Leveraging Multi-View Weak Supervision for Occlusion-Aware Multi-Human Parsing

Laura Bragagnolo; Leonardo Barcellona; Matteo Terreran; Stefano Ghidoni

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 24 references

Leveraging Multi-View Weak Supervision for Occlusion-Aware Multi-Human Parsing

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Multi-view consistency during fine-tuning lets a human-parsing model keep people and their body parts separate even when bodies overlap heavily, recovering up to 4.20% relative accuracy.

desk verdict A plausible multi-view weak-supervision idea and a useful new Panoptic-HuIS dataset, but the paper's headline claim rests on metric-selective numbers and validation-set tuning. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10093 v1 pith:TDDIBDF7 submitted 2025-09-12 cs.CV

Laura Bragagnolo , Matteo Terreran , Leonardo Barcellona , Stefano Ghidoni This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords multi-humanparsinginstance-levelhumanocclusionmulti-viewconsistencyweaksupervisioninstancesegmentationsemi-automaticannotationRGB-D

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

Multi-human parsing—labeling each body part while assigning it to the right person—degrades sharply when people overlap, because occluded parts are missed or assigned to the wrong instance. This paper's proposal is to exploit other viewpoints during training: the parts that are hidden in one camera are usually visible in another. The authors fine-tune a pretrained parser with two complementary signals: weak supervision from human instance masks, and a multi-view consistency loss that forces predictions for corresponding 3D points to agree on both person identity and body-part label across cameras. To supply training data, they construct Panoptic-HuIS, a 1,360-frame multi-view dataset with instance masks produced semi-automatically from RGB+D point clouds and 3D skeletons. On the CIHP benchmark's heavily overlapped subsets, the fine-tuned model beats the baseline by up to 4.20% relative while remaining comparable on non-occluded images when evaluated on categories the dataset has in common.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a multi-view consistency loss, added on top of single-view instance-guidance losses (foreground cross-entropy and Lovász-Softmax mIoU on human masks). For a sparse set of 3D points, each point's projection into N views is subject to two terms: an identity term that forces the projection to be classified as the same human instance in every view, and a part term that aggregates per-view part-confidence scores into a consensus label c* (the argmax over summed scores) and then back-propagates that label to each view. A 30 cm distance-to-surface filter keeps only projected points sufficiently close to the visible surface, so occluded regions do not inject wrong label

What would settle it

Take the Panoptic-HuIS frames used for fine-tuning, replace the semi-automatic masks with manually verified instance masks, and retrain MVIG-AIParsing; if the gain on CIHP-O80 relative to AIParsing vanishes, the weak-supervision masks are carrying the result rather than the multi-view consistency loss. Alternatively, shuffle the 3D point-to-person correspondences feeding the identity term across views: if the occlusion gain survives the shuffle, identity consistency is not the active ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper establishes that overlapping bodies are a principal failure mode for multi-human parsing and that the gap can be substantially closed by learning from multiple cameras. The central claim is that a parser fine-tuned with (i) per-view instance-guidance from human masks and (ii) a multi-view consistency loss—which, for sparse 3D points, requires the same person identity and the same body-part label to be predicted in every view where the point is visible—becomes more accurate in occlusion scenarios: it recovers larger portions of occluded bodies and attaches parts to the correct person. The improvement is demonstrated on instances of the AIParsing architecture, where fine-tuning on P

Load-bearing premise

The annotation pipeline produces correct human instance masks and keeps projected 3D points on the visible surface with the right person and part labels; if masks or point-part assignments are wrong, the weak supervision and consistency loss reinforce incorrect labels and the reported gains would not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Fine-tuning on multi-view instance masks improves parsing under heavy overlap: on the CIHP subset with at least 80% instance overlap, body-part mIoU rises from 46.81 to 48.49 and human-instance IoU from 79.21 to 82.68.
The improvement transfers to the full set of CIHP labels even though Panoptic-HuIS lacks clothing and accessory categories; without occlusions, performance stays comparable to baseline when restricted to common categories.
Four camera views are the sweet spot for the consistency loss; two views give too little constraint and eight views introduce cross-view inconsistencies.
A point-to-surface distance threshold of 30 cm best balances the number of usable 3D points against label correctness.
The framework is not tied to a specific parser: it fine-tunes any pretrained multi-human parsing model, requiring only human instance masks and multi-view RGB+D data with skeletons.

Reading between the lines

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

Since the supervision is at instance level and part labels come from the model's own aggregated predictions, the same Panoptic-HuIS masks could likely fine-tune parsers with different part taxonomies, not only AIParsing; the paper's 'independent of label convention' claim points this way but is only demonstrated on one head.
A testable extension is to replace the fixed four-view choice with an agreement-weighted selection across available cameras, which might push the consistency signal closer to the theoretical optimum suggested by the 4-view result.
The method assumes calibrated multi-view geometry at training time; if that holds, a natural next step is to use the same consistency loss during inference over a multi-camera rig, rather than only during fine-tuning.
If paired with synthetic multi-view data containing controlled occlusions, the pipeline could generate arbitrarily large weak-supervision sets, reducing the need for the 1,360-frame real dataset.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this paper is worth reading for the dataset and the multi-view consistency-loss idea, but I don't think the experiments establish the advertised 4.20% gain. The stress-test note is on target.

What's genuinely new: instance-level human parsing with multi-view weak supervision. Prior multi-view parsing work stayed at semantic level, without associating parts to individuals. The Panoptic-HuIS dataset and the SAM-based annotation pipeline are a real contribution; generating instance masks from sparse 3D skeletons plus RGB+D is nontrivial. The overlap-stratified CIHP splits are also useful.

The authors run ablations on the number of views and the beta threshold. The mIoUp gains at O60/O80 are real: absolute +2.1 and +1.7 points. The motivating intuition—another viewpoint can separate overlapping people—is sound.

The soft spots are serious. APp_vol, the metric that directly reflects the paper's objective of associating body parts to the correct person, drops on every CIHP overlap subset by about 1.9 to 2.3 points, and the paper doesn't report this. The positive numbers are concentrated in mIoU-type metrics that reward complete human masks. That's metric-selective reporting. Hyperparameters (lambda, number of views, beta) were selected on the same CIHP-O subsets reported in Table 2, with no held-out partition or seed variance. The body-part consistency loss (Eq. 6–7) uses the network's own predictions as pseudo-labels; that's a self-training loop that can reinforce errors. Only one architecture, AIParsing, is tested, and no code or data is released. The annotation-pipeline concern is real but secondary: even with perfect masks, the current experiments don't demonstrate improved instance-level parsing.

Who is this for? Researchers in multi-human parsing or multi-view training will want the dataset and the loss formulation. But the headline claim needs stronger evidence. I would send this to peer review—the idea and dataset deserve referee time—but the review should insist on APp_vol with confidence intervals, a proper validation split for hyperparameters, and at least one additional base architecture. If APp_vol no longer degrades across overlap levels, I'll take the gain seriously.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper addresses multi-human parsing under inter-person occlusion. It first measures the degradation of existing MHP models on new CIHP overlap subsets (CIHP-O20/40/60/80), then proposes MVIG-MHP, a fine-tuning framework that combines single-view weak instance supervision (IG-MHP) with a multi-view consistency loss. The multi-view loss enforces instance identity and body-part agreement across camera views using projected sparse 3D points. A new dataset, Panoptic-HuIS, is generated from CMU Panoptic Studio sequences via skeleton/point-cloud projections and SAM-based mask generation. Experiments fine-tune AIParsing on Panoptic-HuIS and evaluate on CIHP subsets, reporting improvements in mIoU-type metrics at high overlap, including a claimed up-to-4.20% relative improvement.

Significance. If the empirical claim is established, the paper would make a useful contribution: the multi-view weak-supervision idea is well-motivated, the Panoptic-HuIS dataset could be reused, and the occlusion-focused evaluation protocol is a step forward. The paper also ships a concrete fine-tuning recipe applicable to pretrained MHP models. However, the current evidence is not yet convincing because a central instance-level metric degrades systematically and the evaluation protocol permits selection on the same validation subsets used for final results. With a corrected evaluation and a direct treatment of the metric regression, the method could be a valuable addition to the field.

major comments (4)

[§5.2, §5.3] The central claim that MVIG-MHP improves multi-human parsing under occlusion is contradicted by the APp_vol metric in Table 2. MVIG-AIParsing is below AIParsing by 1.40, 2.27, 1.91, and 1.88 APp_vol points on CIHP-O20/O40/O60/O80, and by 2.51 points on the full CIHP split, while the improvements are concentrated in mIoU-type metrics. APp_vol is the instance-level part metric that directly measures correct association of body parts to persons, which is the problem the paper sets out to solve. The text in §5.2 states that MVIG-AIParsing 'consistently outperforms' the baseline, but this is not true for APp_vol at any overlap level. The paper must either explain why APp_vol is not relevant to the claimed objective, or provide a corrected evaluation that does not rely on metric selection.
[§5.2/§5.3] The hyperparameters lambda=0.5, the 4-camera choice, and the beta=30cm threshold are selected using experiments on the same CIHP validation subsets that are then reported as the final results in Table 2. No held-out validation partition, no cross-validation, and no repeated runs with different seeds are reported. This makes it difficult to rule out that the advertised gains are the result of validation-set tuning rather than a genuine effect of the method. Please provide an evaluation protocol that separates hyperparameter selection from final reporting, or report confidence intervals based on multiple seeds.
[§3.2] The body-part consistency loss is a self-training pseudo-label mechanism: the target c* is computed by taking the argmax over the sum of the network's own per-view probabilities, and is then used as the supervision target for each view. There is no confidence threshold and no external grounding for c*. If the network's predictions are consistently wrong across all views, the loss will reinforce the error. Since L_part is a load-bearing component of the proposed framework, the paper needs an analysis of consensus-label reliability, e.g., a comparison with an oracle label, or at minimum a discussion of why the cross-view sum is trustworthy.
[§4] The annotation pipeline is a major contribution, but the paper provides no quantitative validation of the generated human instance masks. The pipeline relies on sparse point-cloud projections, K-means seed placement, sequential far-to-near SAM segmentation, and a 30cm surface-distance filter; errors in any of these steps could propagate directly into the weak supervision. Please add a quantitative mask-quality evaluation (e.g., comparison with a manually annotated subset, or an oracle/upper-bound experiment) to show that the generated masks are reliable enough to serve as supervision.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] The 'up to 4.20% relative improvement' is not tied to a specific metric or subset. Please state the metric and subset explicitly in the abstract.
[§1] There is a typo: 'CHIP dataset' should read 'CIHP dataset'.
[§3.2] The notation is unclear: c* is an argmax label index, but the loss expression treats it as a scalar probability. Please clarify whether one-hot encoding is used and define p(p_i^j | c) explicitly.
[§5.3] The ablations report only mIoUp and mIoUh, not APp_vol. Since the main concern about the method is its effect on instance-level part association, the ablations should include APp_vol as well.
[§5.2] The statement that performance drops on non-occluded images 'is limited to body-part labels that are unseen, thus not weakly supervised' is imprecise; the drop could also be due to distribution shift in the visible categories. Consider a more careful wording.
[§5.2] Only 50 3D points are sampled per scene for the multi-view loss. This is a small number; please specify how the points are sampled and whether the results are sensitive to this choice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: reported gains are evaluated on external CIHP ground truth, and the multi-view pseudo-label loss is a consistency regularizer rather than a self-defined prediction target.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The Panoptic-HuIS instance masks are generated from external sources (CMU Panoptic RGB+D, 3D skeletons, point clouds, and SAM), not from the MHP model being fine-tuned. The IG-MHP losses (Eqs. 2-4) compare network outputs to those externally produced masks. The multi-view identity loss (Eq. 5) also uses 3D ground-truth instance associations projected through calibrated cameras. The only self-referential component is the body-part consistency loss: Eq. 6 defines the pseudo-label c* as the argmax of the network's own aggregated per-view predictions, and Eq. 7 then trains each view to match c*. This is a self-training/consistency regularizer rather than an independent supervisory signal. However, it is not the source of the paper's headline claim: the reported 4.20% relative improvement is measured on held-out CIHP validation subsets against CIHP ground-truth annotations (Table 2), so the benchmark result does not reduce to the pseudo-label loop by construction. No load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling citation was found. The skeptic's point about hyperparameters (lambda, number of views, beta threshold) being selected on the same CIHP validation subsets used for final reporting is a legitimate evaluation-protocol concern, but it concerns overfitting/tuning validity, not circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central method rests on external skeleton-derived masks plus self-generated part pseudo-labels. The main empirical knobs are tuned on the reported benchmark, and the new dataset is not released.

free parameters (5)

lambda (IG-MHP combination weight) = 0.5
Chosen by experiments as providing the best results (Sec. 5.2).
beta (3D point surface-distance threshold) = 30 cm
Selected as best of 20, 30, and 40 cm in ablation on CIHP-O subsets (Sec. 5.3).
number of camera views for multi-view loss = 4
Chosen after comparing 2, 4, and 8 neighboring views in Table 3 (Sec. 5.3).
number of sampled 3D points = 50
Random points sampled for computational efficiency (Sec. 5.2), not justified by accuracy.
fine-tuning schedule = SGD, lr=3e-4, batch=8, 20 epochs
Training choices for fine-tuning (Sec. 5.2); no sensitivity analysis is reported.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Overlapping people that look merged in one view are separated in at least one other available view.
Core motivation of the paper, stated in Sec. 1; if this fails, multi-view consistency gives no useful separation signal.
domain assumption 3D skeleton joints from CMU Panoptic Studio identify the correct person for each point, and point-to-nearest-joint association separates instances reliably.
Used in the annotation pipeline (Sec. 4); wrong associations would produce wrong instance masks.
ad hoc to paper The beta=30cm point-to-surface filter keeps only projected points whose visible surface label is trustworthy.
Threshold is set by experiments taking the average thickness of the human body (Sec. 3.2, 5.3); it controls all points used in Eqs. 5-7.
ad hoc to paper Pre-trained MHP part probabilities are informative enough to form a correct consensus label c* by summing across views.
Eq. 6 estimates c* from network outputs; if every view is confidently wrong, the loss trains toward that wrong label.

invented entities (1)

Panoptic-HuIS dataset
purpose: Provides weak human instance segmentation masks from multi-view RGB-D and skeletons for fine-tuning MHP models.
No download link or release plan is given; masks are generated by the described SAM-based pipeline with known merging and sparsity failure modes (Sec. 4).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveraging Multi-View Weak Supervision for Occlusion-Aware Multi-Human Parsing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDDIBDF7

@misc{pith2026250910093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveraging Multi-View Weak Supervision for Occlusion-Aware Multi-Human Parsing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDDIBDF7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10093}
}

read the original abstract

Multi-human parsing is the task of segmenting human body parts while associating each part to the person it belongs to, combining instance-level and part-level information for fine-grained human understanding. In this work, we demonstrate that, while state-of-the-art approaches achieved notable results on public datasets, they struggle considerably in segmenting people with overlapping bodies. From the intuition that overlapping people may appear separated from a different point of view, we propose a novel training framework exploiting multi-view information to improve multi-human parsing models under occlusions. Our method integrates such knowledge during the training process, introducing a novel approach based on weak supervision on human instances and a multi-view consistency loss. Given the lack of suitable datasets in the literature, we propose a semi-automatic annotation strategy to generate human instance segmentation masks from multi-view RGB+D data and 3D human skeletons. The experiments demonstrate that the approach can achieve up to a 4.20\% relative improvement on human parsing over the baseline model in occlusion scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10093 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Our approach for occlusion-robust multi-human parsing includes a multi-view dataset annotation pipeline (top), generating human segmentation masks for the finetuning process (middle). The inference phase (bottom, in green) shows results before and after applying MVIG-MHP. 2 Related Works Multi-human parsing. Multi-human parsing methods can be categorized into three main classes: bottom-up, top-down, and single-stag… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Sample images with human instance segmentation annotations from the Panoptic-HuIS dataset. camera using the available camera calibration parameters. However, due to inherent sparsity and noise in the point clouds, these projections cannot directly form complete masks. Instead, seed points are extracted from sparse projections and used as prompts in a promptable segmentation model (e.g. Segment Anything [14]), to o… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Qualitative comparison between AIParsing and MVIG-AIParsing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

Antonello, M., Wolf, D., Prankl, J., Ghidoni, S., Menegatti, E., Vincze, M.: Multi- view 3d entangled forest for semantic segmentation and mapping. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 1855–1862. IEEE (2018)

2018
[2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Berman, M., Triki, A.R., Blaschko, M.B.: The lovász-softmax loss: A tractable surrogate for the optimization of the intersection-over-union measure in neural networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 4413–4421 (2018)

2018
[3]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Chen, X., Mottaghi, R., Liu, X., Fidler, S., Urtasun, R., Yuille, A.: Detect what you can: Detecting and representing objects using holistic models and body parts. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1971–1978 (2014)

1971
[4]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Cheng, B., Misra, I., Schwing, A.G., Kirillov, A., Girdhar, R.: Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1290–1299 (2022)

2022
[5]

In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia

Chu, J., Jin, L., Fan, X., Teng, Y., Wei, Y., Fang, Y., Xing, J., Zhao, J.: Single- stage multi-human parsing via point sets and center-based offsets. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia. pp. 1863–1873 (2023)

2023
[6]

IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2024)

Chu, J., Jin, L., Teng, Y., Li, J., Wei, Y., Wang, Z., Xing, J., Yan, S., Zhao, J.: Uniparser: Multi-human parsing with unified correlation representation learning. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2024)

2024
[7]

IEEE Transactions on Multimedia26, 1384–1394 (2023) 12 L

Dai, Y., Chen, X., Wang, X., Pang, M., Gao, L., Shen, H.T.: Resparser: Fully convolutional multiple human parsing with representative sets. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia26, 1384–1394 (2023) 12 L. Bragagnolo et al

2023
[8]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Dong, H., Liang, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Shen, X., Xie, Z., Wu, B., Yin, J.: Fash- ion editing with adversarial parsing learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 8120–8128 (2020)

2020

Show all 24 references

[9]

In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV)

Gong, K., Liang, X., Li, Y., Chen, Y., Yang, M., Lin, L.: Instance-level human parsing via part grouping network. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). pp. 770–785 (2018)

2018
[10]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Güler, R.A., Neverova, N., Kokkinos, I.: Densepose: Dense human pose estimation in the wild. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 7297–7306 (2018)

2018
[11]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision

He, K., Gkioxari, G., Dollár, P., Girshick, R.: Mask r-cnn. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. pp. 2961–2969 (2017)

2017
[12]

He,K.,Zhang,X.,Ren,S.,Sun,J.:Deepresiduallearningforimagerecognition.In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 770–778 (2016)

2016
[13]

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2017)

Joo, H., Simon, T., Li, X., Liu, H., Tan, L., Gui, L., Banerjee, S., Godisart, T.S., Nabbe, B., Matthews, I., Kanade, T., Nobuhara, S., Sheikh, Y.: Panoptic studio: A massively multiview system for social interaction capture. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine I...

2017
[14]

arXiv:2304.02643 (2023)

Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A.C., Lo, W.Y., Dollár, P., Girshick, R.: Segment anything. arXiv:2304.02643 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[15]

In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP)

Li, B., Zhao, X.: Human carving: A parsing-based framework for 3d human recon- struction. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). pp. 3238–3242 (2021).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP42928.2021.9506068

2021
[16]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Lin, T.Y., Dollár, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Hariharan, B., Belongie, S.: Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 2117–2125 (2017)

2017
[17]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Robert, D., Vallet, B., Landrieu, L.: Learning multi-view aggregation in the wild for large-scale 3d semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 5575–5584 (2022)

2022
[18]

In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

Ruan, T., Liu, T., Huang, Z., Wei, Y., Wei, S., Zhao, Y.: Devil in the details: Towards accurate single and multiple human parsing. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. vol. 33, pp. 4814–4821 (2019)

2019
[19]

In: 2021 20th International Conference on Ad- vanced Robotics (ICAR)

Terreran, M., Barcellona, L., Evangelista, D., Ghidoni, S.: Multi-view human pars- ing for human-robot collaboration. In: 2021 20th International Conference on Ad- vanced Robotics (ICAR). pp. 905–912. IEEE (2021)

2021
[20]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

Tian, Z., Shen, C., Chen, H., He, T.: Fcos: Fully convolutional one-stage object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 9627–9636 (2019)

2019
[21]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00394 (2023)

Yang, L., Jia, W., Li, S., Song, Q.: Deep learning technique for human parsing: A survey and outlook. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00394 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[22]

In: European Conference on Computer Vision

Yang, L., Song, Q., Wang, Z., Hu, M., Liu, C., Xin, X., Jia, W., Xu, S.: Renovating parsing r-cnn for accurate multiple human parsing. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 421–437. Springer (2020)

2020
[23]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Yang, L., Song, Q., Wang, Z., Jiang, M.: Parsing r-cnn for instance-level human analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 364–373 (2019)

2019
[24]

IEEE Transactions on Image Processing31, 5599–5612 (2022)

Zhang, S., Cao, X., Qi, G.J., Song, Z., Zhou, J.: Aiparsing: anchor-free instance- level human parsing. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing31, 5599–5612 (2022)

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

Antonello, M., Wolf, D., Prankl, J., Ghidoni, S., Menegatti, E., Vincze, M.: Multi- view 3d entangled forest for semantic segmentation and mapping. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 1855–1862. IEEE (2018)

2018

[2] [2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Berman, M., Triki, A.R., Blaschko, M.B.: The lovász-softmax loss: A tractable surrogate for the optimization of the intersection-over-union measure in neural networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 4413–4421 (2018)

2018

[3] [3]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Chen, X., Mottaghi, R., Liu, X., Fidler, S., Urtasun, R., Yuille, A.: Detect what you can: Detecting and representing objects using holistic models and body parts. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1971–1978 (2014)

1971

[4] [4]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Cheng, B., Misra, I., Schwing, A.G., Kirillov, A., Girdhar, R.: Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1290–1299 (2022)

2022

[5] [5]

In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia

Chu, J., Jin, L., Fan, X., Teng, Y., Wei, Y., Fang, Y., Xing, J., Zhao, J.: Single- stage multi-human parsing via point sets and center-based offsets. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia. pp. 1863–1873 (2023)

2023

[6] [6]

IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2024)

Chu, J., Jin, L., Teng, Y., Li, J., Wei, Y., Wang, Z., Xing, J., Yan, S., Zhao, J.: Uniparser: Multi-human parsing with unified correlation representation learning. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2024)

2024

[7] [7]

IEEE Transactions on Multimedia26, 1384–1394 (2023) 12 L

Dai, Y., Chen, X., Wang, X., Pang, M., Gao, L., Shen, H.T.: Resparser: Fully convolutional multiple human parsing with representative sets. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia26, 1384–1394 (2023) 12 L. Bragagnolo et al

2023

[8] [8]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Dong, H., Liang, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Shen, X., Xie, Z., Wu, B., Yin, J.: Fash- ion editing with adversarial parsing learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 8120–8128 (2020)

2020