Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 29 references

CMP: A Composable Meta Prompt for SAM-Based Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CMP composes reference-driven semantic and geometric prompts for SAM and aligns source-target frequency statistics, claiming 71.8% and 74.5% mean IoU for 1-shot and 5-shot cross-domain few-shot segmentation on four benchmarks.

desk verdict A plausible SAM-based CD-FSS system whose SOTA claim is undercut by an uncontrolled target fine-tuning stage; worth a serious referee but needs protocol fixes. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16753 v1 pith:BL5WRE7N submitted 2025-07-22 cs.CV

Shuai Chen , Fanman Meng , Chunjin Yang , Haoran Wei , Chenhao Wu , Qingbo Wu , Hongliang Li This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords cross-domainfew-shotsegmentationSegmentAnythingModelcomposablemeta-promptfrequency-awareinteractiondomainadaptationlearningsemanticpromptengineering
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 tries to establish that the Segment Anything Model can be made to work for cross-domain few-shot segmentation without manual prompts, by composing reference information into an automated meta-prompt and by aligning features in the frequency domain. It introduces CMP, a framework with three modules: RCT expands semantic context using LLM-generated co-occurring classes, CMPG composes semantic and geometric prompts compatible with SAM's prompt encoder, and FAI aligns source-target frequency statistics and enhances support-query consistency. On four target domains (DeepGlobe, ISIC2018, Chest X-ray, and FSS-1000) with PASCAL VOC as the source, CMP reports 71.8% and 74.5% mean Intersection over Union for 1-shot and 5-shot settings, surpassing the previous best by 10.5 and 8.5 percentage points. If correct, this would make foundation-model prompting a practical route for segmentation in medical and satellite domains with only one or a few annotated examples.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Composable Meta-Prompt (CMP), a learnable composition of a semantic embedding (enhanced foreground and background prototypes, including LLM-generated negative classes) and a geometric mask embedding (SAM's mask encoder plus a learned adapter), fused through a prompt alignment block into SAM's sparse and dense prompts. The Frequency-Aware Interaction (FAI) module carries the domain-adaptation load through Fast Fourier Transform decomposition, a memory bank of source frequency statistics for cross-domain amplitude alignment, and bidirectional affine transforms between support and query amplitude spectra. These modules are the only trainable parts of the framework, and the paper attributes its performance gains to them through ablations.

What would settle it

Run the full benchmark with every baseline given CMP's exact two-stage protocol, including the same target-domain fine-tuning, the same support-to-pseudo-query augmentation, and the same number of epochs; if the mIoU advantage over APSeg and DR-Adapter on DeepGlobe, ISIC2018, Chest X-ray, and FSS-1000 collapses from 10.5 points to roughly the ablation margins, then the headline gain is mostly protocol rather than the modules.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SAM's two obstacles in cross-domain few-shot segmentation—reliance on manual prompts and limited cross-domain ability—can be overcome by a composable meta-prompt mechanism plus frequency-aware interaction. CMP trains only lightweight prompt-generation and alignment modules while keeping SAM's image encoder and mask decoder frozen. The RCT module asks a large language model what objects co-exist with the target class, encodes those negative classes with CLIP, and combines them with visual prototypes from the support mask; the CMPG module turns these semantic and mask priors into sparse and dense prompts compatible with SAM's prompt encoder; and the FAI module decomposes support and query features with FFT, aligns amplitude statistics through a memory bank, and performs bidirectional amplitude exchange between support and query. The paper's evidence is its benchmark table: average mIoU of 71.8% in 1-shot and 74.5% in 5-shot settings across DeepGlobe, ISIC2018, Chest X-ray, and FSS-1000, with a DeepGlobe ablation showing CMPG is the largest contributor (-6.7%), followed by RCT semantic expansion (-4.0%) and the full FAI module (-3.2%).

Load-bearing premise

The reported superiority assumes every compared method was judged under the same protocol, yet CMP alone receives an extra target-domain fine-tuning stage that turns support samples into pseudo queries; if the baselines were not allowed that same extra adaptation stage, part of the measured gain could come from that advantage rather than from the proposed modules.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single annotated support image can produce a domain-adaptive prompt, so the pipeline becomes usable in settings where expert annotation is scarce, such as medical imaging and remote sensing.
  • Because SAM's parameters remain frozen, the method adds only lightweight trainable modules, keeping adaptation cost far below full fine-tuning of the foundation model.
  • Frequency-domain alignment offers a complementary intervention to spatial-only feature transformation in cross-domain few-shot segmentation, with the ablation attributing 3.2 mIoU points to it on DeepGlobe.
  • If the reported numbers hold under a matched protocol, CMP becomes the leading method on this four-dataset cross-domain few-shot segmentation benchmark, ahead of the previous best by 10.5 points in 1-shot and 8.5 points in 5-shot settings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the comparison is only fair if every SAM-based baseline also received target-domain fine-tuning; the paper does not state that APSeg, HQ-SAM, PerSAM, or Matcher were given the same two-stage protocol, so a re-benchmark with matched fine-tuning could shift the reported margins.
  • Beyond the paper: the RCT module depends on LLM-generated co-occurring classes, so a failure mode worth probing is whether a hallucinated or contextually inappropriate negative class degrades the prompt; this could be tested by perturbing the LLM output or using class names from different domains.
  • Beyond the paper: the same composable-prompt-plus-frequency-alignment recipe could transfer to other promptable segmentation models and to related low-data tasks such as referring segmentation or medical image segmentation, where support sets are naturally small.
  • Beyond the paper: because target fine-tuning augments support samples into pseudo queries, the framework implicitly assumes the support mask is reliable; noisy or coarse support masks at test time could weaken the gains, consistent with the paper's stated limitation.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CMP, a framework that adapts the Segment Anything Model (SAM) for cross-domain few-shot segmentation (CD-FSS). Three modules are introduced: the Reference Complement and Transformation (RCT) module, which uses an LLM and CLIP text/visual encoders to expand semantic prototypes with co-occurring negative classes; the Composable Meta-Prompt Generation (CMPG) module, which combines semantic and geometric information into sparse and dense prompts compatible with SAM's prompt encoder; and the Frequency-Aware Interaction (FAI) module, which aligns cross-domain frequency statistics through a memory bank and performs bidirectional support-query amplitude enhancement. The model is meta-trained on PASCAL VOC and then fine-tuned on target support sets, and is evaluated on DeepGlobe, ISIC2018, Chest X-ray, and FSS-1000. The paper reports state-of-the-art mIoU of 71.8% (1-shot) and 74.5% (5-shot), with ablations on DeepGlobe showing that each module contributes to performance.

Significance. If the reported gains hold under a matched evaluation protocol, the paper would make a strong empirical contribution to SAM-based CD-FSS, demonstrating that composable semantic/geometric prompts together with frequency alignment can improve cross-domain few-shot segmentation by a substantial margin. The method is clearly motivated, the module design is well integrated with SAM's architecture, the internal arithmetic of the reported gains is consistent with Table 1, and the ablation study isolates the contribution of each module in a sensible way. However, the central SOTA claim is currently not protocol-controlled: CMP performs target-domain fine-tuning while the baselines are not reported to receive an equivalent adaptation stage, so the magnitude of the claimed improvement is not yet established. The paper also provides no code, no error bars, and omits several hyperparameters of the fine-tuning and frequency-memory components, which limits verification.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.2 / Table 1] The central SOTA claim is not supported by a protocol-controlled comparison. Section 4.2 states that CMP uses a two-stage process: meta-training on the source domain and fine-tuning on the target domain, in which limited support samples are augmented into pseudo queries for each episode. Table 1 compares CMP with APSeg, HQ-SAM, PerSAM, Matcher, and ResNet-based methods without stating whether any of these baselines received an equivalent target-domain fine-tuning stage. Most of these methods are designed to use the support set only as conditioning at inference. Since CMP updates network weights on target support data, part of the reported +10.5/+8.5 mIoU margins, and especially the +15.1 point gain on ISIC 1-shot, could come from this additional adaptation step rather than from the proposed RCT, CMPG, or FAI modules. The authors should state explicitly whether all compared methods were fine-tuned under the same protocol, and if not, provide a matched comparison, e.g., evaluating CMP without target fine-tuning or fine-tuning all baselines on the same support data. This is necessary to substantiate the claim that CMP surpasses previous best results by 10.5% and 8.5%.
  2. [Sec. 4.2] The target fine-tuning stage is not specified precisely enough to reproduce or interpret the reported results. The paper does not report the number of fine-tuning epochs, the number of pseudo-query augmentations per support sample, the optimizer settings for the fine-tuning stage (beyond the shared learning rate), or any regularization, early stopping, or validation selection criterion. Because this stage is part of the reported 71.8/74.5 mIoU numbers, the missing details block verification of the main claim. The authors should provide a complete description of the fine-tuning budget and the data-augmentation strategy.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The Matcher row has missing entries for Chest X-ray and FSS-1000; since Table 1 is the basis for the 'previous best' comparison, these entries should be filled in or a footnote should explain their absence.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.1 / Eq. (1)] The notation φv(Is, l) suggests pixel-level CLIP visual features, but CLIP's visual encoder operates on image patches; please clarify how per-pixel or per-region prototypes are obtained.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.3 / Eqs. (6)-(7)] The hyperparameters τ (threshold in Eq. (6)), T (memory bank size), and α (momentum in Eq. (7)) are not given anywhere in the paper; please report their values or state how they were selected.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.3 / Eq. (9)] The normalization operator Norm(·) is not defined; please specify which norm is used and along which axes it is applied.
  5. [Sec. 4.2] No code or trained models are provided, and the evaluation protocol (number of random episodes, number of runs, random seeds) is not described; releasing these would substantially aid reproducibility.
  6. [Tables 1 and 2] All results are reported as single numbers without standard deviations or the number of runs; given that the ablation difference for CDFA is only 1.0 mIoU, error bars or multi-seed results would help establish the reliability of the smaller ablation effects.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: CMP is an empirical method whose modules are trained with standard supervised losses; no prediction reduces to an input fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical system paper, not a derivation. The three modules (RCT, CMPG, FAI) are defined through Eqs. (1)-(10) and trained with the combined BCE/Dice loss in Eq. (11). RCT uses CLIP text/visual prototypes from class names and support masks; CMPG learns tokens, weights, and adapters; FAI updates a memory bank from source frequency statistics and performs learnable feature interactions. None of these equations defines a target metric in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only arguable concern is protocol comparability in Table 1: Sec. 4.2 states CMP performs 'meta-training on the source domain and fine-tuning on the target domain' while the compared methods are not reported as receiving equivalent target-domain fine-tuning. This is a benchmarking/comparability limitation (and Sec. 4.5 honestly acknowledges degradation under extreme shifts), not circularity: the target support set is legitimate test-time input for few-shot segmentation, and the query prediction is not equal to the support labels by construction. The paper contains no self-citations, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing. The ablation study (Table 2) provides independent, internally consistent evidence for each module's contribution. Therefore the central SOTA claim, while potentially sensitive to evaluation protocol, does not reduce to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is entirely empirical, so the ledger records hand-set hyperparameters and domain assumptions rather than derivation inputs.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda (loss weighting) = 0.5
    Hand-set in Eq. (11) to balance BCE and Dice; final results depend on this choice, no sensitivity analysis.
  • frequency-memory similarity threshold tau = unspecified
    Appears in Eq. (6) as the threshold for memory retrieval; value not reported.
  • memory bank momentum alpha = unspecified
    Controls exponential moving average in Eq. (7); value not reported.
  • memory bank size T = unspecified
    Number of stored frequency statistics; not stated.
  • target fine-tuning duration = unspecified
    Number of target-domain fine-tuning iterations/epochs is not reported, though this stage appears to contribute to the gain.
  • LLM prompt template = For an image containing [class name Ts], what other objects might co-exist?
    Hand-written prompt in Section 3.2.1 determines negative classes; different wording could change semantic expansion and results.
  • number of LLM negative classes J = unspecified
    Number of co-occurring classes requested/used in RCT is not reported; affects prototype set.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CLIP text prototypes from LLM-generated negative class names provide useful semantic priors for segmentation in unseen target domains.
    RCT relies on this to expand semantics; no validation that LLM negative classes align with visual content across domains.
  • domain assumption Frozen SAM's features and decoder can be steered by composable semantic and mask prompts without end-to-end training.
    The whole framework keeps SAM frozen; the prompt alignment adapter must be sufficient to transfer task knowledge.
  • domain assumption Aligning amplitude spectra across domains and between support and query removes domain-specific variation while preserving semantic content.
    FAI's SQFE and CDFA operate on amplitude spectra with phase untouched; this assumes amplitude carries domain style and phase carries semantics.
  • ad hoc to paper Fine-tuning on target-domain support samples with pseudo-query augmentation is protocol-equivalent to how baselines were evaluated.
    Section 4.2 introduces a target fine-tuning stage; the paper does not show that compared methods received the same adaptation budget.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CMP: A Composable Meta Prompt for SAM-Based Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BL5WRE7N

@misc{pith2026250716753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CMP: A Composable Meta Prompt for SAM-Based Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BL5WRE7N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16753}
}
read the original abstract

Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation (CD-FSS) remains challenging due to limited data and domain shifts. Recent foundation models like the Segment Anything Model (SAM) have shown remarkable zero-shot generalization capability in general segmentation tasks, making it a promising solution for few-shot scenarios. However, adapting SAM to CD-FSS faces two critical challenges: reliance on manual prompt and limited cross-domain ability. Therefore, we propose the Composable Meta-Prompt (CMP) framework that introduces three key modules: (i) the Reference Complement and Transformation (RCT) module for semantic expansion, (ii) the Composable Meta-Prompt Generation (CMPG) module for automated meta-prompt synthesis, and (iii) the Frequency-Aware Interaction (FAI) module for domain discrepancy mitigation. Evaluations across four cross-domain datasets demonstrate CMP's state-of-the-art performance, achieving 71.8\% and 74.5\% mIoU in 1-shot and 5-shot scenarios respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Com CMP: Composable Meta Prompt generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    CMP: A Composable Meta Prompt for SAM-Based Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation

    INTRODUCTION The rapid development of deep learning has revolutionized semantic segmentation across numerous fields. However, the requirement for extensive labeled data remains a signifi- cant bottleneck, particularly in specialized domains [1, 2, 3] where annotation demands expert knowledge. To this end, few-shot semantic segmentation (FSS) has emerged a...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Few-Shot Segmentation Few-shot semantic segmentation (FSS) tackles novel class segmentation with limited labeled examples through two main pipelines

    RELA TED WORK 2.1. Few-Shot Segmentation Few-shot semantic segmentation (FSS) tackles novel class segmentation with limited labeled examples through two main pipelines. Prototype-based methods use class-specific features from support images, evolving from simple global prototype to more sophisticated multiple prototype sys- tems [11]. Matching-based metho...

    work page

  3. [3]

    For an image containing [class name Ts], what other objects might co-exist?

    PROPOSED METHOD 3.1. Problem Formulation Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation (CD-FSS) addresses the challenging scenario of transferring segmentation capa- bilities across distinct domains with minimal supervision. Consider a source domain Ds and a target domain Dt with different data distributions and disjoint semantic categories. Formally, let Ds = ( Xs,...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Datasets and Evaluation Metrics We train our model on PASCAL VOC 2012 with SBD aug- mentation and evaluate across diverse target domains

    EXPERIMENTS 4.1. Datasets and Evaluation Metrics We train our model on PASCAL VOC 2012 with SBD aug- mentation and evaluate across diverse target domains. The target domains span natural objects (FSS-1000 [24]), re- mote sensing imagery (DeepGlobe [3]), and medical imaging (ISIC2018 [2] for skin lesions and Chest X-ray [1] for pul- monary screening). Perf...

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Built upon SAM architecture, our framework achieves SOTA performance on CD-FSS benchmarks

    CONCLUSION We propose the Composable Meta-Prompt (CMP) frame- work for Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation, which uti- lizes composable meta prompts with cross-domain frequency strategies to address prompt design and domain adaptation challenges. Built upon SAM architecture, our framework achieves SOTA performance on CD-FSS benchmarks

    work page

  6. [6]

    Lung segmentation in chest radiographs using anatomical atlases with nonrigid reg- istration,

    Sema Candemir, Stefan Jaeger, Kannappan Palaniap- pan, Jonathan P Musco, Rahul K Singh, Zhiyun Xue, Alexandros Karargyris, Sameer Antani, George Thoma, and Clement J McDonald, “Lung segmentation in chest radiographs using anatomical atlases with nonrigid reg- istration,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 577–590, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection 2018: A challenge hosted by the interna- tional skin imaging collaboration (isic),

    Noel Codella, Veronica Rotemberg, Philipp Tschandl, M Emre Celebi, Stephen Dusza, David Gutman, Brian Helba, Aadi Kalloo, Konstantinos Liopyris, Michael Marchetti, et al., “Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection 2018: A challenge hosted by the interna- tional skin imaging collaboration (isic),” arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03368, 2019

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Deepglobe 2018: A challenge to parse the earth through satellite images,

    Ilke Demir, Krzysztof Koperski, David Lindenbaum, Guan Pang, Jing Huang, Saikat Basu, Forest Hughes, Devis Tuia, and Ramesh Raskar, “Deepglobe 2018: A challenge to parse the earth through satellite images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, 2018, pp. 172–181

    work page 2018

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    One-shot learning for semantic segmentation,

    Amirreza Shaban, Shray Bansal, Zhen Liu, Irfan Essa, and Byron Boots, “One-shot learning for semantic segmentation,” in British Machine Vision Conference , 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Feature weight- ing and boosting for few-shot segmentation,

    Khoi Nguyen and Sinisa Todorovic, “Feature weight- ing and boosting for few-shot segmentation,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 622–631

    2019

  3. [11]

    Prior guided feature enrichment network for few-shot segmentation,

    Zhuotao Tian, Hengshuang Zhao, Michelle Shu, Zhicheng Yang, Ruiyu Li, and Jiaya Jia, “Prior guided feature enrichment network for few-shot segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine In- telligence, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 1050–1065, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Hyper- correlation squeeze for few-shot segmentation,

    Juhong Min, Dahyun Kang, and Minsu Cho, “Hyper- correlation squeeze for few-shot segmentation,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 6941–6952

    2021

  5. [13]

    Vrp-sam: Sam with visual reference prompt,

    Yanpeng Sun, Jiahui Chen, Shan Zhang, Xinyu Zhang, Qiang Chen, Gang Zhang, Errui Ding, Jingdong Wang, and Zechao Li, “Vrp-sam: Sam with visual reference prompt,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Segment anything,

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al., “Segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  7. [15]

    How do we generalize?,

    Jessica Elizabeth Taylor, Aurelio Cortese, Helen C Bar- ron, Xiaochuan Pan, Masamichi Sakagami, and Dagmar Zeithamova, “How do we generalize?,” Neurons, be- havior, data analysis and theory, vol. 1, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Relevant intrinsic feature enhancement network for few-shot semantic segmentation,

    Xiaoyi Bao, Jie Qin, Siyang Sun, Xingang Wang, and Yun Zheng, “Relevant intrinsic feature enhancement network for few-shot semantic segmentation,” in Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, 2024, vol. 38, pp. 765–773

    2024

  9. [17]

    Hierarchi- cal dense correlation distillation for few-shot segmenta- tion,

    Bohao Peng, Zhuotao Tian, Xiaoyang Wu, Chengyao Wang, Shu Liu, Jingyong Su, and Jiaya Jia, “Hierarchi- cal dense correlation distillation for few-shot segmenta- tion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Extending segment anything model into auditory and temporal dimensions for audio-visual segmentation,

    Juhyeong Seon, Woobin Im, Sebin Lee, Jumin Lee, and Sung-Eui Yoon, “Extending segment anything model into auditory and temporal dimensions for audio-visual segmentation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2024, pp. 2480–2486

    2024

  11. [19]

    Bridge the points: Graph-based few- shot segment anything semantically,

    Anqi Zhang, Guangyu Gao, Jianbo Jiao, Chi Harold Liu, and Yunchao Wei, “Bridge the points: Graph-based few- shot segment anything semantically,” Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Asam: Boosting segment anything model with adversarial tuning,

    Bo Li, Haoke Xiao, and Lv Tang, “Asam: Boosting segment anything model with adversarial tuning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 3699–3710

    2024

  13. [21]

    Cross-domain few- shot semantic segmentation,

    Shuo Lei, Xuchao Zhang, Jianfeng He, Fanglan Chen, Bowen Du, and Chang-Tien Lu, “Cross-domain few- shot semantic segmentation,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 73–90

    2022

  14. [22]

    Cross-domain few-shot semantic segmentation via doubly matching transformation,

    Jiayi Chen, Rong Quan, and Jie Qin, “Cross-domain few-shot semantic segmentation via doubly matching transformation,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Third In- ternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-24, 2024, pp. 641–649

    2024

  15. [23]

    Domain-rectifying adapter for cross- domain few-shot segmentation,

    Jiapeng Su, Qi Fan, Wenjie Pei, Guangming Lu, and Fanglin Chen, “Domain-rectifying adapter for cross- domain few-shot segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 24036–24045

    2024

  16. [24]

    Apseg: Auto- prompt network for cross-domain few-shot semantic segmentation,

    Weizhao He, Yang Zhang, Wei Zhuo, Linlin Shen, Jiaqi Yang, Songhe Deng, and Liang Sun, “Apseg: Auto- prompt network for cross-domain few-shot semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 23762–23772

    2024

  17. [25]

    Adapt before comparison: A new per- spective on cross-domain few-shot segmentation,

    Jonas Herzog, “Adapt before comparison: A new per- spective on cross-domain few-shot segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Segment anything in high quality,

    Lei Ke, Mingqiao Ye, Martin Danelljan, Yifan liu, Yu- Wing Tai, Chi-Keung Tang, and Fisher Yu, “Segment anything in high quality,” in Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 2023, vol. 36

    2023

  19. [27]

    Personalize segment anything model with one shot,

    Renrui Zhang, Zhengkai Jiang, Ziyu Guo, Shilin Yan, Junting Pan, Hao Dong, Yu Qiao, Peng Gao, and Hong- sheng Li, “Personalize segment anything model with one shot,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Matcher: Segment anything with one shot using all-purpose feature matching,

    Yang Liu, Muzhi Zhu, Hengtao Li, Hao Chen, Xinlong Wang, and Chunhua Shen, “Matcher: Segment anything with one shot using all-purpose feature matching,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Fss-1000: A 1000-class dataset for few-shot segmentation,

    Xiang Li, Tianhan Wei, Yau Pun Chen, Yu-Wing Tai, and Chi-Keung Tang, “Fss-1000: A 1000-class dataset for few-shot segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 2869–2878

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.