Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Segment Anything in Light Fields for Real-Time Applications via Constrained Prompting

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Epipolar lines and SAM 2's own latent features turn one prompted middle-subview mask into view-consistent light field masks, outperforming SAM 2 video tracking on accuracy and consistency while running 7 times faster.

desk verdict A useful engineering contribution chasing real-time light-field segmentation, but 'outperforms' is a bridge too far: the quality margins are within noise on 40 synthetic scenes and one metric goes the wrong way. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13840 v1 pith:LY7RPO7S submitted 2024-11-21 cs.CV

Nikolai Goncharov , Donald G. Dansereau This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords lightfieldsegmentationSAM2promptableepipolargeometrydisparitypropagationocclusionreasoningviewconsistencyreal-time
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 aims to extend Segment Anything Model 2 (SAM 2), a monocular image and video segmentation model, to light field images (a scene captured from a 2D grid of viewpoints) without any retraining or modification. It claims that by using the fixed epipolar structure of a light field to propagate a mask from the middle subview to all other subviews, then pruning occluded pixels using semantic features from SAM 2's image encoder, and finally prompting SAM 2 with the pruned mask's centroid and bounding box, the model produces masks that are semantically accurate and consistent across views. On 40 synthetic urban scenes with 9×9 subviews, the method outperforms SAM 2 video tracking on all reported quality and consistency metrics and runs 7 times faster (15.2 vs 108.5 ms per mask per subview). A sympathetic reader would care because it shows a frozen foundation model can be adapted to a new high-dimensional modality through geometry-aware prompting rather than fine-tuning, opening a route for real-time light field segmentation in pose tracking and scene understanding.

What carries the argument

The central object is the constrained prompting pipeline, built on three mechanisms. Epipolar disparity propagation uses the light field's regular 2D grid of subviews: a point in the middle subview shifts by the local disparity times the subview offset, producing a coarse mask in every view. Semantic occluding probes the frozen MAE (masked autoencoder) encoder of SAM 2: it averages the source mask's per-patch features, computes cosine similarity against each coarse-mask pixel's feature vector, and removes pixels below $t_{sim} = 0.7$, the assumption being that occluders look semantically different from the target. Segmentation refinement then prompts SAM 2's image model with the centroid and bounding box of the pruned coarse mask, and falls back to the coarse mask when refinement IoU drops below $t_{IoU} = 0.1$. This combination is what lets a monocular promptable segmenter act as a view-consistent light field segmenter without retraining.

What would settle it

Take a light field scene with a partially occluding object that is the same semantic class and has similar texture and color as the target, such as one car partially blocking another. Run the full pipeline from a middle-subview prompt on the target. If the refined masks in border subviews lock onto the occluder instead of the target, or if the coarse-mask centroid lands on the occluder and the $t_{IoU}=0.1$ fallback keeps the wrong mask, the semantic-occluding assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that light field segmentation can be decomposed into three constrained steps that let an unmodified SAM 2 image model do the semantic work. First, the middle subview is segmented once with SAM 2. Second, the mask is projected to each other subview using the linear epipolar relation $u_i = u_m + d[u_m, v_m](s_m - i)$ and $v_i = v_m + d[u_m, v_m](t_m - j)$, where $d$ is the estimated disparity. Third, occluded pixels are removed by comparing per-pixel MAE feature cosine similarity to the source mask's averaged feature vector, dropping pixels below $t_{sim} = 0.7$, and the surviving points' centroid and bounding box prompt SAM 2 in each subview to produce the refined mask, with a fallback to the coarse mask if its IoU with the refined mask is below $t_{IoU} = 0.1$. The paper reports quantitative superiority over SAM 2 video tracking: Self IoU (SIoU) 0.768 vs 0.765, Labels Per Pixel (LPP) 1.408 vs 1.452, Achievable Accuracy (AA) 0.973 vs 0.970, Undersegmentation Error (UE) 0.032 vs 0.038, Coverage 0.309 vs 0.329, at 15.2 vs 108.5 ms per mask per subview.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that anything occluding the target object looks semantically different from it, so low cosine similarity between SAM 2's MAE features reliably marks occlusion; if an occluder shares the target's appearance or the feature comparison misses occlusion, the centroid prompt can slip onto the wrong object and the IoU fallback cannot catch it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a single prompt in the middle subview, the full 9×9 light field mask is produced in under one second, which the paper argues makes real-time segmentation feasible for robotics and autonomous driving.
  • The refined masks are view-consistent and semantically accurate enough to serve as supervision for zero-shot model-free 6D object pose tracking, replacing heavier CAD or NeRF representations.
  • Because the model is frozen, the method inherits SAM 2's failure modes (for example low-light conditions) and adds the reference-view occlusion limitation: objects hidden in the middle subview are not segmented.
  • Both ablated components matter: semantic occluding improves AA from 0.965 to 0.973 and UE from 0.040 to 0.032 over refinement alone, while refinement alone already lifts SIoU from 0.734 to 0.764 over pure disparity propagation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the reported results, the same constrained-prompting recipe should transfer to other promptable segmentation models, since nothing in the pipeline is specific to SAM 2 beyond the MAE feature hooks; testing it on a different segmenter would isolate whether epipolar propagation or SAM 2's semantics carry the gain.
  • A stress test the paper does not run is scenes with two similar-looking overlapping objects of the same class, which would directly probe whether cosine-similarity pruning identifies occlusion or merely appearance change; this is the natural next benchmark.
  • Because disparity comes from a structure-tensor method, the real-time claim is tied to that estimator's cost; a learned disparity network would likely improve accuracy on reflective and refractive surfaces at the price of speed.
  • The paper keeps the reference subview fixed at the middle view; an extension that accepts prompts from any subview or from individual rays would recover objects invisible in the middle view, which the paper itself names as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a training-free method for segmenting light fields with SAM 2 by exploiting light field geometry. Starting from a mask in the middle subview (Section 3.1), the method propagates it to all subviews using estimated disparity (Section 3.2), removes likely occluded pixels by comparing per-pixel MAE features of the coarse mask with the source mask's average feature (Section 3.3), and reprompts SAM 2 in each subview with the centroid and bounding box of the cleaned coarse mask, falling back to the coarse mask when the refined IoU is low (Section 3.4). On 40 UrbanLF-Synthetic scenes, the authors report slight improvements over SAM 2 video tracking on SIoU, LPP, AA, and UE, with a 7x speedup (Table 1); ablations show that both refinement and semantic occluding contribute to the reported numbers (Table 2). The central claim is that the method outperforms SAM 2 video tracking while running much faster.

Significance. If the comparative claims held, this would be a practical and interesting contribution: it adapts a strong foundation model to a new modality without retraining or model modification, and the proposed pipeline is clearly described. The occlusion-aware prompting idea is novel, and the ablation in Table 2 gives evidence that both the refinement step and the semantic-occluding step contribute. The 7x speedup is a substantial practical advantage. The main limitations are that the quality advantage over the baseline is marginal, is not quantified with uncertainty or significance tests, is measured on a single synthetic dataset of only 40 scenes, and relies on thresholds tuned on the same scenes used for the headline comparison. Until these issues are addressed, the superiority claim is not established, though the method itself is plausible and worth further evaluation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 1] The claim that the method 'outperforms' SAM 2 video tracking is not supported by the reported evidence. On 40 scenes, SIoU is 0.768 vs 0.765, AA 0.973 vs 0.970, UE 0.032 vs 0.038, and LPP 1.408 vs 1.452; these differences are small and no error bars, per-scene distributions, or significance tests are reported. In addition, Table 1 marks Coverage with an up arrow while Section 4.1 defines C as the ratio of unsegmented pixels, for which lower is better; the two readings give opposite conclusions about whether 0.309 vs 0.329 is an improvement. I recommend reporting per-scene paired differences with a paired bootstrap or Wilcoxon signed-rank test over the 40 scenes, and rephrasing the central claim as 'comparable quality at approximately 7x speed' until the differences are shown to be significant.
  2. [Section 4, Implementation details] The thresholds t_sim = 0.7 and t_IoU = 0.1 are chosen on the same 40 UrbanLF-Synthetic scenes that are then used for the headline numbers in Tables 1 and 2. This is not a derivation-level circularity, but it is a dataset-selection risk: it can inflate apparent gains and makes it hard to judge how much of the reported advantage comes from threshold tuning on the evaluation set. Please hold out a validation split, use leave-one-scene-out cross-validation, or report sensitivity of Table 1's metrics to each threshold over a reasonable range.
  3. [Section 3.3] The semantic-occluding module assumes that occluders can be identified by low cosine similarity between per-pixel coarse-mask features and the average source-mask feature. This assumption can fail when an occluder shares semantic appearance with the target or when the MAE embedding does not separate occluder from target; in that case the centroid prompt can shift onto the wrong object, and the t_IoU = 0.1 fallback only detects divergence from the coarse mask, not a confidently wrong centroid. Since this step is load-bearing for the view-consistency claim, I ask for a controlled evaluation of this failure mode, for example scenes with same-class occluders or a report of the feature-similarity distributions for occluded versus non-occluded pixels.
  4. [Section 4.4, Table 2] The ablation supports the contribution of each component qualitatively, but the numerical gains of the full method over the refinement-only variant are also small (SIoU 0.768 vs 0.764, LPP 1.408 vs 1.414, AA 0.973 vs 0.965, UE 0.032 vs 0.040) and are reported without uncertainty. Please accompany Table 2 with per-scene paired statistics to establish that semantic occluding adds a significant improvement beyond refinement alone, rather than a difference that could arise from scene-to-scene variation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'we ... drop the points from M [sm, tm] that are below a certain threshold' appears to refer to the coarse mask Mcoarse[i,j], not the source mask; please correct the notation. Also clarify whether the centroid used in Section 3.4 is computed after this cleaning and how the similarity weighting mentioned in the implementation details enters the centroid calculation.
  2. [Section 2 / Section 3.2] The related-work claim that the method works 'without any additional representations needed' is inconsistent with the use of a disparity map estimated from the light field in Section 3.2; please rephrase to indicate that no user-provided or ground-truth depth is required.
  3. [Table 1 caption / Abstract] The caption states 'Our method outputs comparable quality while significantly increasing computational speed,' while the abstract and Section 4.2 say the method 'outperforms' the baseline; please align these descriptions with the statistical evidence and with the final claim in the conclusion.
  4. [Section 4.1] The arrow direction for Coverage in Table 1 is inconsistent with its definition as the ratio of unsegmented pixels, where lower is better; if the arrow is meant to be down, update the table header, and if the arrow is meant to be up, redefine the metric to be the fraction of segmented pixels.
  5. [Section 4.2 / General] The paper refers to supplementary videos for qualitative results, but no supplementary material appears in the arXiv version; please ensure the videos and any additional qualitative comparisons are included with the revised submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method is an empirically evaluated SAM 2 prompting pipeline with externally measured metrics.

full rationale

The paper's contribution is an engineering pipeline that composes SAM 2 with epipolar disparity propagation (Eq. 2), semantic occluding via cosine similarity in MAE feature space (Sec. 3.3), and prompt refinement (Eqs. 3-4). None of these steps defines a reported quantity in terms of the target result: the coarse mask is obtained by projecting the source mask with disparity, occluded points are removed using features of an externally pretrained MAE encoder, and the final mask is SAM 2's response to centroid and bounding-box prompts. Evaluation uses ground-truth semantic labels and disparity from the external UrbanLF-Synthetic dataset, so the reported metrics (SIoU, LPP, AA, UE, Coverage, time) are independent measurements rather than reconstructions of the method's own inputs. The thresholds t_sim=0.7 and t_IoU=0.1 are hand-set engineering constants, not parameters fitted to the benchmark and then presented as predictions. Self-citations appear only in related-work context (e.g., refs [2], [24] for light field odometry and structure from motion) and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The statistical fragility of the 'outperforms' claim, with small metric gaps and no error bars, is a correctness or evidence concern, not circularity. No circular step is therefore present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are invented. The central method depends on four domain assumptions plus two hand-set thresholds.

free parameters (2)
  • cosine similarity threshold t_sim = 0.7
    Hand-set in Section 4 implementation details to decide which coarse mask pixels are occluded; tuned on the same UrbanLF-Synthetic validation set used for evaluation.
  • refinement fallback IoU threshold t_IoU = 0.1
    Hand-set in Section 4 implementation details to decide when to fall back from SAM2 refined mask to coarse mask; not varied or analyzed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The light field satisfies a linear epipolar disparity model: ui = um + d[um,vm]*(sm - i), similarly for v.
    Used in Eq. 2 in Section 3.2 to propagate masks; assumes planar subview geometry and a single disparity value per pixel.
  • domain assumption An occluder has different semantic features from the target segment, so cosine similarity can separate occluded pixels.
    Core premise of Section 3.3; stated explicitly by the authors: 'the assumption we make is that the occluder has different semantic properties.'
  • domain assumption SAM 2's MAE image encoder features are semantically meaningful across different subviews of the same scene.
    Required for the semantic occluding step; no cross-view feature calibration is provided.
  • domain assumption The middle subview is used as reference and all target segments must be visible in it.
    Stated as a limitation in Section 1; objects occluded in the middle subview are ignored by the method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Segment Anything in Light Fields for Real-Time Applications via Constrained Prompting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LY7RPO7S

@misc{pith2026241113840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Segment Anything in Light Fields for Real-Time Applications via Constrained Prompting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LY7RPO7S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13840}
}
read the original abstract

Segmented light field images can serve as a powerful representation in many of computer vision tasks exploiting geometry and appearance of objects, such as object pose tracking. In the light field domain, segmentation presents an additional objective of recognizing the same segment through all the views. Segment Anything Model 2 (SAM 2) allows producing semantically meaningful segments for monocular images and videos. However, using SAM 2 directly on light fields is highly ineffective due to unexploited constraints. In this work, we present a novel light field segmentation method that adapts SAM 2 to the light field domain without retraining or modifying the model. By utilizing the light field domain constraints, the method produces high quality and view-consistent light field masks, outperforming the SAM 2 video tracking baseline and working 7 times faster, with a real-time speed. We achieve this by exploiting the epipolar geometry cues to propagate the masks between the views, probing the SAM 2 latent space to estimate their occlusion, and further prompting SAM 2 for their refinement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our method. First, we obtain middle view segmentation and a disparity map for a light field image. We perform disparity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative results for our method on two scenes from UrbanLF [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Foundational models defining a new era in vision: A survey and outlook

    Muhammad Awais, Muzammal Naseer, Salman Khan, Rao Muhammad Anwer, Hisham Cholakkal, Mubarak Shah, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Foundational models defining a new era in vision: A survey and outlook. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13721, 2023. 1

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Plenoptic flow: Closed-form visual odom- etry for light field cameras

    Donald G Dansereau, Ian Mahon, Oscar Pizarro, and Ste- fan B Williams. Plenoptic flow: Closed-form visual odom- etry for light field cameras. In 2011 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems , pages 4455–

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Zero123-6d: Zero- shot novel view synthesis for rgb category-level 6d pose es- timation

    Francesco Di Felice, Alberto Remus, Stefano Gasperini, Benjamin Busam, Lionel Ott, Federico Tombari, Roland Siegwart, and Carlo Alberto Avizzano. Zero123-6d: Zero- shot novel view synthesis for rgb category-level 6d pose es- timation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14279, 2024. 1, 2

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    NeRF: Neural Radiance Field in 3D Vision, A Comprehensive Review

    Kyle Gao, Yina Gao, Hongjie He, Dening Lu, Linlin Xu, and Jonathan Li. NeRF: Neural Radiance Field in 3D Vision, A Comprehensive Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00379 ,

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    ALFO: Adaptive light field over- segmentation

    Maryam Hamad, Caroline Conti, Paulo Nunes, and Lu´ıs Ducla Soares. ALFO: Adaptive light field over- segmentation. IEEE Access, 9:131147–131165, 2021. 1

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Doll´ar, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 16000– 16009, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  7. [7]

    Su- perrays for efficient light field processing

    Matthieu Hog, Neus Sabater, and Christine Guillemot. Su- perrays for efficient light field processing. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , 11(7):1187–1199,

    work page

  8. [8]

    On linear structure from motion for light field cameras

    Ole Johannsen, Antonin Sulc, and Bastian Goldluecke. On linear structure from motion for light field cameras. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 720–728, 2015. 1, 2

    work page 2015

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    View-consistent 4D Figure 2

    Numair Khan, Qian Zhang, Lucas Kasser, Henry Stone, Min H Kim, and James Tompkin. View-consistent 4D Figure 2. Qualitative results for our method on two scenes from UrbanLF [22] dataset. Our method is at the top row, and SAM 2 video tracking is at the bottom. Top left, middle ...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Segment Any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment Any- thing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02643, 2023. 1, 2

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Light field rendering

    Marc Levoy and Pat Hanrahan. Light field rendering. In Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2, pages 441–452. 2023. 1

    2023

  4. [12]

    Neural scene flow prior

    Xueqian Li, Jhony Kaesemodel Pontes, and Simon Lucey. Neural scene flow prior. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:7838–7851, 2021. 2

    2021

  5. [13]

    Entropy rate superpixel segmentation

    Ming-Yu Liu, Oncel Tuzel, Srikumar Ramalingam, and Rama Chellappa. Entropy rate superpixel segmentation. In CVPR 2011, pages 2097–2104. IEEE, 2011. 4

    2011

  6. [14]

    4D light field segmentation from light field super-pixel hyper- graph representation

    Xianqiang Lv, Xue Wang, Qing Wang, and Jingyi Yu. 4D light field segmentation from light field super-pixel hyper- graph representation. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 27(9):3597–3610, 2020. 2

    2020

  7. [15]

    Segment anything in medical images

    Jun Ma, Yuting He, Feifei Li, Lin Han, Chenyu You, and Bo Wang. Segment anything in medical images. Nature Communications, 15(1):654, 2024. 2

    2024

  8. [16]

    3d scene flow from 4d light field gradients

    Sizhuo Ma, Brandon M Smith, and Mohit Gupta. 3d scene flow from 4d light field gradients. In Proceedings of the Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 666– 681, 2018. 2

    2018

  9. [17]

    Deep rigid instance scene flow

    Wei-Chiu Ma, Shenlong Wang, Rui Hu, Yuwen Xiong, and Raquel Urtasun. Deep rigid instance scene flow. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3614–3622, 2019. 2

    2019

  10. [18]

    NeRF: Representing Scenes as Neural Radiance Fields for View Synthesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. NeRF: Representing Scenes as Neural Radiance Fields for View Synthesis. Communications of the ACM , 65(1):99–106,

  11. [19]

    Fast depth estimation for light field cam- eras

    Kazu Mishiba. Fast depth estimation for light field cam- eras. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 29:4232– 4242, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  12. [20]

    Superpixel benchmark and comparison

    Peer Neubert and Peter Protzel. Superpixel benchmark and comparison. In Proc. Forum Bildverarbeitung, volume 6, pages 1–12, 2012. 4

    2012

  13. [21]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos

    Nikhila Ravi, Valentin Gabeur, Yuan-Ting Hu, Ronghang Hu, Chaitanya Ryali, Tengyu Ma, Haitham Khedr, Roman R¨adle, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, et al. Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714, 2024. 1, 2, 4

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Urbanlf: A comprehensive light field dataset for semantic segmentation of urban scenes

    Hao Sheng, Ruixuan Cong, Da Yang, Rongshan Chen, Sizhe Wang, and Zhenglong Cui. Urbanlf: A comprehensive light field dataset for semantic segmentation of urban scenes. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Tech- nology, 32(11):7880–7893, 2022. 4, 5, 6

    2022

  15. [23]

    Oriented light-field windows for scene flow

    Pratul P Srinivasan, Michael W Tao, Ren Ng, and Ravi Ra- mamoorthi. Oriented light-field windows for scene flow. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 3496–3504, 2015. 2

    2015

  16. [24]

    Distinguishing refracted features using light field cameras with application to structure from motion

    Dorian Tsai, Donald G Dansereau, Thierry Peynot, and Pe- ter Corke. Distinguishing refracted features using light field cameras with application to structure from motion. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 4(2):177–184, 2018. 1, 2

    2018

  17. [25]

    Occlusion-aware depth estimation using light-field cameras

    Ting-Chun Wang, Alexei A Efros, and Ravi Ramamoorthi. Occlusion-aware depth estimation using light-field cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on com- puter vision, pages 3487–3495, 2015. 1, 2

    2015

  18. [26]

    Variational light field analysis for disparity estimation and super-resolution

    Sven Wanner and Bastian Goldluecke. Variational light field analysis for disparity estimation and super-resolution. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 36(3):606–619, 2013. 3

    2013

  19. [27]

    Foundationpose: Unified 6d pose estimation and tracking of novel objects

    Bowen Wen, Wei Yang, Jan Kautz, and Stan Birchfield. Foundationpose: Unified 6d pose estimation and tracking of novel objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17868– 17879, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  20. [28]

    Light field image processing: An overview

    Gaochang Wu, Belen Masia, Adrian Jarabo, Yuchen Zhang, Liangyong Wang, Qionghai Dai, Tianyou Chai, and Yebin Liu. Light field image processing: An overview. IEEE Jour- nal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 11(7):926–954,

  21. [29]

    Posecnn: A convolutional neural network for 6d object pose estimation in cluttered scenes

    Yu Xiang, Tanner Schmidt, Venkatraman Narayanan, and Dieter Fox. Posecnn: A convolutional neural network for 6d object pose estimation in cluttered scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00199, 2017. 2

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Track anything: Segment anything meets videos

    Jinyu Yang, Mingqi Gao, Zhe Li, Shang Gao, Fangjing Wang, and Feng Zheng. Track anything: Segment anything meets videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11968, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    From the cal- ibration of a light-field camera to direct plenoptic odome- try

    Niclas Zeller, Franz Quint, and Uwe Stilla. From the cal- ibration of a light-field camera to direct plenoptic odome- try. IEEE Journal of selected topics in signal processing , 11(7):1004–1019, 2017. 1, 2

    2017

  24. [32]

    4D light field super- pixel and segmentation

    Hao Zhu, Qi Zhang, and Qing Wang. 4D light field super- pixel and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 6384–6392, 2017. 2, 4

    2017

  25. [33]

    Segment everything everywhere all at once

    Xueyan Zou, Jianwei Yang, Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Linjie Li, Jianfeng Wang, Lijuan Wang, Jianfeng Gao, and Yong Jae Lee. Segment everything everywhere all at once. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 2

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.