    2017

  54. [63]

    Penalizing top performers: Conservative loss for semantic segmentation adaptation

    Xinge Zhu, Hui Zhou, Ceyuan Yang, Jianping Shi, and Dahua Lin. Penalizing top performers: Conservative loss for semantic segmentation adaptation. In Proceedings of the Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 568– 583, 2018

    2018

  55. [64]

    Target-driven vi- sual navigation in indoor scenes using deep reinforcement learning

    Yuke Zhu, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Eric Kolve, Joseph J Lim, Ab- hinav Gupta, Li Fei-Fei, and Ali Farhadi. Target-driven vi- sual navigation in indoor scenes using deep reinforcement learning. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017 IEEE International Conference on, pages 3357–3364. ...

    2017

  56. [65]

    Random” stands for the styles randomly selected from ImageNet and Artworks, and “Semantics

    Yang Zou, Zhiding Yu, BVK Vijaya Kumar, and Jinsong Wang. Unsupervised domain adaptation for semantic seg- mentation via class-balanced self-training. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 289– 305, 2018. Appendix A. Detailed Comparison with Other...

    2018

Pith tools

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