Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 81 references

Divide-and-Conquer: Confluent Triple-Flow Network for RGB-T Salient Object Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 ConTriNet, a confluent triple-flow network, claims consistent state-of-the-art robustness for RGB-T salient object detection, with the strongest evidence on a new 536-pair challenging benchmark.

desk verdict A coherent but incremental triple-flow RGB-T SOD paper with a useful new benchmark, where the headline robustness claim is not yet backed by released data or a direct missing-modality test. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01556 v1 pith:XKQTUSHN submitted 2024-12-02 cs.CV cs.MM

Hao Tang , Zechao Li , Dong Zhang , Shengfeng He , Jinhui Tang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.MM
keywords RGB-Tsalientobjectdetectionmulti-modalfusionthermalinfrareddivide-and-conquerencoder-decoderVT-IMAGbenchmarkmodalityrobustnessflow-cooperative
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 argues that the best way to make RGB-thermal salient object detection robust in the real world is to stop treating the two modalities as one fused stream and instead divide the task: let one network branch mine RGB-specific cues, another mine thermal-specific cues, and a third combine them, then merge the three predictions. The proposed ConTriNet implements this with a shared encoder and three parallel decoders, and the paper reports it outperforms 27 prior methods on the standard VT821, VT1000, and VT5000 benchmarks. The strongest evidence is on a new 536-pair benchmark, VT-IMAG, built from driving and surveillance scenes with defects such as fog, rain, noise, and thermal crossover, where ConTriNet with a Swin backbone reaches S-measure 0.868 and MAE 0.021, a 22.2% relative error reduction over the second-best method. The point of the claim is that a divide-and-conquer architecture, not a bigger fusion module, is what buys robustness when one modality is degraded.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Confluent Triple-Flow Network (ConTriNet), built on a modality-shared union encoder with three parallel decoders: an RGB-modality flow, a thermal-modality flow, and a modality-complementary flow. Three modules carry the design: the Modality-induced Feature Modulator (MFM) in the encoder reduces inter-modality discrepancy and filters defective samples; the Residual Atrous Spatial Pyramid Module (RASPM) in every flow expands the receptive field and captures multi-scale context; and the Modality-aware Dynamic Aggregation Module (MDAM) in the complementary flow learns dynamic weights to fuse cues from the two specific flows. A flow-cooperative fusion, implemented as a simple addition of the three predicted maps, yields the final saliency map, and each flow receives weighted binary cross-entropy and weighted IoU supervision.

What would settle it

Re-annotate VT-IMAG masks with independent annotators and re-run every competitor under ConTriNet's exact training protocol; the claim collapses if annotation agreement is low or the 22.2% MAE gap reverses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that RGB-T salient object detection is better posed as three subtasks than as one fusion problem. ConTriNet uses one encoder shared by both modalities and three parallel decoders: one supervised to find saliency from RGB alone, one from thermal alone, and one that fuses both through a learned dynamic weighting. The separate predictions are added into a final map. In experiments the authors report the best published results on VT821, VT1000, and VT5000, and on their own VT-IMAG benchmark they report S-measure 0.868, F-measure 0.832, weighted F-measure 0.804, E-measure 0.943, and MAE 0.021 with a Swin-Transformer backbone, a relative MAE improvement of 22.2% over the second-best method.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the new 536-pair VT-IMAG benchmark and the published baseline maps fairly represent real-world difficulty; if the benchmark accidentally matches this architecture or the baseline maps were not produced under equivalent conditions, the reported edge may not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gains hold, RGB-T SOD becomes practical for autonomous driving and surveillance at night, in fog, rain, and strong noise, since thermal cues keep the saliency estimate stable when visible light fails.
  • The shared-encoder triple-flow design achieves these results with 34.77M parameters in the Res2Net-50 configuration, versus 58.44M for a dual-encoder variant, so robustness can come with lower model cost.
  • The VT-IMAG benchmark, once released, gives the community a standardized set of 536 pairs with attribute labels for seven challenging scenarios and five object-characteristic classes.
  • The flow-cooperative fusion and per-flow supervision imply that each branch remains informative on its own, which opens the door to partially missing input modalities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension is to map ConTriNet's layout onto RGB-D salient object detection under corrupted depth maps; the paper's own motivation says depth is also fragile, but it does not run that experiment.
  • Because several competitor scores on VT-IMAG come from published saliency maps rather than identical re-training, the 22.2% relative MAE gap is best treated as an estimate until the benchmark and code are public and all baselines are re-run under one protocol.
  • The MDAM weights $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are computed per sample and sum to one, so they could be read as a learned confidence that one modality is reliable; logging them during deployment might flag defective sensors, a use the paper does not mention.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ConTriNet, a triple-flow RGB-T salient object detection network built on a divide-and-conquer strategy: a shared union encoder extracts features from both modalities, a Modality-induced Feature Modulator (MFM) reduces modality discrepancy, three parallel decoders (RGB-specific, thermal-specific, and modality-complementary) predict saliency maps, and a flow-cooperative fusion step combines them. The architecture also introduces a Residual Atrous Spatial Pyramid Module (RASPM) and a Modality-aware Dynamic Aggregation Module (MDAM). The authors evaluate on VT821, VT1000, VT5000, and on a newly collected benchmark VT-IMAG of 536 RGB-T pairs, and they claim consistent state-of-the-art performance and robustness to challenging scenarios, including incomplete modality data.

Significance. If the evidence were fully validated, the paper would be a solid contribution: the shared-encoder triple-flow design is parameter-efficient (34.77M parameters versus 58.44M for a dual-encoder setup in Table 8), the ablations isolate each module and loss term, and the new VT-IMAG benchmark addresses a real gap in robustness evaluation for RGB-T SOD. However, the headline robustness result rests on an unreleased self-curated benchmark and on baseline saliency maps that are not all produced under identical training conditions, and the claim of consistent state-of-the-art performance is stronger than the tables support for the non-transformer variants. These issues are fixable and do not invalidate the architectural promise, but they do require additional work.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1.1, §4.3] The robustness claim is anchored in Table 3 on VT-IMAG, but the dataset is not released, the annotation process is described only as "professional annotators meticulously marked" masks with no inter-annotator agreement, and the selection of the 536 pairs was determined by "consensus" among four viewers without a stated rule. Because the large margins on VT-IMAG (e.g., MAE 0.021 vs 0.027 for HRTransNet) are load-bearing for the paper's central robustness claim, the authors should release the dataset, report annotation statistics (e.g., agreement on masks and on the set of salient objects), and specify the selection protocol, or alternatively temper the robustness claim to what can be verified on the public benchmarks.
  2. [§4.3, §4.2] The zero-shot evaluation in §4.3 states that "all models are solely trained on clear data and simple scenes (i.e., training set of VT5000)", yet §4.2 states that for RGB-T SOD methods "the saliency maps provided by the RGB-T SOD methods are directly used for comparison." These statements are incompatible unless every baseline map was produced from the same 2,500-pair VT5000 split with the same input resolution and augmentation. The authors should retrain all baselines under the identical protocol, or report which models were retrained and with what settings; otherwise the observed margins on VT-IMAG (e.g., Fβ 0.832 vs 0.769) may reflect protocol differences rather than architectural superiority.
  3. [Abstract, §4.3] The abstract claims robustness "even when dealing with incomplete modality data," but no experiment in the paper simulates a missing or ablated modality channel; the VT-IMAG benchmark contains challenging image conditions (thermal crossover, clutter, fog, etc.), not incomplete inputs. The authors should either add a direct experiment (e.g., zeroing one modality at test time, or randomly masking input regions) or remove the incomplete-modality claim from the abstract and introduction, since the current evidence does not test it.
  4. [§4.2.1, Table 1, Table 3] The paper claims that "CONTRINET consistently outperforms state-of-the-art competitors," but the tables support this only for the Swin-backbone variant CONTRINET⋆. In Table 1, CONTRINET50 is not uniformly better than CAVER23 on VT1000 (S-measure 0.929 vs 0.936; MAE 0.019 vs 0.017), and in Table 3 on VT-IMAG both CONTRINET16 (Sm 0.801) and CONTRINET50 (Sm 0.828) are below HRTransNet (Sm 0.848), SwinNet (Sm 0.838), and XMSNet (Sm 0.833). The claims should be scoped to the configuration that actually achieves the reported results, and, given the small margins on VT1000 (Fβ 0.906 vs 0.903 for CGFNet/CAVER), the authors should provide error bars or significance tests before asserting consistency.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains the typo "Supervison"; it should be "Supervision."
  2. [Eq. (4)] The notation "Conv1_{2k−1}" is not defined in the text or in the equation; the surrounding description refers to stacked asymmetric convolutions, so please define the kernel notation explicitly.
  3. [§4.4.3] The phrase "set the learnable dynamic weights, α and β, to a fixed value of 1" conflicts with the sum-to-one constraint α+β=1 in Eq. (9); please clarify what the fixed-ablation configuration actually is.
  4. [§4.2.1] The reported "minimum percentage gain of 1.2% for Fβ" is not consistent with Table 1 for any clearly identified second-best method (e.g., TBINet gives (0.850−0.842)/0.842 ≈ 0.95%); please recompute the gains or identify the reference method.
  5. [§4.2] In the sentence listing Transformer-based methods, there is a missing comma after "TriTransNet [66]"; it should read "TriTransNet [66], SwinNet [67], HRTransNet [68], and XMSNet [69]."
  6. [§4.4.2] There is a missing space in "PPM [80] and ASPP [81],extensively"; it should be "and ASPP [81], extensively."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: ConTriNet is an empirical architecture comparison; benchmarks and ablations are external or independently constructed, and no prediction reduces to a fitted input by construction.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation from first principles; its claims are empirical benchmark comparisons of a proposed network against external baselines. The central architecture is evaluated on the public VT821, VT1000, and VT5000 datasets and on the authors' new VT-IMAG test set, with all models trained on the same VT5000 training split for the zero-shot robustness test. There is no equation in which the predicted saliency map is defined in terms of the test labels, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the design. The use of datasets and training protocols from the authors' own group (VT5000, MIDD protocol, VT821) is a normal self-citation pattern and is not load-bearing as evidence: the comparisons still pit ConTriNet against 27 independently published methods. The VT-IMAG benchmark is self-curated and unreleased, and the baseline-map provenance is not fully specified, but those are reproducibility and fairness concerns, not circularity. The robustness claim about 'incomplete modality data' is not directly tested by an input-ablation experiment, which is an overclaim or missing experiment rather than a circular step. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

This is an empirical deep learning paper, so the central claim depends on standard training assumptions, accepted evaluation metrics, and fair comparison protocols rather than mathematical axioms. The only hand-chosen numbers are training hyperparameters; the millions of network weights are learned from the VT5000 training set. The paper introduces architectural modules (MFM, RASPM, MDAM) and a dataset, but no natural or physical entities, so the invented-entities ledger is empty.

free parameters (4)
  • learning_rate = 5e-5
    Chosen by hand for the Adam optimizer; central to convergence of all reported results.
  • batch_size = 16
    Chosen by hand; affects training dynamics.
  • input_resolution = 352x352
    All images resized to 352x352 for training; fixed across the paper.
  • num_epochs = 100
    Training budget; the paper states the final model converges within 100 epochs.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The five evaluation metrics (S-measure, F-measure, weighted F-measure, E-measure, MAE) are accepted and sufficient measures of salient object detection quality.
    Used to rank all methods in Tables 1 and 3; if these metrics fail to capture perceptual quality, the performance claims are not meaningful.
  • domain assumption The training protocol of using 2,500 image pairs from VT5000 for training is a fair common protocol for all compared methods.
    Section 4.1.1 states 'we follow the same training protocol as [2]'; baselines are assumed to have been trained under the same distribution.
  • domain assumption Published saliency maps for RGB-T baseline methods are directly comparable to maps produced by the proposed model under consistent settings.
    Section 4.2 states 'the saliency maps provided by the RGB-T SOD methods are directly used for comparison'; if maps were produced under different training conditions, the comparison is not controlled.
  • domain assumption The VT-IMAG benchmark, with 536 curated RGB-T pairs and pixel-level annotations, is an accurate and unbiased testbed for robustness.
    Section 4.1.1; no inter-annotator agreement or quality check is reported, and the dataset is not released.
  • domain assumption Knowledge encoded in ImageNet-pretrained backbones transfers to paired RGB-T inputs through the shared encoder.
    Section 4.1.3 initializes the backbone with an ImageNet-pretrained model; this is standard practice but not independently verified for the RGB-T domain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Divide-and-Conquer: Confluent Triple-Flow Network for RGB-T Salient Object Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XKQTUSHN

@misc{pith2026241201556,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Divide-and-Conquer: Confluent Triple-Flow Network for RGB-T Salient Object Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XKQTUSHN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01556}
}
read the original abstract

RGB-Thermal Salient Object Detection aims to pinpoint prominent objects within aligned pairs of visible and thermal infrared images. Traditional encoder-decoder architectures, while designed for cross-modality feature interactions, may not have adequately considered the robustness against noise originating from defective modalities. Inspired by hierarchical human visual systems, we propose the ConTriNet, a robust Confluent Triple-Flow Network employing a Divide-and-Conquer strategy. Specifically, ConTriNet comprises three flows: two modality-specific flows explore cues from RGB and Thermal modalities, and a third modality-complementary flow integrates cues from both modalities. ConTriNet presents several notable advantages. It incorporates a Modality-induced Feature Modulator in the modality-shared union encoder to minimize inter-modality discrepancies and mitigate the impact of defective samples. Additionally, a foundational Residual Atrous Spatial Pyramid Module in the separated flows enlarges the receptive field, allowing for the capture of multi-scale contextual information. Furthermore, a Modality-aware Dynamic Aggregation Module in the modality-complementary flow dynamically aggregates saliency-related cues from both modality-specific flows. Leveraging the proposed parallel triple-flow framework, we further refine saliency maps derived from different flows through a flow-cooperative fusion strategy, yielding a high-quality, full-resolution saliency map for the final prediction. To evaluate the robustness and stability of our approach, we collect a comprehensive RGB-T SOD benchmark, VT-IMAG, covering various real-world challenging scenarios. Extensive experiments on public benchmarks and our VT-IMAG dataset demonstrate that ConTriNet consistently outperforms state-of-the-art competitors in both common and challenging scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01556 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparisons of established RGB-T SOD network architectures ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of the proposed Confluent Triple-Flow Network ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Structure diagram of the Modality-induced Feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization for the feature evolution in the modality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the Modality-aware Dynamic Aggrega [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distribution of challenges in VT-IMAG, including [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparisons of visualization results are shown in the following columns: RGB image, Thermal image, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparisons of our proposed method and recent publicly available RGB-T SOD methods on various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization examples of ablation studies. (a) RGB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparative visualizations of saliency maps pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Failure cases from the proposed VT-IMAG (zoomed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multi-modal interactive attention and dual progressive decoding network for RGB-D/T salient object detection,

    Y. Liang, G. Qin, M. Sun, J. Qin, J. Yan, and Z. Zhang, “Multi-modal interactive attention and dual progressive decoding network for RGB-D/T salient object detection,” Neurocomputing, vol. 490, pp. 132–145, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Multi-interactive dual- decoder for rgb-thermal salient object detection,

    Z. Tu, Z. Li, C. Li, Y. Lang, and J. Tang, “Multi-interactive dual- decoder for rgb-thermal salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 30, pp. 5678–5691, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    A novel multiresolution spatiotemporal saliency detection model and its applications in image and video compression,

    C. Guo and L. Zhang, “A novel multiresolution spatiotemporal saliency detection model and its applications in image and video compression,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 185–198, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Saliency-aware video object segmentation,

    W. Wang, J. Shen, R. Yang, and F. Porikli, “Saliency-aware video object segmentation,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 20–33, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Non-rigid object tracking via deep multi-scale spatial-temporal discriminative saliency maps,

    P . Zhang, W. Liu, D. Wang, Y. Lei, H. Wang, and H. Lu, “Non-rigid object tracking via deep multi-scale spatial-temporal discriminative saliency maps,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 100, p. 107130, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Context disentan- gling and prototype inheriting for robust visual grounding,

    W. Tang, L. Li, X. Liu, L. Jin, J. Tang, and Z. Li, “Context disentan- gling and prototype inheriting for robust visual grounding,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 3213–3229, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Salient object detection: A survey,

    A. Borji, M. Cheng, Q. Hou, H. Jiang, and J. Li, “Salient object detection: A survey,” Comput. Vis. Media, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 117–150, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Salient object detection in the deep learning era: An in-depth survey,

    W. Wang, Q. Lai, H. Fu, J. Shen, H. Ling, and R. Yang, “Salient object detection in the deep learning era: An in-depth survey,”IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 3239–3259, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Rethinking RGB-D salient object detection: Models, data sets, and large-scale benchmarks,

    D. Fan, Z. Lin, Z. Zhang, M. Zhu, and M. Cheng, “Rethinking RGB-D salient object detection: Models, data sets, and large-scale benchmarks,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 2075–2089, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    RGB-D salient object detection: A survey,

    T. Zhou, D. Fan, M. Cheng, J. Shen, and L. Shao, “RGB-D salient object detection: A survey,” Comput. Vis. Media, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 37–69, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Robust RGB-D fusion for saliency detection,

    Z. Wu, S. Gobichettipalayam, B. Tamadazte, G. Allibert, D. P . Paudel, and C. Demonceaux, “Robust RGB-D fusion for saliency detection,” in 3DV, 2022, pp. 403–413

    2022

  4. [12]

    Siamese network for RGB-D salient object detection and beyond,

    K. Fu, D. Fan, G. Ji, Q. Zhao, J. Shen, and C. Zhu, “Siamese network for RGB-D salient object detection and beyond,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 5541–5559, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Depth quality- inspired feature manipulation for efficient RGB-D salient object detection,

    W. Zhang, G. Ji, Z. Wang, K. Fu, and Q. Zhao, “Depth quality- inspired feature manipulation for efficient RGB-D salient object detection,” in ACM Multimedia, 2021, pp. 731–740

    2021

  6. [14]

    RGB-T saliency detection benchmark: Dataset, baselines, analysis and a novel approach,

    G. Wang, C. Li, Y. Ma, A. Zheng, J. Tang, and B. Luo, “RGB-T saliency detection benchmark: Dataset, baselines, analysis and a novel approach,” in IGTA, vol. 875, 2018, pp. 359–369

    2018

  7. [15]

    Rtfnet: Rgb-thermal fusion network for semantic segmentation of urban scenes,

    Y. Sun, W. Zuo, and M. Liu, “Rtfnet: Rgb-thermal fusion network for semantic segmentation of urban scenes,” IEEE Robotics Autom. Lett., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 2576–2583, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    RGBT salient object detection: A large-scale dataset and benchmark,

    Z. Tu, Y. Ma, Z. Li, C. Li, J. Xu, and Y. Liu, “RGBT salient object detection: A large-scale dataset and benchmark,” CoRR, vol. abs/2007.03262

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Efficient context- guided stacked refinement network for rgb-t salient object detec- tion,

    F. Huo, X. Zhu, L. Zhang, Q. Liu, and Y. Shu, “Efficient context- guided stacked refinement network for rgb-t salient object detec- tion,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. , vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 3111–3124, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Ecffnet: Effective and consistent feature fusion network for rgb-t salient object detection,

    W. Zhou, Q. Guo, J. Lei, L. Yu, and J.-N. Hwang, “Ecffnet: Effective and consistent feature fusion network for rgb-t salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1224–1235, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Cgfnet: Cross- guided fusion network for RGB-T salient object detection,

    J. Wang, K. Song, Y. Bao, L. Huang, and Y. Yan, “Cgfnet: Cross- guided fusion network for RGB-T salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 2949–2961, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    B. E. Stein and M. A. Meredith, The merging of the senses . MIT press, 1993

    1993

  13. [21]

    Separate visual pathways for perception and action,

    M. A. Goodale and A. D. Milner, “Separate visual pathways for perception and action,” Trends in neurosciences, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 20–25, 1992

    1992

  14. [22]

    Cognitive neuroscience: feedback for natural visual stimuli,

    N. G. Muggleton, M. J. Banissy, and V . Z. Walsh, “Cognitive neuroscience: feedback for natural visual stimuli,” Current Biology, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. R282–R283, 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    RGB-T image saliency detection via collaborative graph learning,

    Z. Tu, T. Xia, C. Li, X. Wang, Y. Ma, and J. Tang, “RGB-T image saliency detection via collaborative graph learning,” IEEE Trans. Multim., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 160–173, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Saliency detection via dense and sparse reconstruction,

    X. Li, H. Lu, L. Zhang, X. Ruan, and M. Yang, “Saliency detection via dense and sparse reconstruction,” in ICCV, 2013, pp. 2976–2983

    2013

  17. [25]

    Global contrast based salient region detection,

    M. Cheng, N. J. Mitra, X. Huang, P . H. S. Torr, and S. Hu, “Global contrast based salient region detection,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 569–582, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Salient object detection: A discriminative regional feature integration approach,

    J. Wang, H. Jiang, Z. Yuan, M. Cheng, X. Hu, and N. Zheng, “Salient object detection: A discriminative regional feature integration approach,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 251–268, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Submodular salient region detection,

    Z. Jiang and L. S. Davis, “Submodular salient region detection,” in CVPR, 2013, pp. 2043–2050

    2013

  20. [28]

    Saliency optimization from robust background detection,

    W. Zhu, S. Liang, Y. Wei, and J. Sun, “Saliency optimization from robust background detection,” in CVPR, 2014, pp. 2814–2821

    2014

  21. [29]

    Salient region detection via integrating diffusion-based compactness and local contrast,

    L. Zhou, Z. Yang, Q. Yuan, Z. Zhou, and D. Hu, “Salient region detection via integrating diffusion-based compactness and local contrast,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 3308–3320, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” in ICLR, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in CVPR, 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  24. [32]

    Deeply supervised salient object detection with short connections,

    Q. Hou, M. Cheng, X. Hu, A. Borji, Z. Tu, and P . H. S. Torr, “Deeply supervised salient object detection with short connections,” in CVPR, 2017, pp. 5300–5309. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANAL YSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE 16

    2017

  25. [33]

    Progressive attention guided recurrent network for salient object detection,

    X. Zhang, T. Wang, J. Qi, H. Lu, and G. Wang, “Progressive attention guided recurrent network for salient object detection,” in CVPR, 2018, pp. 714–722

    2018

  26. [34]

    Res2net: A new multi-scale backbone architecture,

    S. Gao, M. Cheng, K. Zhao, X. Zhang, M. Yang, and P . H. S. Torr, “Res2net: A new multi-scale backbone architecture,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 652–662, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Cascaded partial decoder for fast and accurate salient object detection,

    Z. Wu, L. Su, and Q. Huang, “Cascaded partial decoder for fast and accurate salient object detection,” in CVPR, 2019, pp. 3907–3916

    2019

  28. [36]

    F3net: Fusion, feedback and focus for salient object detection,

    J. Wei, S. Wang, and Q. Huang, “F3net: Fusion, feedback and focus for salient object detection,” in AAAI, 2020, pp. 12 321–12 328

    2020

  29. [37]

    Global context-aware progressive aggregation network for salient object detection,

    Z. Chen, Q. Xu, R. Cong, and Q. Huang, “Global context-aware progressive aggregation network for salient object detection,” in AAAI, 2020, pp. 10 599–10 606

    2020

  30. [38]

    Label decoupling framework for salient object detection,

    J. Wei, S. Wang, Z. Wu, C. Su, Q. Huang, and Q. Tian, “Label decoupling framework for salient object detection,” in CVPR, 2020, pp. 13 022–13 031

    2020

  31. [39]

    Auto-msfnet: Search multi-scale fusion network for salient object detection,

    M. Zhang, T. Liu, Y. Piao, S. Yao, and H. Lu, “Auto-msfnet: Search multi-scale fusion network for salient object detection,” in ACM Multimedia, 2021, pp. 667–676

    2021

  32. [40]

    Multi-scale interactive network for salient object detection,

    Y. Pang, X. Zhao, L. Zhang, and H. Lu, “Multi-scale interactive network for salient object detection,” in CVPR, 2020, pp. 9410–9419

    2020

  33. [41]

    Cross-modality discrepant interaction network for RGB-D salient object detection,

    C. Zhang, R. Cong, Q. Lin, L. Ma, F. Li, Y. Zhao, and S. Kwong, “Cross-modality discrepant interaction network for RGB-D salient object detection,” in ACM Multimedia, 2021, pp. 2094–2102

    2021

  34. [42]

    Learning discriminative cross- modality features for RGB-D saliency detection,

    F. Wang, J. Pan, S. Xu, and J. Tang, “Learning discriminative cross- modality features for RGB-D saliency detection,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 31, pp. 1285–1297, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    M3s-nir: Multi-modal multi-scale noise-insensitive ranking for rgb-t saliency detection,

    Z. Tu, T. Xia, C. Li, Y. Lu, and J. Tang, “M3s-nir: Multi-modal multi-scale noise-insensitive ranking for rgb-t saliency detection,” in MIPR, 2019, pp. 141–146

    2019

  36. [44]

    Learning multiscale deep features and SVM regressors for adaptive RGB-T saliency detection,

    Y. Ma, D. Sun, Q. Meng, Z. Ding, and C. Li, “Learning multiscale deep features and SVM regressors for adaptive RGB-T saliency detection,” in ISCID, 2017, pp. 389–392

    2017

  37. [45]

    RGB-T salient object detection via fusing multi-level CNN features,

    Q. Zhang, N. Huang, L. Yao, D. Zhang, C. Shan, and J. Han, “RGB-T salient object detection via fusing multi-level CNN features,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 29, pp. 3321–3335, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Revisiting feature fusion for RGB-T salient object detection,

    Q. Zhang, T. Xiao, N. Huang, D. Zhang, and J. Han, “Revisiting feature fusion for RGB-T salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1804–1818, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Specificity- preserving RGB-D saliency detection,

    T. Zhou, H. Fu, G. Chen, Y. Zhou, D. Fan, and L. Shao, “Specificity- preserving RGB-D saliency detection,” in ICCV, 2021, pp. 4661– 4671

    2021

  40. [48]

    Cir-net: Cross-modality interaction and refinement for RGB-D salient object detection,

    R. Cong, Q. Lin, C. Zhang, C. Li, X. Cao, Q. Huang, and Y. Zhao, “Cir-net: Cross-modality interaction and refinement for RGB-D salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , vol. 31, pp. 6800–6815, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein,Introduction to Algorithms, 3rd Edition. MIT Press, 2009

    2009

  42. [50]

    Segregation of form, color, move- ment, and depth: anatomy, physiology, and perception,

    M. Livingstone and D. Hubel, “Segregation of form, color, move- ment, and depth: anatomy, physiology, and perception,” Science, vol. 240, no. 4853, pp. 740–749, 1988

    1988

  43. [51]

    CBAM: convolutional block attention module,

    S. Woo, J. Park, J. Lee, and I. S. Kweon, “CBAM: convolutional block attention module,” in ECCV, 2018, pp. 3–19

    2018

  44. [52]

    Ctnet: Context-based tandem network for semantic segmentation,

    Z. Li, Y. Sun, L. Zhang, and J. Tang, “Ctnet: Context-based tandem network for semantic segmentation,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 9904–9917, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    A tutorial on the cross-entropy method,

    P . de Boer, D. P . Kroese, S. Mannor, and R. Y. Rubinstein, “A tutorial on the cross-entropy method,” Ann. Oper. Res., vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 19–67, 2005

    2005

  46. [54]

    Deeproadmapper: Extracting road topology from aerial images,

    G. M´attyus, W. Luo, and R. Urtasun, “Deeproadmapper: Extracting road topology from aerial images,” in ICCV, 2017, pp. 3458–3466

    2017

  47. [55]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,

    Z. Liu, Y. Lin, Y. Cao, H. Hu, Y. Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,” in ICCV, 2021, pp. 9992–10 002

    2021

  48. [56]

    Learning selective self-mutual attention for RGB-D saliency detection,

    N. Liu, N. Zhang, and J. Han, “Learning selective self-mutual attention for RGB-D saliency detection,” in CVPR, 2020, pp. 13 753– 13 762

    2020

  49. [57]

    JL-DCF: joint learning and densely-cooperative fusion framework for RGB-D salient object detection,

    K. Fu, D. Fan, G. Ji, and Q. Zhao, “JL-DCF: joint learning and densely-cooperative fusion framework for RGB-D salient object detection,” in CVPR, 2020, pp. 3049–3059

    2020

  50. [58]

    Hierarchical alternate interaction network for RGB-D salient object detection,

    G. Li, Z. Liu, M. Chen, Z. Bai, W. Lin, and H. Ling, “Hierarchical alternate interaction network for RGB-D salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 30, pp. 3528–3542, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Three-stage bidirectional interaction network for efficient RGB-D salient object detection,

    Y. Wang and Y. Zhang, “Three-stage bidirectional interaction network for efficient RGB-D salient object detection,” in ACCV, vol. 13845, 2022, pp. 215–233

    2022

  52. [60]

    Source-free depth for object pop-out,

    Z. Wu, D. P . Paudel, D. Fan, J. Wang, S. Wang, C. Demonceaux, R. Timofte, and L. V . Gool, “Source-free depth for object pop-out,” in ICCV, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Hidanet: RGB-D salient object detection via hierarchical depth awareness,

    Z. Wu, G. Allibert, F. M ´eriaudeau, C. Ma, and C. Demonceaux, “Hidanet: RGB-D salient object detection via hierarchical depth awareness,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 32, pp. 2160–2173, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Unified information fusion network for multi-modal RGB-D and RGB-T salient object detection,

    W. Gao, G. Liao, S. Ma, G. Li, Y. Liang, and W. Lin, “Unified information fusion network for multi-modal RGB-D and RGB-T salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 2091–2106, 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    Real-time one-stream semantic-guided refinement network for rgb-thermal salient object detection,

    F. Huo, X. Zhu, Q. Zhang, Z. Liu, and W. Yu, “Real-time one-stream semantic-guided refinement network for rgb-thermal salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 71, pp. 1–12, 2022

    2022

  56. [64]

    Lsnet: Lightweight spatial boosting network for detecting salient objects in rgb-thermal images,

    W. Zhou, Y. Zhu, J. Lei, R. Yang, and L. Yu, “Lsnet: Lightweight spatial boosting network for detecting salient objects in rgb-thermal images,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 32, pp. 1329–1340, 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    CAVER: cross-modal view- mixed transformer for bi-modal salient object detection,

    Y. Pang, X. Zhao, L. Zhang, and H. Lu, “CAVER: cross-modal view- mixed transformer for bi-modal salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 32, pp. 892–904, 2023

    2023

  58. [66]

    Tritransnet: RGB- D salient object detection with a triplet transformer embedding network,

    Z. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Tu, Y. Xiao, and B. Tang, “Tritransnet: RGB- D salient object detection with a triplet transformer embedding network,” in ACM Multimedia, 2021, pp. 4481–4490

    2021

  59. [67]

    Swinnet: Swin transformer drives edge-aware RGB-D and RGB-T salient object detection,

    Z. Liu, Y. Tan, Q. He, and Y. Xiao, “Swinnet: Swin transformer drives edge-aware RGB-D and RGB-T salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 4486–4497, 2022

    2022

  60. [68]

    Hrtransnet: Hrformer-driven two-modality salient object detection,

    B. Tang, Z. Liu, Y. Tan, and Q. He, “Hrtransnet: Hrformer-driven two-modality salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 728–742, 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    Object segmentation by mining cross-modal semantics,

    Z. Wu, J. Wang, Z. Zhou, Z. An, Q. Jiang, C. Demonceaux, G. Sun, and R. Timofte, “Object segmentation by mining cross-modal semantics,” in ACM Multimedia, 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    Bag of tricks for image classification with convolutional neural networks,

    T. He, Z. Zhang, H. Zhang, Z. Zhang, J. Xie, and M. Li, “Bag of tricks for image classification with convolutional neural networks,” in CVPR, 2019, pp. 558–567

    2019

  63. [71]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” in ICLR, 2021

    2021

  64. [72]

    Hrformer: High-resolution vision transformer for dense predict,

    Y. Yuan, R. Fu, L. Huang, W. Lin, C. Zhang, X. Chen, and J. Wang, “Hrformer: High-resolution vision transformer for dense predict,” in NeurIPS, 2021, pp. 7281–7293

    2021

  65. [73]

    Target-aware dual adversarial learning and a multi-scenario multi-modality benchmark to fuse infrared and visible for object detection,

    J. Liu, X. Fan, Z. Huang, G. Wu, R. Liu, W. Zhong, and Z. Luo, “Target-aware dual adversarial learning and a multi-scenario multi-modality benchmark to fuse infrared and visible for object detection,” in CVPR, 2022, pp. 5792–5801

    2022

  66. [74]

    Structure-measure: A new way to evaluate foreground maps,

    M. Cheng and D. Fan, “Structure-measure: A new way to evaluate foreground maps,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 129, no. 9, pp. 2622–2638, 2021

    2021

  67. [75]

    Frequency-tuned salient region detection,

    R. Achanta, S. S. Hemami, F. J. Estrada, and S. S ¨usstrunk, “Frequency-tuned salient region detection,” in CVPR, 2009, pp. 1597–1604

    2009

  68. [76]

    How to evaluate foreground maps,

    R. Margolin, L. Zelnik-Manor, and A. Tal, “How to evaluate foreground maps,” in CVPR, 2014, pp. 248–255

    2014

  69. [77]

    Enhanced- alignment measure for binary foreground map evaluation,

    D. Fan, C. Gong, Y. Cao, B. Ren, M. Cheng, and A. Borji, “Enhanced- alignment measure for binary foreground map evaluation,” in IJCAI, 2018, pp. 698–704

    2018

  70. [78]

    Saliency filters: Contrast based filtering for salient region detection,

    F. Perazzi, P . Kr¨ahenb ¨uhl, Y. Pritch, and A. Hornung, “Saliency filters: Contrast based filtering for salient region detection,” in CVPR, 2012, pp. 733–740

    2012

  71. [79]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge,

    O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. S. Bernstein, A. C. Berg, and L. Fei-Fei, “Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 211–252, 2015

    2015

  72. [80]

    Pyramid scene parsing network,

    H. Zhao, J. Shi, X. Qi, X. Wang, and J. Jia, “Pyramid scene parsing network,” in CVPR, 2017, pp. 6230–6239

    2017

  73. [81]

    Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs,

    L. Chen, G. Papandreou, I. Kokkinos, K. Murphy, and A. L. Yuille, “Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 834–848, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

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