REVIEW 1 cited by
Reviving Iterative Training with Mask Guidance for Interactive Segmentation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Recent works on click-based interactive segmentation have demonstrated state-of-the-art results by using various inference-time optimization schemes. These methods are considerably more computationally expensive compared to feedforward approaches, as they require performing backward passes through a network during inference and are hard to deploy on mobile frameworks that usually support only forward passes. In this paper, we extensively evaluate various design choices for interactive segmentation and discover that new state-of-the-art results can be obtained without any additional optimization schemes. Thus, we propose a simple feedforward model for click-based interactive segmentation that employs the segmentation masks from previous steps. It allows not only to segment an entirely new object, but also to start with an external mask and correct it. When analyzing the performance of models trained on different datasets, we observe that the choice of a training dataset greatly impacts the quality of interactive segmentation. We find that the models trained on a combination of COCO and LVIS with diverse and high-quality annotations show performance superior to all existing models. The code and trained models are available at https://github.com/saic-vul/ritm_interactive_segmentation.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
U-CFR: Uncertainty-Guided Cascade Forward Refinement for Interactive Segmentation
U-CFR uses a boundary-aware uncertainty map to place automatic pseudo-clicks during inference, reducing user clicks for interactive segmentation by up to 11% on Berkeley.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.