Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

MoRe: Class Patch Attention Needs Regularization for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MoRe claims that ViT class-patch attention artifacts in weakly supervised segmentation can be fixed by regularizing attention with a directed graph and CAM-guided losses.

desk verdict MoRe makes a plausible case for regularizing class-patch attention in WSSS, but its SOTA claim is undercut by a pretraining mismatch with the key baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11076 v3 pith:LSHQPQ4Z submitted 2024-12-15 cs.CV

Zhiwei Yang , Yucong Meng , Kexue Fu , Shuo Wang , Zhijian Song This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords weaklysupervisedsemanticsegmentationclassactivationmapsvisiontransformerclass-patchattentionregularizationlocalizationpseudolabels
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

The paper reports a specific failure mode of Vision Transformer (ViT)-based weakly supervised semantic segmentation: the attention maps between class tokens and image patches, a popular alternative to Class Activation Maps (CAM), frequently light up semantically irrelevant patches. It argues that this 'artifact issue' has been neglected because previous work focused on oversmoothing among patch tokens rather than on the class-patch relation. MoRe adds two regularizers: a directed-graph module (GCR) that condenses only reliably related patch information into class tokens, and a CAM-guided module (LIR) that pulls class tokens toward confidently related and uncertain-but-relevant patches. With both, attention-based pseudo labels become competitive with multi-stage pipelines, reaching 76.4 mIoU on PASCAL VOC val and 47.4 mIoU on COCO val. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's core point to be that class-patch attention needs explicit regularization, and that this is a distinct and fixable problem from ViT oversmoothing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the class-patch attention matrix, re-read as a directed graph to make its relation structure explicit. In GCR, each class token acts as a head $h_i$, each patch token as a tail $t_j$, and an edge embedding $e_{ij} = r_{ij} t_j + (1-r_{ij}) h_i$ parameterizes the directed relation, with only the top-$K$ tails retained as neighbors; the aggregation weight $S(h_i, e_{ij}, t_j) = \mathrm{softmax}(t_j^T \sigma(h_i + e_{ij}))$ decides which patch knowledge flows into class tokens, producing regularized class tokens $Q = \delta_1(w_1(h_i + a_i)) + \delta_2(w_2(a_i \odot h_i))$. In LIR, CAM is thresholded (Eq. (6)) into confident ($M_c$) and uncertain ($M_u$) relation masks; $L_{\mathrm{cre}}$ is a contrastive loss that pulls same-class class-patch pairs together and pushes different-class pairs apart, while $L_{\mathrm{ure}}$ treats selected uncertain patches as positives to be pulled toward their class centroid. These modules carry the argument because LAM is the cosine-similarity score map between class and patch tokens, so regularizing that same score is a direct intervention on the localization signal.

What would settle it

Take a trained MoRe and retrain the LIR module with CAM-derived masks replaced by deliberately corrupted masks, e.g., masks whose confident regions are shifted off the true object or mixed with background, then measure LAM mIoU and the confusion ratio on PASCAL VOC val. If the artifact reduction persists despite wrong masks, the claimed mechanism is not doing the work; if the results track the corruption, the regularization is transferring CAM's biases rather than independently suppressing artifacts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, MoRe establishes that the artifact issue in Localization Attention Maps (LAM) is caused by insufficient constraints on class-patch attention and can be resolved without architectural overhauls. The Graph Category Representation (GCR) module reinterprets class-patch attention as a directed graph whose nodes are heads (class side) and tails (patch side), with learnable edge embeddings and top-$K$ neighbor selection; the graph aggregation described by Eqs. (4)--(5) lets reliable patches enrich class tokens while excluding low-information artifact patches. The Localization-informed Regularization (LIR) module derives confident and uncertain relation masks from CAM via Eq. (6), then optimizes two losses: the confident relation enhancement loss $L_{\mathrm{cre}}$ (Eq. (7)) contrasts same-class class-patch pairs against different-class pairs, and the uncertain relation enhancement loss $L_{\mathrm{ure}}$ (Eq. (9)) pulls uncertain but relevant patches toward their class centroid. The combined objective Eq. (10) is trained end-to-end with a segmentation loss. The full system reports 76.4 mIoU on PASCAL VOC val, 75.0 on test, 47.4 on COCO val, pseudo seeds of 77.0 mIoU for LAM and 76.9 for CAM, and pseudo masks of 80.0/79.7 after DenseCRF.

Load-bearing premise

The approach rests on trusting the class activation maps to know, per image, which regions are confidently part of an object and which regions are uncertain; if those maps are wrong about an object's extent, the contrastive losses will bake that error into the attention maps and the improvements will partly just copy CAM's biases.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-stage training suffices: MoRe reaches 76.4 mIoU on PASCAL VOC val and 47.4 mIoU on COCO val, surpassing recent multi-stage systems as well as single-stage ones.
  • Regularized LAM can act as a high-quality pseudo-label source: MoRe produces pseudo seeds around 77.0 mIoU and pseudo masks of 80.0/79.7 mIoU with DenseCRF.
  • The two regularizers are complementary, not redundant: the ablation shows removing the confident relation loss drops mIoU by 11.4 points, removing the uncertain relation loss lowers recall from 88.0 to 85.7, and removing the graph module drops mIoU by 4.3 points.
  • End-to-end efficiency is part of the claim: the full pipeline takes 372 minutes and 12.1 GB GPU memory, cheaper than the multi-stage LAM baseline and the single-stage competitors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because LIR's supervision is only as good as CAM, the same two-module design should benefit from any stronger seed source; swapping in better CAM or iterative refinement would be a direct test and a likely improvement.
  • The paper frames artifacts as a class-patch relation problem distinct from patch oversmoothing, which predicts that MoRe-style regularization should transfer to other ViT localization tasks, such as weakly supervised object detection or open-vocabulary segmentation, where class tokens are read out as spatial maps.
  • The directed head/tail formulation implies that the asymmetry of class-to-patch vs patch-to-class information matters; a testable prediction is that symmetric or bidirectional attention regularization would capture less of the artifact suppression gain.
  • Current evidence is on PASCAL VOC and COCO with balanced classes; a natural stress test is class-imbalanced or fine-grained datasets, where CAM is noisier and the confidence masks in Eq. (6) are more likely to be wrong.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. MoRe is a single-stage WSSS method built on a ViT with multi-class tokens. It introduces two regularizers for class-patch attention: a Graph Category Representation (GCR) module that models class-patch attention as a directed graph with dynamic neighbor selection and graph aggregation, and a Localization-informed Regularization (LIR) module that uses CAM-derived confident and uncertain relation masks to supervise contrastive losses (Lcre and Lure) on class-patch similarity. The paper reports 76.4 mIoU on PASCAL VOC val, 75.0 on VOC test, and 47.4 on COCO val, with pseudo masks reaching 80.0 mIoU, and claims state-of-the-art performance over both single-stage and multi-stage methods. Ablations show that each component contributes to the final result and that the method reduces confusion ratio relative to ToCo and DuPL.

Significance. If the claims hold, MoRe would be a useful contribution to LAM-based WSSS: it identifies a specific failure mode (artifact patches activated by class tokens), proposes two complementary and comparatively cheap regularizers, and ships an efficient single-stage pipeline with code. The paper also includes a class-specific confusion-ratio analysis that goes beyond plain mIoU, which is informative for diagnosing false-positive artifacts. However, the headline state-of-the-art claim is currently confounded by a pretraining mismatch with the main baselines, and the LIR module is partly supervised by CAM, so the evidence that MoRe resolves the artifact issue rather than inheriting CAM's biases is not yet conclusive. The ablations are internally consistent but all numbers come from single runs with validation-set hyperparameter tuning.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental Settings (Implementation Details) and Table 2] The state-of-the-art comparison is confounded by pretraining: MoRe adopts ViT-B/16 pretrained on ImageNet-21k (Ridnik et al. 2021), whereas the key single-stage baselines ToCo and DuPL in Table 2 use ViT-B/16 pretrained on ImageNet-1k, so the reported +3.1 mIoU over DuPL and the claim of surpassing multi-stage methods may derive from the stronger initialization rather than from GCR and LIR. Please add matched-pretraining baselines (e.g., ToCo and DuPL with ImageNet-21k ViT-B/16) or explicitly quantify the pretraining contribution by also running MoRe with an ImageNet-1k backbone.
  2. [Localization-informed Regularization, Eqs. (6), (7), (9)] Because LIR supervises class-patch attention with CAM-derived masks from Eq. (6), the improvement of LAM over CAM is partly inherited from the teacher signal, so the claimed resolution of the artifact issue is not fully demonstrated. Please report an experiment where LIR is trained with pseudo-masks from an independent source (or where the CAM-derived masks are corrupted/removed), and compare MoRe-LAM against MoRe-CAM to show that LAM adds information beyond what CAM provides.
  3. [Table 3 (Ablation Studies)] All results are single runs, and the hyperparameters (K, λ_h, λ_l, φ, d, τ, α, β, γ) are tuned on the validation split, so the reported margins (e.g., 11.4 mIoU drop without Lcre) lack variance estimates. Please provide mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds, or otherwise justify that the differences are larger than run-to-run noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methodology, Eq. (6)] The threshold values λ_h and λ_l are not specified in the main text; please give the actual values or point the reader to the appendix section where they are analyzed.
  2. [Experimental Settings and Table 4] The confusion ratio (FP/TP) is used as a key metric in Table 4 but is never formally defined; please define it explicitly and state how false positives and true positives are counted.
  3. [Figure 2 and Methodology] The symbol T is used both for the multi-class token set and for the tail embeddings in the GCR module, which is confusing; please rename one of them (e.g., use T_tail for tails).
  4. [Table 1 and Table 2] Please clarify which seed (MoRe-CAM or MoRe-LAM) is used to train the final segmentation model in Table 2, and whether the segmentation decoder is identical in both cases.
  5. [References] The reference "Ara. and Roth 2020" is abbreviated and inconsistent with the other entries; please expand it to the full author list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MoRe's final mIoU is measured against ground truth, and the CAM-informed LIR loss is a teacher-student regularizer, not a definitional reuse of the predicted quantity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that regularizing class-patch attention with GCR and LIR improves LAM and downstream WSSS. The final evaluation is external: PASCAL VOC and COCO mIoU are computed against ground-truth masks, and the artifact-suppression claim is measured by confusion ratio on those final predictions, not by self-comparison to the inputs. The one step that superficially resembles self-supervision is LIR, which uses CAM-derived confident and uncertain masks (Eq. 6) to define Lcre and Lure (Eqs. 7 and 9) that train the class-patch similarity that forms LAM. This is a legitimate teacher-student regularization: CAM is an auxiliary signal, not the evaluation target, and the paper reports both LAM and CAM seeds (77.0 and 76.9 mIoU) and final segmentation masks evaluated on ground truth. GCR (Eqs. 1-5) is an independent graph-based regularizer that does not take CAM as input, and the ablations in Table 3 show performance drops when either LIR or GCR is removed, so the central derivation does not reduce to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citations (Yang et al. 2024a for the confusion-ratio metric; Yang et al. 2024b for CAM refinement context) are not load-bearing and do not import any uniqueness or ansatz. The ImageNet-21k versus ImageNet-1k pretraining mismatch relative to ToCo and DuPL is a benchmarking confound that could affect the SOTA comparison, but it is a correctness risk, not a circularity, because it does not make any equation equivalent to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no physical entities; GCR and LIR are architectural components. The central claim rests on two empirical assumptions (CAM reliability and artifact concentration) rather than on new existential postulates.

free parameters (8)
  • K (top-K neighbors) = 392
    Number of tail neighbors selected per class token in GCR (Eq. 1-2); chosen by validation.
  • lambda_h and lambda_l (CAM thresholds) = Appendix values
    Thresholds in CAM mask refinement (Eq. 6) that split confident foreground, background, and uncertain regions.
  • phi (uncertain kernel proportion) = 1.2
    Proportion threshold for selecting uncertain patch tokens in Eq. 8.
  • d (kernel size) = Appendix value
    Kernel size for uncertain mining in Eq. 8; not specified in the main text.
  • tau (temperature) = Not reported in main text
    Temperature controlling sharpness of the contrastive loss in Eq. 7.
  • alpha (weight for Lcre) = 0.2
    Loss weight in Eq. 10 for confident relation enhancement.
  • beta (weight for Lure) = 0.1
    Loss weight in Eq. 10 for uncertain relation enhancement.
  • gamma (weight for segmentation loss) = 0.12
    Loss weight balancing the segmentation decoder in the overall objective.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CAM and LAM are strongly aligned in object localization.
    Stated in the introduction and used to justify using CAM as supervision for LAM in LIR. If false, the regularizer could reinforce CAM errors.
  • domain assumption Artifacts arise mainly from low-information patches and can be excluded by top-K similarity and kernel filtering.
    GCR and the uncertain-mining strategy depend on this assumption; evidence is qualitative (Figure 3) rather than quantitative.
  • domain assumption The multi-class token framework from MCTformer (Xu et al. 2022) is a valid foundation.
    MoRe inherits multi-class tokens and the Lmct objective from prior work without re-deriving their properties.
  • domain assumption ImageNet-21k pretrained ViT-B/16 provides suitable features for WSSS.
    The encoder is initialized from an external pretraining source (Ridnik et al. 2021); all downstream results depend on this transfer-learning choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MoRe: Class Patch Attention Needs Regularization for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LSHQPQ4Z

@misc{pith2026241211076,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MoRe: Class Patch Attention Needs Regularization for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LSHQPQ4Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11076}
}
read the original abstract

Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation (WSSS) with image-level labels typically uses Class Activation Maps (CAM) to achieve dense predictions. Recently, Vision Transformer (ViT) has provided an alternative to generate localization maps from class-patch attention. However, due to insufficient constraints on modeling such attention, we observe that the Localization Attention Maps (LAM) often struggle with the artifact issue, i.e., patch regions with minimal semantic relevance are falsely activated by class tokens. In this work, we propose MoRe to address this issue and further explore the potential of LAM. Our findings suggest that imposing additional regularization on class-patch attention is necessary. To this end, we first view the attention as a novel directed graph and propose the Graph Category Representation module to implicitly regularize the interaction among class-patch entities. It ensures that class tokens dynamically condense the related patch information and suppress unrelated artifacts at a graph level. Second, motivated by the observation that CAM from classification weights maintains smooth localization of objects, we devise the Localization-informed Regularization module to explicitly regularize the class-patch attention. It directly mines the token relations from CAM and further supervises the consistency between class and patch tokens in a learnable manner. Extensive experiments are conducted on PASCAL VOC and MS COCO, validating that MoRe effectively addresses the artifact issue and achieves state-of-the-art performance, surpassing recent single-stage and even multi-stage methods. Code is available at https://github.com/zwyang6/MoRe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11076 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our motivation. Localization Attention Maps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our MoRe. The input image is sent to ViT encoder and generates multi-class and patch tokens. (a) We first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of LAM. (a) image. (b) LAM on ViT pretrained on ImageNet. (c) LAM with PTC loss (Ru et al. 2023) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Segmentation visualization with SOTA single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multi-class token representation between MCT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. DH-Mamba: Exploring Dual-domain Hierarchical State Space Models for MRI Reconstruction

    eess.IV 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DH-Mamba is a dual-domain hierarchical Mamba network that uses circular k-space scanning and local diversity enhancement to outperform prior MRI reconstruction methods on three public datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * 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 mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Ahn, J.; and Kwak, S. 2018. Learning pixel-level semantic affinity with image-level supervision for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 4981--4990

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Ara., N.; and Roth, S. 2020. Single-stage semantic segmentation from image labels. In CVPR, 4253--4262

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Bearman, A.; Russakovsky, O.; Ferrari, V.; and Fei-Fei, L. 2016. What’s the point: Semantic segmentation with point supervision. In ECCV, 549--565. Springer

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Caron, M.; Touvron, H.; Misra, I.; J \'e gou, H.; Mairal, J.; Bojanowski, P.; and Joulin, A. 2021. Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In ICCV, 9650--9660

    2021

  7. [7]

    Chen, L.-C.; Papandreou, G.; Kokkinos, I.; Murphy, K.; and Yuille, A. L. 2017. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(4): 834--848

    2017

  8. [8]

    Chen, Z.; and Sun, Q. 2023. Extracting Class Activation Maps From Non-Discriminative Features As Well. In CVPR (CVPR), 3135--3144

    work page 2023

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Chen, Z.; Wang, T.; Wu, X.; Hua, X.-S.; Zhang, H.; and Sun, Q. 2022. Class re-activation maps for weakly-supervised semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 969--978

    2022

  2. [10]

    Cheng, Z.; Qiao, P.; Li, K.; Li, S.; Wei, P.; Ji, X.; Yuan, L.; Liu, C.; and Chen, J. 2023. Out-of-candidate rectification for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 23673--23684

    2023

  3. [11]

    Dai, J.; He, K.; and Sun, J. 2015. Boxsup: Exploiting bounding boxes to supervise convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In ICCV, 1635--1643

    2015

  4. [12]

    Darcet, T.; Oquab, M.; Mairal, J.; and Bojanowski, P. 2023. Vision transformers need registers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16588

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Deng, J.; Dong, W.; Socher, R.; Li, L.-J.; Li, K.; and Fei-Fei, L. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 248--255. Ieee

    2009

  6. [14]

    Dosovitskiy, A.; Beyer, L.; Kolesnikov, A.; Weissenborn, D.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Dehghani, M.; Minderer, M.; Heigold, G.; Gelly, S.; et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Du, Y.; Fu, Z.; Liu, Q.; and Wang, Y. 2022. Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation by Pixel-to-Prototype Contrast. In CVPR (CVPR), 4320--4329

    2022

  8. [16]

    K.; Winn, J.; and Zisserman, A

    Everingham, M.; Van Gool, L.; Williams, C. K.; Winn, J.; and Zisserman, A. 2010. The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge. International journal of computer vision, 88: 303--338

    2010

  9. [17]

    Gao, W.; Wan, F.; Pan, X.; Peng, Z.; Tian, Q.; Han, Z.; Zhou, B.; and Ye, Q. 2021. Ts-cam: Token semantic coupled attention map for weakly supervised object localization. In ICCV, 2886--2895

    2021

  10. [18]

    He, J.; Cheng*, L.; Fang, C.; Zhang, D.; Wang, Z.; and Chen, W. 2023. Mitigating Undisciplined Over-Smoothing in Transformer for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03112

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    He, K.; Fan, H.; Wu, Y.; Xie, S.; and Girshick, R. 2020. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In CVPR, 9729--9738

    2020

  12. [20]

    Hu, M.; Yuan, K.; Shen, Y.; Tang, F.; Xu, X.; Zhou, L.; Li, W.; Chen, Y.; Xu, Z.; Peng, Z.; et al. 2024. OphCLIP: Hierarchical Retrieval-Augmented Learning for Ophthalmic Surgical Video-Language Pretraining. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15421

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Jiang, P.-T.; Yang, Y.; Hou, Q.; and Wei, Y. 2022. L2g: A simple local-to-global knowledge transfer framework for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 16886--16896

    2022

  14. [22]

    a henb \

    Kr \"a henb \"u hl, P.; and Koltun, V. 2011. Efficient inference in fully connected crfs with gaussian edge potentials. NeurIPS, 24

    2011

  15. [23]

    Lee, J.; Choi, J.; Mok, J.; and Yoon, S. 2021 a . Reducing information bottleneck for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. NeurIPS, 34: 27408--27421

    2021

  16. [24]

    Lee, J.; Yi, J.; Shin, C.; and Yoon, S. 2021 b . Bbam: Bounding box attribution map for weakly supervised semantic and instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2643--2652

    2021

  17. [25]

    Li, J.; Chen, Y.; Chu, H.; Sun, Q.; Guan, T.; Han, A.; and He, Y. 2024. Dynamic Graph Representation with Knowledge-aware Attention for Histopathology Whole Slide Image Analysis. In CVPR, 11323--11332

    2024

  18. [26]

    Li, J.; Jie, Z.; Wang, X.; Wei, X.; and Ma, L. 2022. Expansion and shrinkage of localization for weakly-supervised semantic segmentation. NeurIPS, 35: 16037–16051, 35: 16037--16051

    2022

  19. [27]

    Li, X.; Zhou, T.; Li, J.; Zhou, Y.; and Zhang, Z. 2021. Group-wise semantic mining for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, 1984--1992

    2021

  20. [28]

    Lin, D.; Dai, J.; Jia, J.; He, K.; and Sun, J. 2016. Scribblesup: Scribble-supervised convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 3159--3167

    2016

  21. [29]

    Lin, T.-Y.; Maire, M.; Belongie, S.; Hays, J.; Perona, P.; Ramanan, D.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Zitnick, C. L. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In ECCV, 740--755. Springer

    2014

  22. [30]

    Lin, Y.; Chen, M.; Wang, W.; Wu, B.; Li, K.; Lin, B.; Liu, H.; and He, X. 2022. CLIP is Also an Efficient Segmenter: A Text-Driven Approach for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09506

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Luo, Y.; Thost, V.; and Shi, L. 2024. Transformers over directed acyclic graphs. NeurIPS, 36

    2024

  24. [32]

    Mehraban; Soroush; Adeli, V.; and Taati, B. 2024. Motionagformer: Enhancing 3d human pose estimation with a transformer-gcnformer network. In WACV, 6920--6930

    2024

  25. [33]

    O.; and Collobert, R

    Pinheiro, P. O.; and Collobert, R. 2015. From image-level to pixel-level labeling with convolutional networks. In CVPR, 1713--1721

    2015

  26. [34]

    Pu, M.; Huang, Y.; Guan, Q.; and Zou, Q. 2018. GraphNet: Learning image pseudo annotations for weakly-supervised semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM international conference on Multimedia, 483--491

    2018

  27. [35]

    Ridnik, T.; Ben-Baruch, E.; Noy, A.; and Zelnik-Manor, L. 2021. Imagenet-21k pretraining for the masses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10972

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Rong, S.; Tu, B.; Wang, Z.; and Li, J. 2023. Boundary-Enhanced Co-Training for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation. In CVPR, 19574--19584

    2023

  29. [37]

    Rossetti, S.; Zappia, D.; Sanzari, M.; Schaerf, M.; and Pirri, F. 2022. Max pooling with vision transformers reconciles class and shape in weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In ECCV, 446--463. Springer

    2022

  30. [38]

    Ru, L.; Zhan, Y.; Yu, B.; and Du, B. 2022. Learning affinity from attention: End-to-end weakly-supervised semantic segmentation with transformers. In CVPR, 16846--16855

    2022

  31. [39]

    Ru, L.; Zheng, H.; Zhan, Y.; and Du, B. 2023. Token contrast for weakly-supervised semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 3093--3102

    2023

  32. [40]

    Su, Y.; Sun, R.; Lin, G.; and Wu, Q. 2021. Context decoupling augmentation for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In ICCV, 7004--7014

    2021

  33. [41]

    Z.; and Liu, Z

    Sun, M.; Chen, X.; Kolter, J. Z.; and Liu, Z. 2024. Massive activations in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17762

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Tang, F.; Xu, Z.; Huang, Q.; Wang, J.; Hou, X.; Su, J.; and Liu, J. 2023. DuAT: Dual-aggregation transformer network for medical image segmentation. In PRCV

    2023

  35. [43]

    Tang, F.; Xu, Z.; Qu, Z.; Feng, W.; Jiang, X.; and Ge, Z. 2024. Hunting Attributes: Context Prototype-Aware Learning for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation. In CVPR, 3324--3334

    2024

  36. [44]

    Touvron, H.; Cord, M.; Douze, M.; Massa, F.; Sablayrolles, A.; and J \'e gou, H. 2021. Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention. In International conference on machine learning, 10347--10357. PMLR

    2021

  37. [45]

    Van der Maaten, L.; and Hinton, G. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Vernaza, P.; and Chandraker, M. 2017. Learning random-walk label propagation for weakly-supervised semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 7158--7166

    2017

  39. [47]

    Wang, P.; Zheng, W.; Chen, T.; and Wang, Z. 2022. Anti-oversmoothing in deep vision transformers via the fourier domain analysis: From theory to practice. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05962

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Wu, Y.; Ye, X.; Yang, K.; Li, J.; and Li, X. 2024. DuPL: Dual Student with Trustworthy Progressive Learning for Robust Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation. In CVPR (CVPR), 3534--3543

    2024

  41. [49]

    Wu, Z.; Pan, S.; Chen, F.; Long, G.; Zhang, C.; and Philip, S. Y. 2020. A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 32(1): 4--24

    2020

  42. [50]

    Xie, J.; Hou, X.; Ye, K.; and Shen, L. 2022. Clims: Cross language image matching for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 4483--4492

    2022

  43. [51]

    Xu, L.; Bennamoun, M.; Boussaid, F.; Laga, H.; Ouyang, W.; and Xu, D. 2024 a . Mctformer+: Multi-class token transformer for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence

    2024

  44. [52]

    Xu, L.; Ouyang, W.; Bennamoun, M.; Boussaid, F.; and Xu, D. 2022. Multi-class token transformer for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 4310--4319

    2022

  45. [53]

    Xu, Z.; Tang, F.; Chen, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Wu, W.; Yang, Y.; Liang, Y.; Jiang, J.; Cai, X.; and Su, J. 2024 b . Polyp-Mamba: Polyp Segmentation with Visual Mamba. In MICCAI. Springer

    2024

  46. [54]

    Yang, Z.; Fu, K.; Duan, M.; Qu, L.; Wang, S.; and Song, Z. 2024 a . Separate and Conquer: Decoupling Co-occurrence via Decomposition and Representation for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation. In CVPR (CVPR), 3606--3615

    2024

  47. [55]

    Yang, Z.; Meng, Y.; Fu, K.; Wang, S.; and Song, Z. 2024 b . Tackling Ambiguity from Perspective of Uncertainty Inference and Affinity Diversification for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08195

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Yoon, S.-H.; Kwon, H.; Kim, H.; and Yoon, K.-J. 2024. Class Tokens Infusion for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation. In CVPR, 3595--3605

    2024

  49. [57]

    Zhang, B.; Xiao, J.; Jiao, J.; Wei, Y.; and Zhao, Y. 2021. Affinity attention graph neural network for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(11): 8082--8096

    2021

  50. [58]

    Zhao, X.; Tang, F.; Wang, X.; and Xiao, J. 2024 a . Sfc: Shared feature calibration in weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 7525--7533

    2024

  51. [59]

    Zhao, X.; Yang, Z.; Dai, T.; Zhang, B.; and Xiao, J. 2024 b . PSDPM: Prototype-based Secondary Discriminative Pixels Mining for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation. In CVPR (CVPR), 3437--3446

    2024

  52. [60]

    Zhou, B.; Khosla, A.; Lapedriza, A.; Oliva, A.; and Torralba, A. 2016. Learning deep features for discriminative localization. In CVPR, 2921--2929

    2016

  53. [61]

    Zhou, T.; Zhang, M.; Zhao, F.; and Li, J. 2022. Regional semantic contrast and aggregation for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 4299--4309

    2022

  54. [62]

    Zhou, Y.; Graham, S.; Alemi Koohbanani, N.; Shaban, M.; Heng, P.-A.; and Rajpoot, N. 2019. Cgc-net: Cell graph convolutional network for grading of colorectal cancer histology images. In ICCV workshops, 0--0

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.