Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Multi-Granularity Video Object Segmentation

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 The paper claims that a semi-automatic SAM-plus-optical-flow pipeline can build a large-scale, densely annotated multi-granularity video object segmentation dataset, and that a memory-based model built on SAM's encoder outperforms prior…

desk verdict A genuinely new large-scale multi-granularity VOS dataset with a clear automatic pipeline, but benchmark validity rests on SAM's proposal recall and the paper has a few sloppy evaluation details. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01471 v2 pith:JFSAMUVW submitted 2024-12-02 cs.CV

Sangbeom Lim , Seongchan Kim , Seungjun An , Seokju Cho , Paul Hongsuck Seo , Seungryong Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords videoobjectsegmentationmulti-granularitymaskssemi-automaticannotationSegmentAnythingModelopticalflowtrackingmemory-basedmaskpropagationsalientandnon-salientobjectsdensedataset
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

Current video segmentation benchmarks annotate only salient foreground objects, so models trained on them fail on non-salient objects, parts, and background stuff. This paper tries to establish that a much broader benchmark is feasible: MUG-VOS, built by running the Segment Anything Model (SAM) on each frame and linking masks across frames with optical flow and IoU matching, contains 77,994 clips and 47 million masks, with a human-verified test set. On this benchmark the paper also proposes MMPM, a model that reuses SAM's image encoder and adds temporal and sequential memory modules to propagate masks through video. MMPM achieves the best reported J&F of 86.1 on the MUG-VOS test set, ahead of 85.6 for DEVA and 83.0 for XMem. If the benchmark is trusted, it provides a way to train and evaluate segmentation of any object, part, or stuff in video, not just the salient ones.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is two-part. First, the data collection pipeline: for each starting frame, SAM with grid point prompts produces initial masks; for each next frame, points sampled from the previous target mask are warped by an optical flow map, SAM produces candidate masks from those points, and the candidate whose IoU with the flow-warped previous mask is highest becomes the tracked mask. This turns existing video sources into pseudo-labeled multi-granularity tracks without per-frame human annotation. Second, MMPM: a frozen or fine-tuned SAM image encoder produces query features; a memory-read module computes softmax affinity between query and stored keys; two memories feed the mask decoder, namely temporal memory storing high-resolution key/value pairs from recent frames (capped at Tmax, randomly filtered while keeping first and last frames) and sequential memory storing low-resolution features updated by a GRU. The memory read-out augments the image features so masks can be propagated frame by frame consistently.

What would settle it

Independently human-annotate every visible object, part, and stuff region in a random sample of MUG-VOS clips, including objects the SAM pipeline did not propose, and compare the resulting density and track counts with the dataset's; if the pipeline misses or merges non-salient objects at a high rate, the dataset's multi-granularity claim and any model ranking computed on it are compromised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that multi-granularity video object segmentation is both measurable and learnable. The paper builds MUG-VOS, at 77,994 clips and roughly 47 million masks the largest and densest video segmentation dataset it compares against (training mask density 0.714, 66.3 masks per frame; test density 0.663, 29.6 masks per frame), with masks spanning salient objects, non-salient objects, parts, and background stuff. The masks come from a pipeline that prompts SAM with grid points on the first frame, samples and warps points with optical flow to later frames, prompts SAM again for candidate masks, and links tracks by maximum IoU between the warped mask and candidates; the test set is human-approved or refined. On this benchmark, the paper's MMPM, a SAM-encoder model with a mask decoder, a high-resolution temporal memory capped at Tmax entries with random filtering that preserves first and last frames, and a low-resolution sequential memory updated by a GRU, reports 86.1 J&F versus 85.6 for DEVA and 83.0 for XMem, with ablations showing both memory types contribute and that update interval r = 5 and N = 10 memory values are sufficient. Retrained on MUG-VOS and evaluated on the DAVIS-17 validation set, MMPM reports 69.1 J&F versus 64.1 for DEVA and 63.0 for XMem.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's ground truth is only as good as the automatic SAM-and-flow masks, and the 77,994-clip training set is never human-verified, so if this pipeline systematically misses or merges objects, both training and evaluation inherit that blind spot.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MUG-VOS can support training and evaluation of video segmentation models that target non-salient objects, parts, and background stuff, not just salient foreground instances.
  • Existing VOS methods such as XMem and DEVA, when retrained on MUG-VOS, score well below MMPM, indicating dense multi-granularity masks are a harder and currently underserved regime.
  • MMPM's memory design, preserving the first and last stored frames, updating every five frames, and keeping ten temporal values, is a workable recipe for extending SAM-like image segmentation to video.
  • The benchmark's density (0.714 train, 0.663 test) and 47M masks offer supervision comparable in spirit to image-level segment-anything data, potentially helping class-agnostic video understanding.
  • Because the test set is human-verified, MUG-VOS can serve as a fairer evaluation for methods that must track whatever a user points at, including objects that are not salient.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the 77,994-clip training set is not human-verified, the benchmark's ground truth inherits SAM's proposal distribution; a model built on SAM, such as MMPM, is therefore evaluated on a distribution shaped by its own backbone.
  • Editorial inference: a fully manual re-annotation of a sample of MUG-VOS videos, adding any objects SAM did not propose, could shift the reported ranking and would be the direct test of the dataset's coverage claim.
  • Editorial inference: the same flow-plus-IoU pipeline would likely transfer to other large video corpora, making video-level segment-anything training much cheaper than hand annotation.
  • Editorial inference: MMPM's two-memory propagation design is not tied to SAM's encoder and could be attached to other promptable image segmentation backbones.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MUG-VOS, a video object segmentation dataset with multi-granularity mask annotations obtained by combining SAM with optical-flow-based tracking, and proposes MMPM, a memory-enhanced model built on a pretrained SAM encoder. The authors report 77,994 training video clips with 47M masks, a human-refined test set on 30 DAVIS-2017 videos, and quantitative results (Table 2) in which MMPM achieves 86.1 J&F, outperforming DEVA (85.6) and XMem (83.0). The paper also includes ablations on memory filtering, memory types, update interval, and memory size, plus a DAVIS-2017 evaluation in Appendix Table A.1.

Significance. If the dataset is valid, it addresses a genuine gap: existing VOS benchmarks restrict annotations to salient objects, while MUG-VOS aims to cover non-salient objects, parts, and stuff. The scale is substantial, and the semi-automatic annotation pipeline is a practical contribution. The release of the dataset, code, and a public project page would be valuable to the community. However, the validity of the benchmark and the strength of the model claim are not yet established because the annotation pipeline may miss objects entirely and the experimental evaluation has significant methodological issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [Experiments, Table 2] The caption of Table 2 states that the evaluation is on the DAVIS-2017 validation set, while the running text says 'Table 2 shows the quantitative results on MUG-VOS dataset' and the table header itself reads 'MUG-VOS Test.' Appendix Table A.1 reports a separate DAVIS-2017 evaluation with markedly different scores (e.g., MMPM J&F = 69.1 in Table A.1 versus 86.1 in Table 2). This mislabeling makes it impossible to verify the central claim that MMPM achieves state-of-the-art performance on MUG-VOS, which is the paper's main result. The authors must correct the caption and clearly separate the MUG-VOS test results from the DAVIS results.
  2. [Ablation study, Tables 3-6] All ablations are carried out on the MUG-VOS test set, and the final configuration (memory filtering rule 'P. first & last', memory update interval r=5, and N=10 temporal memory values) is selected based on test-set performance. The same test set is then used to report the headline comparison in Table 2. This creates an optimism bias: the reported 86.1 J&F is an estimate of performance after tuning on the evaluation set, not a fair estimate of performance on new videos. A held-out validation split, or cross-validation, is required before the claim of superior performance can be supported.
  3. [Dataset, Quality assurance and Appendix A] The ground-truth mask tracks in the MUG-VOS test set are produced by a pipeline in which annotators only accept, reject, or refine SAM-proposed masks; supervisors initially select first-frame masks using SAM. Consequently, any object or granularity that SAM does not propose is entirely absent from the benchmark. Since MMPM uses a frozen SAM encoder, its evaluation is biased toward the vocabulary of masks SAM can produce, which may inflate its apparent advantage over methods not built on SAM. The paper should provide evidence of recall with respect to exhaustive human annotation, for example by having annotators draw masks from scratch on a subset of videos and measuring how many pipeline-generated tracks are missed.
  4. [Experiments, Table 2] The reported improvement of MMPM over DEVA is 0.5 J&F points (86.1 versus 85.6) on a test set of only 30 videos. The paper does not report standard deviations, multiple runs, or any significance test. Given the small test set and the fact that hyperparameters were selected on the same set, the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that MMPM 'leads to the best performance among the existing video object segmentation methods.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The 'MUG-VOS Train' row reports 'Annotated Frames 77,9940,' which appears to contain a typo; the number is also inconsistent with 77,994 clips and 47M masks under the given masks-per-frame density (47M / 66.3 ≈ 709k frames). Please clarify the correct number of frames.
  2. [Data collection pipeline, Eq. (6)] The notation 'arg max_{C^i_t} IoU' conflates the candidate-mask set and the track index i; the argument of the maximization is the set of candidate masks for a fixed track, so the expression should be written as 'M^i_t = arg max_{m in C^i_t} IoU(...)' for clarity.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'Segment SAM-based video segmentation methods' is awkward; consider 'SAM-based video segmentation methods.'
  4. [Throughout] The dataset name DAVIS is consistently typeset as 'DA VIS' with a space; this should be fixed throughout the manuscript, including in the captions and references.
  5. [Appendix E, Figures A.9-A.10] The captions for Figures A.9 and A.10 appear to be copied from Appendix D, as they describe comparisons of the data collection pipeline with DAVIS/Youtube-VOS/UVO, whereas the figures and surrounding text describe qualitative comparisons of MMPM with other methods. The captions should match the content of the figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MMPM's ranking is not derived from the dataset-pipeline equations, and the model ranking is independently corroborated on DAVIS-2017 human ground-truth (Table A.1).

full rationale

No equation-level reduction of a prediction to a fitted input appears in the paper. The data collection pipeline (Eqs. 1-6 and Algorithm 1) defines how MUG-VOS masks were produced from SAM, optical flow, and IoU matching, but MMPM's test predictions are not generated by those equations; they come from a separate memory-augmented SAM-encoder model. The MUG-VOS test set does share a SAM-derived annotation procedure with MMPM's encoder, which is a legitimate benchmark-validity concern about object coverage and label bias, but it is not a circular derivation: the test targets are not outputs of MMPM, and the comparison includes both non-SAM (XMem) and SAM-based (DEVA, SAM-PT) methods. Crucially, Appendix C evaluates all methods on the original DAVIS-2017 validation set with independent human ground truth (Table A.1), where MMPM also leads (69.1 J&F versus 64.1 for DEVA and 63.0 for XMem). That external benchmark provides independent support for the model ranking. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in by citation, and no known result merely renamed. The unverified 77,994-clip training set and the SAM-bounded test-set vocabulary are data-quality risks, not circularity. The paper's central claims are therefore self-contained with respect to the circularity definitions used here.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The central empirical claims rely on the trustworthiness of the SAM-plus-flow annotation pipeline, on a small human-refined test set, and on a handful of hyperparameters selected on the test set; these are listed above.

free parameters (4)
  • Memory update interval r = 5
    Table 5 ablates r=1, 3, 5 and selects 5 based on highest J&F on the MUG-VOS test set.
  • Number of temporal memory values N = 10
    Table 6 ablates N=5, 10, 15; N=10 is chosen because performance saturates, tuned on the test set.
  • Memory filtering rule = Random filtering preserving first and last frames
    Table 3 ablates four filtering rules and selects 'P. first & last' by test J&F.
  • SAM grid prompt density for dataset initial masks = not reported
    Algorithm 1 initializes masks with SAM grid point prompts, but grid spacing is not stated; it controls mask density and granularity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SAM produces valid, diverse, multi-granularity masks suitable for video annotation
    The entire data collection pipeline uses SAM proposals as the annotation source (Dataset section, Data collection pipeline).
  • domain assumption Optical flow accurately warps points and masks between adjacent frames
    Equations 1-5 warp sampled points and the previous mask with flow Ft-1->t; flow errors propagate into track identity.
  • domain assumption Highest-IoU candidate mask is the correct continuation of the track
    Equation 6 selects arg max IoU; this fails under occlusion, deformation, and disappearance.
  • domain assumption Human refinement of SAM proposals yields reliable ground truth
    The quality assurance section states annotators accept, reject, or refine tracks, but no inter-annotator agreement or independent verification is reported.
  • domain assumption Pretrained SAM encoder features transfer to dense video mask prediction
    MMPM uses the SAM-Base encoder and trains a memory module on top (Implementation details).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Granularity Video Object Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JFSAMUVW

@misc{pith2026241201471,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Granularity Video Object Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JFSAMUVW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01471}
}
read the original abstract

Current benchmarks for video segmentation are limited to annotating only salient objects (i.e., foreground instances). Despite their impressive architectural designs, previous works trained on these benchmarks have struggled to adapt to real-world scenarios. Thus, developing a new video segmentation dataset aimed at tracking multi-granularity segmentation target in the video scene is necessary. In this work, we aim to generate multi-granularity video segmentation dataset that is annotated for both salient and non-salient masks. To achieve this, we propose a large-scale, densely annotated multi-granularity video object segmentation (MUG-VOS) dataset that includes various types and granularities of mask annotations. We automatically collected a training set that assists in tracking both salient and non-salient objects, and we also curated a human-annotated test set for reliable evaluation. In addition, we present memory-based mask propagation model (MMPM), trained and evaluated on MUG-VOS dataset, which leads to the best performance among the existing video object segmentation methods and Segment SAM-based video segmentation methods. Project page is available at https://cvlab-kaist.github.io/MUG-VOS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01471 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of granularities of video segmentation datasets: Visualization of (top) MUG-VOS masks annotated by our data collection pipeline and ground-truth masks of Youtube-VOS (Xu et al. 2018), DAVIS (Pont-Tuset et al. 2017), and UVO (Wang et al. 2021) data and (bottom) MUG-VOS dataset. MUG-VOS masks include various types and granularities of objects, parts, stuff, and backgrounds, even those not covered by existin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MUG-VOS data collection pipeline. We propose a data collection pipeline to generate a dataset to curate multi￾granularity mask tracks completely automatically. Using SAM, we generate a large number of masks per frame and find a temporal connection through the IoU between the mask warped from the previous frame and the mask from the current frame. the tracking process, completed tracks are sent to a supervi￾sor for a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MUG-VOS test dataset. To mitigate the accumulation of errors within the automated process, annotators were directed to either approve or reject the mask tracks generated by the data collection pipeline. In instances where errors were detected, the annotators performed frame-level refinements of the masks utilizing the Segment Anything Model (Kirillov et al. 2023) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison between MMPM, DEVA (Cheng et al. 2023), PerSAM-F (Zhang et al. 2023a), and SAM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MMPM overview. We introduce the MMPM model, which generates masks based on previous results. Starting from an initial mask that indicates the target object, the MMPM model consistently tracks and segments the target throughout the entire video. Sequential memory stores…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Athar, A.; Hermans, A.; Luiten, J.; Ramanan, D.; and Leibe, B. 2023 a . TarViS: A Unified Architecture for Target-based Video Segmentation. In CVPR

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Athar, A.; Luiten, J.; Voigtlaender, P.; Khurana, T.; Dave, A.; Leibe, B.; and Ramanan, D. 2023 b . Burst: A benchmark for unifying object recognition, segmentation and tracking in video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, 1674--1683

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Benard, A.; and Gygli, M. 2017. Interactive video object segmentation in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00269

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Caelles, S.; Maninis, K.-K.; Pont-Tuset, J.; Leal-Taix \'e , L.; Cremers, D.; and Van Gool, L. 2017. One-shot video object segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 221--230

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    K.; Oh, S

    Cheng, H. K.; Oh, S. W.; Price, B.; Schwing, A.; and Lee, J.-Y. 2023. Tracking anything with decoupled video segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 1316--1326

    2023

  6. [6]

    K.; and Schwing, A

    Cheng, H. K.; and Schwing, A. G. 2022. Xmem: Long-term video object segmentation with an atkinson-shiffrin memory model. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 640--658. Springer

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    K.; Tai, Y.-W.; and Tang, C.-K

    Cheng, H. K.; Tai, Y.-W.; and Tang, C.-K. 2021. Rethinking space-time networks with improved memory coverage for efficient video object segmentation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 11781--11794

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Cho, K.; Van Merri \"e nboer, B.; Bahdanau, D.; and Bengio, Y. 2014. On the properties of neural machine translation: Encoder-decoder approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1259

    arXiv 2014

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Duke, B.; Ahmed, A.; Wolf, C.; Aarabi, P.; and Taylor, G. W. 2021. Sstvos: Sparse spatiotemporal transformers for video object segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 5912--5921

    2021

  2. [10]

    Guo, D.; Fan, D.-P.; Lu, T.; Sakaridis, C.; and Van Gool, L. 2024. Vanishing-Point-Guided Video Semantic Segmentation of Driving Scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15261

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Hu, P.; Caba, F.; Wang, O.; Lin, Z.; Sclaroff, S.; and Perazzi, F. 2020. Temporally distributed networks for fast video semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 8818--8827

    2020

  4. [12]

    Kim, D.; Woo, S.; Lee, J.-Y.; and Kweon, I. S. 2020. Video Panoptic Segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2020

  5. [13]

    C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al

    Kirillov, A.; Mintun, E.; Ravi, N.; Mao, H.; Rolland, C.; Gustafson, L.; Xiao, T.; Whitehead, S.; Berg, A. C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al. 2023. Segment anything. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02643

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Lee, S.; Cho, S.; and Lee, S. 2023. One-shot video inpainting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.14362

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    G.; Chen, Y.-T.; Qiu, E.; and Huang, J.-B

    Lee, Y.-C.; Jang, J.-Z. G.; Chen, Y.-T.; Qiu, E.; and Huang, J.-B. 2023. Shape-aware text-driven layered video editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 14317--14326

    2023

  8. [16]

    Li, X.; Zhang, W.; Pang, J.; Chen, K.; Cheng, G.; Tong, Y.; and Loy, C. C. 2022. Video k-net: A simple, strong, and unified baseline for video segmentation. In CVPR

    2022

  9. [17]

    Liu, Y.; Shen, C.; Yu, C.; and Wang, J. 2020. Efficient Semantic Video Segmentation with Per-frame Inference. ECCV

    2020

  10. [18]

    E.; Luiten, J.; Dave, A.; Ramanan, D.; Leibe, B.; O s ep, A.; and Leal-Taix \'e , L

    Liu, Y.; Zulfikar, I. E.; Luiten, J.; Dave, A.; Ramanan, D.; Leibe, B.; O s ep, A.; and Leal-Taix \'e , L. 2022. Opening up open world tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 19045--19055

    2022

  11. [19]

    Loshchilov, I.; and Hutter, F. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Meinhardt, T.; Feiszli, M.; Fan, Y.; Leal-Taix \'e , L.; and Ranjan, R. 2023. NOVIS: A Case for End-to-End Near-Online Video Instance Segmentation. ArXiv, abs/2308.15266

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Miao, J.; Wang, X.; Wu, Y.; Li, W.; Zhang, X.; Wei, Y.; and Yang, Y. 2022 a . Large-scale video panoptic segmentation in the wild: A benchmark. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 21033--21043

    2022

  14. [22]

    Miao, J.; Wang, X.; Wu, Y.; Li, W.; Zhang, X.; Wei, Y.; and Yang, Y. 2022 b . Large-Scale Video Panoptic Segmentation in the Wild: A Benchmark. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 21033--21043

    2022

  15. [23]

    W.; Lee, J.-Y.; Xu, N.; and Kim, S

    Oh, S. W.; Lee, J.-Y.; Xu, N.; and Kim, S. J. 2019. Video object segmentation using space-time memory networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 9226--9235

    2019

  16. [24]

    Pont-Tuset, J.; Perazzi, F.; Caelles, S.; Arbel \'a ez, P.; Sorkine-Hornung, A.; and Van Gool, L. 2017. The 2017 davis challenge on video object segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00675

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    H.; and Bai, S

    Qi, J.; Gao, Y.; Hu, Y.; Wang, X.; Liu, X.; Bai, X.; Belongie, S.; Yuille, A.; Torr, P. H.; and Bai, S. 2022. Occluded video instance segmentation: A benchmark. International Journal of Computer Vision, 130(8): 2022--2039

    2022

  18. [26]

    Qiao, S.; Zhu, Y.; Adam, H.; Yuille, A.; and Chen, L.-C. 2020. ViP-DeepLab: Learning Visual Perception with Depth-aware Video Panoptic Segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.05258

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Raji c , F.; Ke, L.; Tai, Y.-W.; Tang, C.-K.; Danelljan, M.; and Yu, F. 2023. Segment anything meets point tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01197

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Wang, H.; Wang, W.; and Liu, J. 2021. Temporal memory attention for video semantic segmentation. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2254--2258. IEEE

    2021

  21. [29]

    Wang, H.; Yan, C.; Wang, S.; Jiang, X.; Tang, X.; Hu, Y.; Xie, W.; and Gavves, E. 2023. Towards open-vocabulary video instance segmentation. In proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 4057--4066

    2023

  22. [30]

    Wang, W.; Feiszli, M.; Wang, H.; and Tran, D. 2021. Unidentified video objects: A benchmark for dense, open-world segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 10776--10785

    2021

  23. [31]

    Wu, J.; Jiang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Yuan, Z.; Bai, X.; and Bai, S. 2023. General object foundation model for images and videos at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09158

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Xu, J.; Liu, S.; Vahdat, A.; Byeon, W.; Wang, X.; and De Mello, S. 2023. Open-Vocabulary Panoptic Segmentation With Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2955--2966

    2023

  25. [33]

    Xu, N.; Yang, L.; Fan, Y.; Yue, D.; Liang, Y.; Yang, J.; and Huang, T. 2018. Youtube-vos: A large-scale video object segmentation benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.03327

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Xue, H.; Hang, T.; Zeng, Y.; Sun, Y.; Liu, B.; Yang, H.; Fu, J.; and Guo, B. 2022. Advancing High-Resolution Video-Language Representation with Large-Scale Video Transcriptions. In International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Yang, L.; Fan, Y.; and Xu, N. 2019. Video instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 5188--5197

    2019

  28. [36]

    Yang, Z.; Wei, Y.; and Yang, Y. 2021. Associating objects with transformers for video object segmentation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 2491--2502

    2021

  29. [37]

    Zhang, R.; Jiang, Z.; Guo, Z.; Yan, S.; Pan, J.; Ma, X.; Dong, H.; Gao, P.; and Li, H. 2023 a . Personalize segment anything model with one shot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03048

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhang, T.; Tian, X.; Zhou, Y.; Ji, S.; Wang, X.; Tao, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wan, P.; Wang, Z.; and Wu, Y. 2023 b . DVIS++: Improved Decoupled Framework for Universal Video Segmentation. arXiv:2312.13305

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zhang, Z.; Wu, B.; Wang, X.; Luo, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, Y.; Vajda, P.; Metaxas, D.; and Yu, L. 2024. AVID: Any-Length Video Inpainting with Diffusion Model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 7162--7172

    2024

  32. [40]

    Zhou, T.; Luo, W.; Ye, Q.; Shi, Z.; and Chen, J. 2024. SAM-PD: How Far Can SAM Take Us in Tracking and Segmenting Anything in Videos by Prompt Denoising. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04194

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhu, J.; Chen, Z.; Hao, Z.; Chang, S.; Zhang, L.; Wang, D.; Lu, H.; Luo, B.; He, J.-Y.; Lan, J.-P.; et al. 2023. Tracking anything in high quality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13974

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    E.; Mahadevan, S.; Voigtlaender, P.; and Leibe, B

    Zulfikar, I. E.; Mahadevan, S.; Voigtlaender, P.; and Leibe, B. 2024. Point-VOS: Pointing Up Video Object Segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05917

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  36. [44]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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