Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation via Multi-view Progressive Adaptation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cross-domain few-shot segmentation can be built from a single target exemplar by progressively adapting to harder augmented views, sidestepping source-domain meta-training.

desk verdict MPA is a plausible method with a genuinely interesting source-free claim, but the progressive schedule is underspecified to the point where it may be leaking test information, and a key baseline number is inconsistent across figures and tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.05217 v2 pith:7J3S3MUW submitted 2026-02-05 cs.CV

Jiahao Nie , Guanqiao Fu , Wenbin An , Yap-Peng Tan , Alex C. Kot , Shijian Lu This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords cross-domainfew-shotsegmentationprogressiveaugmentationmulti-viewpredictioncurriculumlearningdomainadaptationsemanticsource-free
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 argues that the real bottleneck in cross-domain few-shot segmentation is not the scale of source-domain meta-training but the strategy used to adapt to the data-scarce target domain. With only a single support image available, it builds a curriculum of augmented views whose complexity and count rise as the model improves, and supervises them through two complementary prediction chains—one that accumulates errors sequentially, one that diversifies errors in parallel. The result is a 7.0-point average mIoU gain over prior state-of-the-art methods, and a source-free variant that matches or exceeds two-stage pipelines while saving roughly 80% of training time. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that a well-designed progression over one exemplar can substitute for large-scale source training in this setting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the progressive curriculum over augmented views, realized by HPA and DMP. HPA starts with a single simple flip of the support image and, as performance stagnates for three consecutive epochs, cumulatively appends a stronger augmentation operation and adds another query view—so the 'task' scales exactly with the model's growing capacity. DMP shares an encoder across support and query views, pools the support feature into a prototype, and runs two prediction chains: a sequential chain that conditions each new view's prediction on the previous one (propagating and accumulating errors) and a parallel chain that independently predicts each view from the support proto

What would settle it

Re-run MPA on Deepglobe and ISIC with a fixed view schedule (e.g., add a view every five epochs) and compare mIoU against the stagnation-triggered schedule; if the fixed schedule matches or exceeds it, the progressive trigger is not load-bearing. Alternatively, disable the sequential chain and keep only the parallel chain; if mIoU does not drop, the error-propagation mechanism is superfluous.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that few-shot capability in a target domain can be established directly during adaptation by exploiting multiple augmented views of the single accessible support image. Hybrid Progressive Augmentation (HPA) drives the training with gradually stronger cumulative augmentations and a gradually growing number of views, so the model faces a ladder of tasks from easy to hard. Dual-chain Multi-view Prediction (DMP) then enforces dense supervision over a sequential chain, where each later view's prediction builds on earlier ones and errors propagate, and over a parallel chain, where each view is predicted independently from the support prototype and err

Load-bearing premise

The entire progression hinges on detecting when performance stagnates for three consecutive epochs, yet with only one support image and no held-out validation set, the paper does not state which metric or data that detection uses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A two-stage pipeline (source meta-train plus target adapt) can be replaced by single-stage adaptation on the target exemplar, keeping or improving accuracy while cutting training time by roughly 80%.
  • The 7.0-point average mIoU gain over the previous best method comes mostly from the adaptation stage, not from source pre-training.
  • A single support image can serve as sufficient seed data for building few-shot capability, provided it is expanded into a progressive multi-view curriculum.
  • Both the data-side progression (HPA) and the strategy-side dual-chain supervision (DMP) are individually necessary; ablations show each adds 1-10+ mIoU points depending on dataset.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the stagnation-based schedule is the active ingredient, reproducing it on domains with different loss landscapes will require a well-defined stagnation metric; a fixed schedule that matches its performance would undercut the curriculum's role (our testable extension).
  • The success of source-free adaptation suggests that CD-FSS methods should shift research effort from source meta-training design to adaptation-stage curricula; this may also apply to few-shot object detection and classification under domain shift.
  • Because all augmented views are derived from one support image, the method is bounded by that image's information content; combining MPA with generative or semantic-preserving augmentations could push the ceiling higher.
  • The paper's comparisons are all on 2D RGB or grayscale imagery; an open question is whether the same progressive multi-view logic transfers to volumetric or non-visual data, where augmentation operations must be defined carefully.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Multi-view Progressive Adaptation (MPA) for Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation (CD-FSS). Starting from a source-trained segmentation model, MPA adapts to a target domain using only the support image and its augmented copies. Two components are introduced: Hybrid Progressive Augmentation (HPA), which progressively adds harder augmentations and increases the number of augmented query views, and Dual-chain Multi-view Prediction (DMP), which supervises both sequential and parallel prediction chains across the views. Experiments on five target datasets report mIoU gains of +7.0% over IFA in the 1-shot setting, and a source-free variant that reaches 73.4% mIoU on average without source-domain training. The paper argues that most of the improvement comes from the adaptation stage rather than from source training.

Significance. If the results are reproducible, the paper makes a useful contribution: it shows that a carefully designed curriculum of augmented views and dense multi-view supervision can adapt a few-shot segmentation model to target domains using a single labeled target image. The source-free result (Sec. 5.3) is particularly interesting and could simplify the CD-FSS pipeline. The extensive ablations in Tables 6-8 and the comparison across five benchmarks are a strength. However, the central progressive-learning mechanism depends on an undefined stagnation criterion, and there is an unexplained inconsistency between Figure 1 and Table 6. These issues prevent me from fully endorsing the claimed gains at this stage.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.2, implementation details] The adaptive criterion 'when the performance stagnates for three consecutive epochs' is never made precise. Under the 1-shot protocol, the only labeled target data are the support image and its augmented copies (Eq. 1); there is no held-out validation set. If the mIoU used to detect stagnation is computed on these augmented training views, the schedule is a training-fit heuristic; if it is computed on the actual query/test images, adaptation would leak test labels. The text must state the metric, the data split, and how leakage is avoided. This is load-bearing because the progressive schedule and the reported +7.0% improvement depend on this trigger.
  2. [Figure 1 vs Table 6] Figure 1 reports an ISIC baseline of 64.5 and MPA of 74.3, while Table 6 reports the corresponding baseline as 42.2 and +DMP+HPA as 71.1. The Deepglobe baseline also differs slightly (43.2 vs 42.1). Since Figure 1 motivates the entire approach, these numbers must be reconciled or the figure's setup clarified. As written, the figure's claim that 'simply incorporating multiple augmented views yields only marginal gains' is not consistent with the paper's own ablation table.
  3. [Eq. (9) and Sec. 4.1] The four loss weights (lambda_bs=0.2, lambda_seq=0.1, lambda_par_s=0.4, lambda_par_q=1) and the augmentation operation order (flip, vertical flip, 90-degree rotation, brightness, hue, grid shuffle) are free parameters. The main text refers to the supplementary materials for their determination, but the supplementary is not provided in the manuscript. Without a sensitivity analysis or an explicit schedule, the reported state-of-the-art results are not reproducible. Please either move the parameter study into the main text or make the supplementary available with the submission.
  4. [Tables 3-8] All reported numbers are single-run point estimates without error bars or significance tests. Because adaptation uses only one support image, the variance across training seeds and episode configurations could be substantial. The source-free claim (73.4% mIoU, Sec. 5.3) is a central result and should be accompanied by mean +/- std over at least three seeds, and ideally over multiple support/query episode splits.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The notation AU G(Is), AU G(Ms) is ambiguous: it should state explicitly whether the same random augmentation parameters are applied to the image and the mask, and how the ground-truth label is transformed under geometric augmentations.
  2. [Sec. 4.3] The sentence 'The determination of the values of these parameters is discussed in the supplementary materials' is repeated for the loss weights and for hyper-parameters in Sec. 5.4. If the supplementary is an appendix, please include at least a summary table in the main text, since these values are not derivable from the method description.
  3. [Fig. 3] The caption says 'Column 3-5' for comparisons but the panel layout is difficult to follow. Please label each panel (a)-(b) and columns explicitly, and ensure the cited columns match the displayed images.
  4. [Sec. 5.5] The efficiency comparison in Table 9 reports only two datasets and two baselines. Please specify the hardware, software versions, and whether the time includes evaluation; this would make the '80% time reduction' claim more interpretable.
  5. [Sec. 5.1] The dataset descriptions cite two references for Chest X-Ray and two for ISIC2018; please verify that the correct references correspond to the actual dataset versions used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the adaptation is supervised only by the support mask and its augmented views, and evaluation is on held-out target queries.

full rationale

The paper's central adaptation pipeline is self-contained rather than circular. All training labels for the augmented query views are generated from the single accessible support mask via Eq. (1): {(I_qi, M_qi)} = AUG(I_s), AUG(M_s), and the losses in Eqs. (4), (7), and (8) compare model predictions against these self-generated masks. This is a standard consistency/self-supervision setup, not a case where a claimed prediction reduces to the input by construction: the reported numbers (Tables 3 and 5) are evaluated on held-out target query images after adaptation (footnote 3), which are independent of the support-derived training views. The progressive schedule in Sec. 5.2 ('when the performance stagnates for three consecutive epochs') is under-specified regarding which set the mIoU is computed on; this is a reproducibility and possible test-leakage concern, but it is not a demonstrated circularity because the paper does not define the stagnation metric as the target prediction. If the mIoU were computed on the test set, that would be test-set tuning rather than definitional circularity. Self-citations to IFA [39] motivate the sequential prediction chain and provide a baseline, but the central HPA/DMP design is independently ablated in Tables 6-8 and compared against IFA as an external baseline, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or text.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

MPA is a pure empirical method with no new theoretical constructs. The central burden is the assumption that self-generated augmented views of the single support image transfer to unseen query images, and the validation of the progressive schedule. The number of hand-chosen hyperparameters is moderate (loss weights, augmentation order, stagnation patience) and they are not fully justified in the main text.

free parameters (3)
  • Loss weights (lambda_bs, lambda_seq, lambda_par_s, lambda_par_q) = 0.2, 0.1, 0.4, 1.0
    Hand-chosen; the paper states detailed determination is in the supplementary materials, but no sensitivity analysis appears in the main text. These weights directly control the training signal.
  • Augmentation operation set and cumulative order = flip, rotation, brightness, hue, grid shuffle; up to N=6 views
    The set and order are arbitrary; Table 1 and Table 8 show cumulative augmentation helps, but the specific choice is not justified as optimal.
  • Stagnation patience for adding views = 3 epochs
    Hand-chosen threshold for the progressive schedule; no justification and no metric specified for detecting stagnation.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Augmenting the support image and mask yields valid training pairs representative of the target segmentation task.
    Eq. 1 derives all query images and masks from the single support image; the method's adaptation signal depends entirely on this assumption.
  • domain assumption A curriculum from easy to complex views facilitates establishing few-shot capability in target domains.
    Borrowed from curriculum learning [56]; the paper's Tab. 7 supports it empirically but only on two datasets.
  • ad hoc to paper Performance stagnation on the self-generated training views indicates when to add harder views.
    Sec. 5.2 says a new view is added when performance stagnates for three epochs, but no validation metric exists with a single support image; this is an unvalidated heuristic central to the progressive schedule.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation via Multi-view Progressive Adaptation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7J3S3MUW

@misc{pith2026260205217,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation via Multi-view Progressive Adaptation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7J3S3MUW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.05217}
}
read the original abstract

Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation aims to segment categories in data-scarce domains conditioned on a few exemplars. Typical methods first establish few-shot capability in a large-scale source domain and then adapt it to target domains. However, due to the limited quantity and diversity of target samples, existing methods still exhibit constrained performance. Moreover, the source-trained model's initially weak few-shot capability in target domains, coupled with substantial domain gaps, severely hinders the effective utilization of target samples and further impedes adaptation. To this end, we propose Multi-view Progressive Adaptation, which progressively adapts few-shot capability to target domains from both data and strategy perspectives. (i) From the data perspective, we introduce Hybrid Progressive Augmentation, which progressively generates more diverse and complex views through cumulative strong augmentations, thereby creating increasingly challenging learning scenarios. (ii) From the strategy perspective, we design Dual-chain Multi-view Prediction, which fully leverages these progressively complex views through sequential and parallel learning paths under extensive supervision. By jointly enforcing prediction consistency across diverse and complex views, MPA achieves both robust and accurate adaptation to target domains. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MPA effectively adapts few-shot capability to target domains, outperforming state-of-the-art methods by a large margin (+7.0%).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.05217 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Up: Simply incorporating multiple augmented views from the accessible target samples increases the sample avail￾able for establishing few-shot capability but yields only marginal gains, as the large domain gap limits effective utilization of heavily perturbed views. In contrast, our proposed Multi-View Progres￾sive Adaptation (MPA) significantly improves the performance. Down: MPA adopts a progressive strategy to ad… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of the proposed Multi-view Progressive Adaptation (MPA). MPA starts with Hybrid Progressive Augmentation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative illustrations over five data-scarce domains, including Deepglobe, ISIC, Chest X-Ray, FSS-1000, and SUIM from up [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation study on different adaptation strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Few-shot seg- mentation without meta-learning: A good transductive infer- ence is all you need? InCVPR, 2021

    Malik Boudiaf, Hoel Kervadec, Ziko Imtiaz Masud, Pablo Piantanida, Ismail Ben Ayed, and Jose Dolz. Few-shot seg- mentation without meta-learning: A good transductive infer- ence is all you need? InCVPR, 2021. 2, 6

    2021

  2. [2]

    Lung segmentation in chest radiographs using anatomical atlases with nonrigid registration.TMI, 2013

    Sema Candemir, Stefan Jaeger, Kannappan Palaniappan, 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 registration.TMI, 2013. 1, 5, 6

    2013

  3. [3]

    Pixel matching network for cross-domain few- shot segmentation

    Hao Chen, Yonghan Dong, Zheming Lu, Yunlong Yu, and Jungong Han. Pixel matching network for cross-domain few- shot segmentation. InWACV, 2024. 2, 6

    2024

  4. [4]

    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. InIJCAI, 2024. 2

    2024

  5. [5]

    A closer look at few-shot classi- fication

    Wei-Yu Chen, Yen-Cheng Liu, Zsolt Kira, Yu-Chiang Frank Wang, and Jia-Bin Huang. A closer look at few-shot classi- fication. InICLR, 2019. 1

    2019

  6. [6]

    Holistic pro- totype activation for few-shot segmentation.TPAMI, 2022

    Gong Cheng, Chunbo Lang, and Junwei Han. Holistic pro- totype activation for few-shot segmentation.TPAMI, 2022. 2

    2022

  7. [7]

    Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection 2018: A challenge hosted by the interna- tional skin imaging collaboration (isic).arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03368, 2019

    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. 1, 5, 6

    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. InCVPRW, 2018. 1, 5

    2018

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. InCVPR, 2009. 5

    2009

  2. [10]

    Few-shot semantic segmen- tation with prototype learning

    Nanqing Dong and Eric P Xing. Few-shot semantic segmen- tation with prototype learning. InBMVC, 2018. 1, 2

    2018

  3. [11]

    The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge.IJCV, 2010

    Mark Everingham, Luc Van Gool, Christopher KI Williams, John Winn, and Andrew Zisserman. The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge.IJCV, 2010. 1, 6

    2010

  4. [12]

    Darnet: Bridging domain gaps in cross-domain few-shot segmentation with dynamic adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04813, 2023

    Haoran Fan, Qi Fan, Maurice Pagnucco, and Yang Song. Darnet: Bridging domain gaps in cross-domain few-shot segmentation with dynamic adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04813, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Self- support few-shot semantic segmentation

    Qi Fan, Wenjie Pei, Yu-Wing Tai, and Chi-Keung Tang. Self- support few-shot semantic segmentation. InECCV, 2022. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7

    2022

  6. [14]

    Adapt- ing in-domain few-shot segmentation to new domains with- out retraining.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21414, 2025

    Qi Fan, Kaiqi Liu, Nian Liu, Hisham Cholakkal, Rao Muhammad Anwer, Wenbin Li, and Yang Gao. Adapt- ing in-domain few-shot segmentation to new domains with- out retraining.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21414, 2025. 2, 4

    2025

  7. [15]

    Cross-domain few-shot object detection via enhanced open-set object detector

    Yuqian Fu, Yu Wang, Yixuan Pan, Lian Huai, Xingyu Qiu, Zeyu Shangguan, Tong Liu, Yanwei Fu, Luc Van Gool, and Xingqun Jiang. Cross-domain few-shot object detection via enhanced open-set object detector. InECCV, 2024. 2

    2024

  8. [16]

    Acrofod: An adaptive method for cross-domain few-shot object detection

    Yipeng Gao, Lingxiao Yang, Yunmu Huang, Song Xie, Shiy- ong Li, and Wei-Shi Zheng. Acrofod: An adaptive method for cross-domain few-shot object detection. InECCV, 2022. 7

    2022

  9. [17]

    Simple copy-paste is a strong data augmentation method for instance segmentation

    Golnaz Ghiasi, Yin Cui, Aravind Srinivas, Rui Qian, Tsung- Yi Lin, Ekin D Cubuk, Quoc V Le, and Barret Zoph. Simple copy-paste is a strong data augmentation method for instance segmentation. InCVPR, 2021. 7

    2021

  10. [18]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InCVPR,

  11. [19]

    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. InCVPR, 2024. 1, 2, 6

    2024

  12. [20]

    Adapt before comparison: A new perspective on cross-domain few-shot segmentation

    Jonas Herzog. Adapt before comparison: A new perspective on cross-domain few-shot segmentation. InCVPR, 2024. 2, 5, 6, 7

    2024

  13. [21]

    Cross attention network for few-shot classi- fication

    Ruibing Hou, Hong Chang, Bingpeng Ma, Shiguang Shan, and Xilin Chen. Cross attention network for few-shot classi- fication. InNeurIPS, 2019. 1

    2019

  14. [22]

    Restnet: Boosting cross-domain few-shot segmentation with residual transformation network

    Xinyang Huang, Chuang Zhu, and Wenkai Chen. Restnet: Boosting cross-domain few-shot segmentation with residual transformation network. InBMVC, 2023. 2, 6

    2023

  15. [23]

    Semantic segmentation of underwater im- agery: Dataset and benchmark

    Md Jahidul Islam, Chelsey Edge, Yuyang Xiao, Peigen Luo, Muntaqim Mehtaz, Christopher Morse, Sadman Sakib Enan, and Junaed Sattar. Semantic segmentation of underwater im- agery: Dataset and benchmark. InIROS, 2020. 5, 6

    2020

  16. [24]

    Automatic tuberculosis screening using chest radio- graphs.TMI, 2013

    Stefan Jaeger, Alexandros Karargyris, Sema Candemir, Les Folio, Jenifer Siegelman, Fiona Callaghan, Zhiyun Xue, Kannappan Palaniappan, Rahul K Singh, Sameer Antani, et al. Automatic tuberculosis screening using chest radio- graphs.TMI, 2013. 5, 6

    2013

  17. [25]

    Few-shot object detection via feature reweighting

    Bingyi Kang, Zhuang Liu, Xin Wang, Fisher Yu, Jiashi Feng, and Trevor Darrell. Few-shot object detection via feature reweighting. InICCV, 2019. 1

    2019

  18. [26]

    Relational embedding for few-shot classification

    Dahyun Kang, Heeseung Kwon, Juhong Min, and Minsu Cho. Relational embedding for few-shot classification. In ICCV, 2021. 1

    2021

  19. [27]

    Segment any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. InICCV, 2023. 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    Learning what not to segment: A new perspective on few- shot segmentation

    Chunbo Lang, Gong Cheng, Binfei Tu, and Junwei Han. Learning what not to segment: A new perspective on few- shot segmentation. InCVPR, 2022. 2

    2022

  21. [29]

    Base and meta: A new perspective on few-shot segmentation.TPAMI, 2023

    Chunbo Lang, Gong Cheng, Binfei Tu, Chao Li, and Jun- wei Han. Base and meta: A new perspective on few-shot segmentation.TPAMI, 2023. 2

    2023

  22. [30]

    Cross-domain few-shot se- mantic segmentation

    Shuo Lei, Xuchao Zhang, Jianfeng He, Fanglan Chen, Bowen Du, and Chang-Tien Lu. Cross-domain few-shot se- mantic segmentation. InECCV, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 9

    2022

  23. [31]

    Adaptive prototype learning and allocation for few-shot segmentation

    Gen Li, Varun Jampani, Laura Sevilla-Lara, Deqing Sun, Jonghyun Kim, and Joongkyu Kim. Adaptive prototype learning and allocation for few-shot segmentation. InCVPR,

  24. [32]

    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. InCVPR, 2020. 5, 6

    2020

  25. [33]

    Constructing self-motivated pyramid curriculums for cross- domain semantic segmentation: A non-adversarial approach

    Qing Lian, Fengmao Lv, Lixin Duan, and Boqing Gong. Constructing self-motivated pyramid curriculums for cross- domain semantic segmentation: A non-adversarial approach. InICCV, 2019. 2

    2019

  26. [34]

    Inter- mediate prototype mining transformer for few-shot semantic segmentation

    Yuanwei Liu, Nian Liu, Xiwen Yao, and Junwei Han. Inter- mediate prototype mining transformer for few-shot semantic segmentation. InNeurIPS, 2022. 2

    2022

  27. [35]

    Simpler is better: Few-shot semantic segmenta- tion with classifier weight transformer

    Zhihe Lu, Sen He, Xiatian Zhu, Li Zhang, Yi-Zhe Song, and Tao Xiang. Simpler is better: Few-shot semantic segmenta- tion with classifier weight transformer. InICCV, 2021. 2

    2021

  28. [36]

    Pfenet++: Boosting few-shot semantic segmentation with the noise-filtered context-aware prior mask.TPAMI, 2023

    Xiaoliu Luo, Zhuotao Tian, Taiping Zhang, Bei Yu, Yuan Yan Tang, and Jiaya Jia. Pfenet++: Boosting few-shot semantic segmentation with the noise-filtered context-aware prior mask.TPAMI, 2023. 2

    2023

  29. [37]

    Hypercorrela- tion squeeze for few-shot segmentation

    Juhong Min, Dahyun Kang, and Minsu Cho. Hypercorrela- tion squeeze for few-shot segmentation. InICCV, 2021. 1, 2, 6

    2021

  30. [38]

    Msi: Maximize support-set information for few-shot segmentation

    Seonghyeon Moon, Samuel S Sohn, Honglu Zhou, Sejong Yoon, Vladimir Pavlovic, Muhammad Haris Khan, and Mub- basir Kapadia. Msi: Maximize support-set information for few-shot segmentation. InICCV, 2023. 2

    2023

  31. [39]

    Cross-domain few-shot segmentation via iterative support-query correspon- dence mining

    Jiahao Nie, Yun Xing, Gongjie Zhang, Pei Yan, Aoran Xiao, Yap-Peng Tan, Alex C Kot, and Shijian Lu. Cross-domain few-shot segmentation via iterative support-query correspon- dence mining. InCVPR, 2024. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  32. [40]

    Automatic differentiation in pytorch

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Al- ban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. Automatic differentiation in pytorch. 2017. 5

    2017

  33. [41]

    Hierarchical dense correlation distillation for few-shot segmentation

    Bohao Peng, Zhuotao Tian, Xiaoyang Wu, Chengyao Wang, Shu Liu, Jingyong Su, and Jiaya Jia. Hierarchical dense correlation distillation for few-shot segmentation. InCVPR,

  34. [42]

    Sam-aware graph prompt reasoning network for cross-domain few-shot segmentation

    Shi-Feng Peng, Guolei Sun, Yong Li, Hongsong Wang, and Guo-Sen Xie. Sam-aware graph prompt reasoning network for cross-domain few-shot segmentation. InAAAI, 2025. 2

    2025

  35. [43]

    Aligndiff: aligning diffusion models for general few-shot segmentation

    Ri-Zhao Qiu, Yu-Xiong Wang, and Kris Hauser. Aligndiff: aligning diffusion models for general few-shot segmentation. InECCV, 2024. 2

    2024

  36. [44]

    Guided curriculum model adaptation and uncertainty-aware evalua- tion for semantic nighttime image segmentation

    Christos Sakaridis, Dengxin Dai, and Luc Van Gool. Guided curriculum model adaptation and uncertainty-aware evalua- tion for semantic nighttime image segmentation. InICCV,

  37. [45]

    Cdfsl-v: Cross-domain few- shot learning for videos

    Sarinda Samarasinghe, Mamshad Nayeem Rizve, Navid Kardan, and Mubarak Shah. Cdfsl-v: Cross-domain few- shot learning for videos. InICCV, 2023. 3

    2023

  38. [46]

    One-shot learning for semantic segmentation

    Amirreza Shaban, Shray Bansal, Zhen Liu, Irfan Essa, and Byron Boots. One-shot learning for semantic segmentation. InBMVC, 2017. 2

    2017

  39. [47]

    Amp: Adaptive masked proxies for few-shot segmentation

    Mennatullah Siam, Boris N Oreshkin, and Martin Jagersand. Amp: Adaptive masked proxies for few-shot segmentation. InICCV, 2019. 6

    2019

  40. [48]

    Prototypical networks for few-shot learning

    Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard Zemel. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. InNeurIPS, 2017. 1, 2

    2017

  41. [49]

    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. InCVPR, 2024. 1, 2, 6

    2024

  42. [50]

    Prior guided feature enrich- ment network for few-shot segmentation.TPAMI, 2020

    Zhuotao Tian, Hengshuang Zhao, Michelle Shu, Zhicheng Yang, Ruiyu Li, and Jiaya Jia. Prior guided feature enrich- ment network for few-shot segmentation.TPAMI, 2020. 1, 2, 6

    2020

  43. [51]

    Lightweight frequency masker for cross-domain few-shot se- mantic segmentation

    Jintao Tong, Yixiong Zou, Yuhua Li, and Ruixuan Li. Lightweight frequency masker for cross-domain few-shot se- mantic segmentation. InNeurIPS, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  44. [52]

    Self-disentanglement and re-composition for cross-domain few-shot segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02677, 2025

    Jintao Tong, Yixiong Zou, Guangyao Chen, Yuhua Li, and Ruixuan Li. Self-disentanglement and re-composition for cross-domain few-shot segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02677, 2025. 2

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    The ham10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source der- matoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions.Sci- entific Data, 2018

    Philipp Tschandl, Cliff Rosendahl, and Harald Kittler. The ham10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source der- matoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions.Sci- entific Data, 2018. 5, 6

    2018

  46. [54]

    Panet: Few-shot image semantic segmenta- tion with prototype alignment

    Kaixin Wang, Jun Hao Liew, Yingtian Zou, Daquan Zhou, and Jiashi Feng. Panet: Few-shot image semantic segmenta- tion with prototype alignment. InICCV, 2019. 2, 6

    2019

  47. [55]

    Remember the differ- ence: Cross-domain few-shot semantic segmentation via meta-memory transfer

    Wenjian Wang, Lijuan Duan, Yuxi Wang, Qing En, Jun- song Fan, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. Remember the differ- ence: Cross-domain few-shot semantic segmentation via meta-memory transfer. InCVPR, 2022. 2, 6

    2022

  48. [56]

    A survey on curriculum learning.TPAMI, 2021

    Xin Wang, Yudong Chen, and Wenwu Zhu. A survey on curriculum learning.TPAMI, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  49. [57]

    Adap- tive agent transformer for few-shot segmentation

    Yuan Wang, Rui Sun, Zhe Zhang, and Tianzhu Zhang. Adap- tive agent transformer for few-shot segmentation. InECCV,

  50. [58]

    Task-adaptive prompted transformer for cross-domain few-shot learning

    Jiamin Wu, Xin Liu, Xiaotian Yin, Tianzhu Zhang, and Yongdong Zhang. Task-adaptive prompted transformer for cross-domain few-shot learning. InAAAI, 2024. 2

    2024

  51. [59]

    Few-shot object detection and viewpoint estimation for objects in the wild.TPAMI, 2022

    Yang Xiao, Vincent Lepetit, and Renaud Marlet. Few-shot object detection and viewpoint estimation for objects in the wild.TPAMI, 2022. 1

    2022

  52. [60]

    Self-calibrated cross attention network for few-shot segmentation

    Qianxiong Xu, Wenting Zhao, Guosheng Lin, and Cheng Long. Self-calibrated cross attention network for few-shot segmentation. InICCV, 2023. 2

    2023

  53. [61]

    Eliminating feature ambi- guity for few-shot segmentation

    Qianxiong Xu, Guosheng Lin, Chen Change Loy, Cheng Long, Ziyue Li, and Rui Zhao. Eliminating feature ambi- guity for few-shot segmentation. InECCV, 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    Hybrid mamba for few-shot segmentation

    Qianxiong Xu, Xuanyi Liu, Lanyun Zhu, Guosheng Lin, Cheng Long, Ziyue Li, and Rui Zhao. Hybrid mamba for few-shot segmentation. InNeurIPS, 2024. 2

    2024

  55. [63]

    Prototype mixture models for few-shot semantic seg- mentation

    Boyu Yang, Chang Liu, Bohao Li, Jianbin Jiao, and Qixiang Ye. Prototype mixture models for few-shot semantic seg- mentation. InECCV, 2020. 6

    2020

  56. [64]

    Tavp: Task-adaptive visual prompt for cross-domain few-shot segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05393,

    Jiaqi Yang, Ye Huang, Xiangjian He, Linlin Shen, and Guop- ing Qiu. Tavp: Task-adaptive visual prompt for cross-domain few-shot segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05393,

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Mi- anet: Aggregating unbiased instance and general information for few-shot semantic segmentation

    Yong Yang, Qiong Chen, Yuan Feng, and Tianlin Huang. Mi- anet: Aggregating unbiased instance and general information for few-shot semantic segmentation. InCVPR, 2023. 2

    2023

  58. [66]

    Self-guided and cross-guided learning for few-shot segmentation

    Bingfeng Zhang, Jimin Xiao, and Terry Qin. Self-guided and cross-guided learning for few-shot segmentation. InCVPR,

  59. [67]

    Pyramid graph networks with connection attentions for region-based one-shot semantic segmentation

    Chi Zhang, Guosheng Lin, Fayao Liu, Jiushuang Guo, Qingyao Wu, and Rui Yao. Pyramid graph networks with connection attentions for region-based one-shot semantic segmentation. InICCV, 2019. 6

    2019

  60. [68]

    Canet: Class-agnostic segmentation networks with it- erative refinement and attentive few-shot learning

    Chi Zhang, Guosheng Lin, Fayao Liu, Rui Yao, and Chunhua Shen. Canet: Class-agnostic segmentation networks with it- erative refinement and attentive few-shot learning. InCVPR,

  61. [69]

    Few-shot segmentation via cycle-consistent trans- former

    Gengwei Zhang, Guoliang Kang, Yi Yang, and Yunchao Wei. Few-shot segmentation via cycle-consistent trans- former. InNeurIPS, 2021. 2, 4

    2021

  62. [70]

    Meta-detr: Image-level few-shot detection with inter-class correlation exploitation.TPAMI, 2022

    Gongjie Zhang, Zhipeng Luo, Kaiwen Cui, Shijian Lu, and Eric P Xing. Meta-detr: Image-level few-shot detection with inter-class correlation exploitation.TPAMI, 2022. 1

    2022

  63. [71]

    Personalize segment anything model with one shot

    Renrui Zhang, Zhengkai Jiang, Ziyu Guo, Shilin Yan, Junt- ing Pan, Xianzheng Ma, Hao Dong, Peng Gao, and Hong- sheng Li. Personalize segment anything model with one shot. InICLR, 2023. 2, 6

    2023

  64. [72]

    A curriculum domain adaptation approach to the se- mantic segmentation of urban scenes.TPAMI, 2019

    Yang Zhang, Philip David, Hassan Foroosh, and Boqing Gong. A curriculum domain adaptation approach to the se- mantic segmentation of urban scenes.TPAMI, 2019. 2

    2019

  65. [73]

    Addressing background context bias in few-shot segmentation through iterative modulation

    Lanyun Zhu, Tianrun Chen, Jianxiong Yin, Simon See, and Jun Liu. Addressing background context bias in few-shot segmentation through iterative modulation. InCVPR, 2024. 2 11

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.