Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

AffordanceSAM: Segment Anything Once More in Affordance Grounding

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that SAM, a general image segmenter, can be turned into a state-of-the-art affordance grounding model by adding learnable queries and training on a three-part coarse-to-fine dataset.

desk verdict A useful dataset recipe and a sensible SAM adaptation, but the SOTA claims are undercut by test-set tuning and a stage-1 category-overlap gap that weakens the novel-object story. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15650 v3 pith:36DDO7BU submitted 2025-04-22 cs.CV

Dengyang Jiang , Zanyi Wang , Hengzhuang Li , Sizhe Dang , Teli Ma , Wei Wei , Guang Dai , Lei Zhang
show 2 more authors
Harry Yang Mengmeng Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords affordancegroundingSegmentAnythingModeltext-promptedsegmentationfoundationadaptationcoarse-to-finedatasetpseudo-labelingvisualgeneralization
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 tries to establish that a text-prompted SAM variant can become a generalized affordance grounding model, pointing to the region of an object where a given action such as 'wear hat' or 'drink with cup' can be performed, rather than merely segmenting the whole object. The authors argue that previous fully supervised methods train key components from scratch on only hundreds of labeled images, while weakly supervised methods need complex two-branch pipelines and cannot handle new actions. Their answer is to keep SAM's image encoder and decoder, insert a small affordance-adaption module, and supervise it with a coarse-to-fine dataset called C2F-Aff built from three sources with increasing label quality. If the central claims hold, a competitive affordance grounding model can be obtained by adapting a general segmentation foundation model instead of designing task-specific architectures from scratch.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the affordance-adaption module: a set of learnable 'affordance queries' inserted between the EVF-SAM multimodal encoder and the SAM mask decoder. The queries first cross-attend to text-conditioned image features, then to a learnable weighted fusion of SAM image-encoder layers, and the refined queries are injected into the decoder alongside the original mask features to produce a heatmap-like affordance map. The second pillar is the C2F-Aff dataset and its three-stage recipe: stage 1 supervises the EVF-SAM backbone with binary masks from PADv2, Handal, and RGB-D Part Affordance; stage 2 adds post-processed LOCATE pseudo-labels on unannotated AGD20K images; stage 3 fine-tunes on human-labeled AGD20K maps. The staged schedule itself is part of the mechanism, since the ablation shows that mixing all data at once hurts performance.

What would settle it

Rerun the evaluation after deleting from training any image whose file hash appears in the test set or whose object category appears in the hard-split test categories; if any deletion changes the reported KLD, SIM, or NSS values for AffordanceSAM trained on C2F-Aff, the split-disjointness assumption is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

AffordanceSAM reports state-of-the-art results on the AGD20K benchmark, with the best Similarity and Normalized Scanpath Saliency scores among compared fully supervised methods on both the easy and hard splits, and its best KLD on the hard split. The paper attributes this to two complementary transfers: SAM's existing generalization in segmentation carries over to affordance grounding through a lightweight affordance-adaption module, and the C2F-Aff dataset supplies enough supervised signal, in three label-quality stages, to teach the model verb-object relations that do not appear in standard segmentation data. Ablations show each stage matters, since combining all data in one stage degrades performance, and qualitative results on internet images indicate the model maps novel objects and actions to reasonable affordance regions. The paper also claims the C2F-Aff data alone improves prior fully supervised methods, so the dataset is reusable beyond the proposed model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the stage-2 pseudo-labeled images and the object categories they depict do not appear in the easy or hard test splits of AGD20K; if test images or their categories leak into the training pool, the reported generalization numbers stop measuring generalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the paper's evidence, fully supervised affordance grounding can be built directly on a SAM foundation model with a small adapter, reducing the need for task-specific decoders trained from scratch.
  • C2F-Aff, when used as training data, lifts the hard-split performance of other fully supervised methods such as AffordanceLLM and OOAL, so the dataset is claimed to be a reusable resource beyond AffordanceSAM itself.
  • Because the text prompt is formed as '<action> <object>', the model can be queried with action-object pairs at inference time; qualitative results on internet images support generalization to novel objects and actions.
  • The three-stage training order matters: ablations show that the coarse-to-fine schedule, rather than simply adding more data, is necessary for the reported gains.
  • If the central claims hold, the weakly supervised approach's two-branch training complexity is no longer needed for strong affordance grounding, since a fully supervised SAM adaptation achieves higher scores with simpler supervision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the generalization claim survives on broader test sets, AffordanceSAM could be dropped into robot grasping or human-robot interaction loops where one verb-object prompt must map onto unseen object instances; the paper only gestures at robotics and reports no closed-loop test.
  • Editorial inference: the pseudo-label post-processing pipeline suggests that a weak supervisor plus aggressive thresholding can create usable affordance supervision at scale; replacing LOCATE with a stronger current model in stage 2 is a direct comparative experiment the paper does not run.
  • Editorial inference: the reported failure cases, multiple objects or multiple actions in one image, point to the single-object and single-action composition of the training data as the main remaining bottleneck, so constructing composite-scene C2F-Aff extensions is the most direct test of further gains.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. This paper proposes AffordanceSAM, a fully supervised affordance grounding model built on EVF-SAM (a text-prompted variant of SAM) with the addition of an affordance-adaption module: a set of learnable queries that cross-attend to text features and to multi-layer SAM image features. The authors also curate C2F-Aff, a three-part coarse-to-fine dataset: part 1 combines binary-mask-labeled data from PADv2, Handal, and RGB-D Part Affordance; part 2 uses LOCATE to pseudo-label the unlabeled images of AGD20K, followed by a post-processing filtration algorithm; part 3 uses the human-annotated AGD20K affordance maps. Training proceeds in three stages matching these dataset parts, with progressive unfreezing of the model. Experiments on AGD20K report state-of-the-art SIM and NSS on the easy and hard splits, and qualitative results on internet images suggest generalization to novel objects and actions.

Significance. If the results hold, the contribution is meaningful: it demonstrates that a large segmentation foundation model (SAM) can be adapted to affordance grounding with a lightweight prompt-like module, and it shows that scaling fully supervised data via pseudo-labeling improves all tested fully supervised baselines. The staged ablation is internally consistent and clearly isolates the contribution of each dataset part and module component. The architecture and training recipe are described in enough detail to be reproducible. However, the central SOTA and generalization claims are weakened by the test-set hyperparameter selection and by the incomplete category-disjointness guarantee for stage 1, detailed in the major comments. Once these issues are addressed, the paper could be a solid contribution to the affordance grounding literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experiments, Ablation Study (Tables 5 and 6)] The post-processing hyperparameters γ and the number of filtration passes in Algorithm 1 are selected using the hard split test set: Table 6 sweeps γ and reports the best NSS at γ=0.45, and Table 5 sweeps the number of filtration steps; the default settings (γ=0.45, Num=3) are then used in the main comparison of Table 2. This is test-set hyperparameter tuning, so the reported hard-split numbers are optimistically biased and are not a clean out-of-sample estimate of the model's generalization. The authors should select these hyperparameters on a validation set held out from the hard split, or alternatively state explicitly that the reported numbers include test-set selection and discuss the resulting optimism in the SOTA claims.
  2. [Evaluation section and Appendix 2] The hard-split guarantee of no object-category overlap is stated only for stages 2 and 3: the Evaluation section says 'The hard split ensures that there is no overlap between the object categories in the train and test set (both in our stage 2 and stage 3).' Appendix 2 reveals that stage 1 does not perform any object-category split: 'we do not split any object when training'. Stage 1 uses PADv2, Handal, and RGB-D Part Affordance, which plausibly contain object categories that also appear in the hard-split test list. Since stage 1 trains object-verb associations, the model has been exposed to those categories before the hard-split evaluation, even though the label format differs (binary masks vs. heatmaps). Consequently, the hard-split results do not strictly measure category-level novelty, weakening the claim of 'strong generalized capacity to novel objects'. The authors should either document that the stage-1 categories are disjoint from the hard-split test categories, or retrain without the overlapping categories and re-evaluate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Conclusion and Abstract] The term 'state-of-the-art' is used without qualification, but Table 2 shows that OOAL trained on C2F-Aff achieves a better KLD than AffordanceSAM on both the easy split (0.974 vs 1.083) and the hard split (1.119 vs 1.128). Please qualify the claim, e.g., 'best SIM and NSS'.
  2. [Approach, Section 3] There is a typo: 'finaly' should be 'finally'.
  3. [Figure 6 caption] In the caption, 'row maps' and 'row affordance maps' should be 'raw maps' and 'raw affordance maps'.
  4. [Appendix title] The appendix section titled 'Failure Cases and Feature Work' should be 'Failure Cases and Future Work'.
  5. [Reproducibility] The paper does not state whether the C2F-Aff dataset, the pseudo-label post-processing code, and the exact train/test category lists will be released; given the split-hygiene concerns raised above, releasing these artifacts is important for verification.
  6. [Figure 5] The generalization results on internet images are qualitative only; adding a small quantitative evaluation (e.g., human ratings or agreement with hand-annotated maps) would strengthen the claim of generalization to novel objects and actions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the SOTA claim rests on supervised training against external AGD20K human labels; the hard-split category-overlap caveat is a data-hygiene concern, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical supervised-transfer result: it initializes from EVF-SAM, adds a learnable affordance-adaption module, trains on C2F-Aff (merged existing datasets plus LOCATE pseudo-labels plus AGD20K human labels), and evaluates on AGD20K with KLD/SIM/NSS against human ground truth. None of the method's equations (Eqs. 1-5) defines a target quantity in terms of the metric being predicted; stage-2 pseudo-labels come from an external weakly supervised model (LOCATE), not from the test labels or from AffordanceSAM itself; stage-3 uses human labels from AGD20K, and the test split is an external benchmark. The self-citations (GLOVER, ActionCLIP) are background related-work citations and are not load-bearing. The paper itself flags the only significant validity caveat in Appendix 2: "we do not split any object when training, because the output form of this stage is completely different from the output used in the final evaluation," and the Evaluation section limits category disjointness to "both in our stage 2 and stage 3." This is a possible train/test category-overlap (leakage) concern for the hard-split generalization claim, but it is a data-selection/split-hygiene issue, not a circular reduction of a prediction to fitted inputs. Under the hard rules, that does not raise the circularity score. Score 1 reflects minor non-load-bearing self-citations and the acknowledged split caveat, with no circular derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims depend on two hyperparameters (gamma, filtration passes) selected on the test split and on three domain assumptions about the transferability of SAM to affordance grounding, the reliability of LOCATE pseudo-labels, and the adequacy of the text prompt template. No new physical or conceptual entities beyond model parameters are introduced. The loss weights are inherited from prior work.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma = 0.45
    Threshold in Algorithm 1 for post-processing LOCATE pseudo-labels; selected by sweeping five values (0, 0.3, 0.45, 0.6, 0.9) and taking the best on the AGD20K hard split (Table 6).
  • number of filtration passes = 3
    Number of recursive thresholding steps in Algorithm 1 (steps 4-6); ablation on the hard split (Table 5) picks 3 as best.
  • loss weights = lambda_dice=0.5, lambda_bce=1; focal positive=0.9, negative=0.1
    Stage 1 DICE/BCE weights and stage 2/3 focal loss weights; taken from prior work (AffordanceLLM for focal), not tuned in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Affordance grounding can be treated as text-prompted dense prediction with heatmap output, so SAM's mask decoder can be repurposed with minimal changes.
    The whole transfer strategy depends on the similarity of segmentation masks and affordance heatmaps; argued in the Introduction and Figure 2, not formally justified.
  • domain assumption LOCATE pseudo-labels, after the thresholding post-processor, are a reliable intermediate supervision signal.
    Stage 2 training relies on this; ablations show gamma=0 (no filtering) hurts, but the fundamental reliability of LOCATE outputs is assumed.
  • domain assumption The prompt template '<affordance action> <object name>' (e.g., 'wear hat') provides sufficient text supervision for learning affordances.
    Used for all training and inference; alternative prompt formats are not explored.
  • standard math The AGD20K evaluation metrics (KLD, SIM, NSS), computed as in prior work, correctly measure affordance map quality.
    Standard saliency metrics adopted from AGD20K; formulas given in the Appendix.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AffordanceSAM: Segment Anything Once More in Affordance Grounding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/36DDO7BU

@misc{pith2026250415650,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AffordanceSAM: Segment Anything Once More in Affordance Grounding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/36DDO7BU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15650}
}
read the original abstract

Building a generalized affordance grounding model to identify actionable regions on objects is vital for real-world applications. Existing methods to train the model can be divided into weakly and fully supervised ways. However, the former method requires a complex training framework design and can not infer new actions without an auxiliary prior. While the latter often struggle with limited annotated data and components trained from scratch despite being simpler. This study focuses on fully supervised affordance grounding and overcomes its limitations by proposing AffordanceSAM, which extends SAM's generalization capacity in segmentation to affordance grounding. Specifically, we design an affordance-adaption module and curate a coarse-to-fine annotated dataset called C2F-Aff to thoroughly transfer SAM's robust performance to affordance in a three-stage training manner. Experimental results confirm that AffordanceSAM achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on the AGD20K benchmark and exhibits strong generalized capacity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15650 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance Comparison: The circle area in￾dicates the number of training data, with better-performing models positioned toward the upper right. Our Affordance￾SAM and C2F-Aff data can respectively serve as an ex￾cellent base model and training data. Integrating the two achieves a performance far ahead of other candidates. vise the models (Qian et al. 2024; Li et al. 2024). However, some important affordance compone… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Differences of two task, where segmentation fo￾cuses on separating objects according to the prompt, but af￾fordance emphasizes grounding the possible effective part of objects based on the affordance query. Although there are some similarities between segmenta￾tion and affordance grounding, task differences still exist. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a). Architecture: AffordanceSAM is built upon EVF-SAM (Zhang et al. 2024) with an additional affordance￾adaption module. (b). Training: Trained on purposed C2F-Aff dataset, AffordanceSAM adopts a coarse-to-fine training recipe. et al. 2021), DINOv2 (Oquab et al. 2023)) are large-sized models trained over vast amounts of data . After training, they are suitable as a starting point for a variety of down￾stream tasks … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on AGD20K dataset. Cross-View-AG and LOCATE often make affordance predictions with a large area of low thermal regions unrelated to the target. On the contrary, OOAL focuses on a small area but sometimes it’s completely wrong. Our AffordanceSAM c…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results with novel objects from the internet. learned and novel affordance actions are marked in blue and yellow. Cross-View-AG and LOCATE can not generalize to new affordance actions, so we do not highlight any region. OOAL often outputs suboptimal afforda…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual comparison between row affordance maps and our processed maps. It is apparent that our post￾processing program successfully mitigate some low thermal regions of the row affordance maps output by LOCATE. and trained with our systematically curated C2F-Aff dataset…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Failure cases when facing multiple objects or mul [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Zero-shot 2D Grounding with Novel Affordance Types

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark and pipeline show that grounding an action word like 'cut' on a familiar object can be done without ever training on that action word, outperforming prior affordance grounding methods by a large margin.

  2. PanoAffordanceNet: Towards Holistic Affordance Grounding in 360{\deg} Indoor Environments

    cs.CV 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PanoAffordanceNet performs affordance grounding directly on 360-degree equirectangular indoor images and introduces the 360-AGD dataset, outperforming two adapted one-shot baselines on that benchmark.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    S.; Ramamoorthy, S.; and Petrick, R

    Ard \'o n, P.; Pairet, \`E .; Lohan, K. S.; Ramamoorthy, S.; and Petrick, R. 2020. Affordances in robotic tasks--a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.07400

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    P.; Ramamoorthy, S.; and Lohan, K

    Ard \'o n, P.; Pairet, E.; Petrick, R. P.; Ramamoorthy, S.; and Lohan, K. S. 2019. Learning grasp affordance reasoning through semantic relations. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 4(4): 4571--4578

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Bahl, S.; Mendonca, R.; Chen, L.; Jain, U.; and Pathak, D. 2023. Affordances from human videos as a versatile representation for robotics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 13778--13790

    2023

  6. [6]

    Bai, J.; Bai, S.; Yang, S.; Wang, S.; Tan, S.; Wang, P.; Lin, J.; Zhou, C.; and Zhou, J. 2023. Qwen-VL: A Versatile Vision-Language Model for Understanding, Localization. Text Reading, and Beyond, 2

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Bharadhwaj, H.; Gupta, A.; and Tulsiani, S. 2023. Visual affordance prediction for guiding robot exploration. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 3029--3036. IEEE

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Borja-Diaz, J.; Mees, O.; Kalweit, G.; Hermann, L.; Boedecker, J.; and Burgard, W. 2022. Affordance learning from play for sample-efficient policy learning. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 6372--6378. IEEE

    work page 2022

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Bylinskii, Z.; Judd, T.; Oliva, A.; Torralba, A.; and Durand, F. 2018. What do different evaluation metrics tell us about saliency models? IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 41(3): 740--757

    2018

  2. [10]

    Carion, N.; Massa, F.; Synnaeve, G.; Usunier, N.; Kirillov, A.; and Zagoruyko, S. 2020. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In European conference on computer vision, 213--229. Springer

    2020

  3. [11]

    Chen, Z.; Wang, W.; Tian, H.; Ye, S.; Gao, Z.; Cui, E.; Tong, W.; Hu, K.; Luo, J.; Ma, Z.; et al. 2024. How far are we to gpt-4v? closing the gap to commercial multimodal models with open-source suites. Science China Information Sciences, 67(12): 220101

    2024

  4. [12]

    Conneau, A. 2019. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02116

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gibson, J. J. 2014. The ecological approach to visual perception: classic edition. Psychology press

    2014

  6. [14]

    Guo, A.; Wen, B.; Yuan, J.; Tremblay, J.; Tyree, S.; Smith, J.; and Birchfield, S. 2023. Handal: A dataset of real-world manipulable object categories with pose annotations, affordances, and reconstructions. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and S...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Han, G.; and Lim, S.-N. 2024. Few-shot object detection with foundation models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 28608--28618

    2024

  8. [16]

    Kazemzadeh, S.; Ordonez, V.; Matten, M.; and Berg, T. 2014. Referitgame: Referring to objects in photographs of natural scenes. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), 787--798

    2014

  9. [17]

    Ke, L.; Ye, M.; Danelljan, M.; Tai, Y.-W.; Tang, C.-K.; Yu, F.; et al. 2024. Segment anything in high quality. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  10. [18]

    U.; Wasim, S

    Khattak, M. U.; Wasim, S. T.; Naseer, M.; Khan, S.; Yang, M.-H.; and Khan, F. S. 2023. Self-regulating prompts: Foundational model adaptation without forgetting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 15190--15200

    2023

  11. [19]

    Kingma, D. P. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al

    Kirillov, A.; Mintun, E.; Ravi, N.; Mao, H.; Rolland, C.; Gustafson, L.; Xiao, T.; Whitehead, S.; Berg, A. C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al. 2023. Segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 4015--4026

    2023

  13. [21]

    A.; Haustein, J

    Kokic, M.; Stork, J. A.; Haustein, J. A.; and Kragic, D. 2017. Affordance detection for task-specific grasping using deep learning. In 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th International Conference on Humanoid Robotics (Humanoids), 91--98. IEEE

    2017

  14. [22]

    Lafon, M.; Ramzi, E.; Rambour, C.; Audebert, N.; and Thome, N. 2024. Gallop: Learning global and local prompts for vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01400

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Lai, X.; Tian, Z.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Liu, S.; and Jia, J. 2024. Lisa: Reasoning segmentation via large language model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 9579--9589

    2024

  16. [24]

    Li, G.; Jampani, V.; Sun, D.; and Sevilla-Lara, L. 2023 a . Locate: Localize and transfer object parts for weakly supervised affordance grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 10922--10931

    2023

  17. [25]

    Li, G.; Sun, D.; Sevilla-Lara, L.; and Jampani, V. 2024. One-shot open affordance learning with foundation models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3086--3096

    2024

  18. [26]

    Li, J.; Li, D.; Savarese, S.; and Hoi, S. 2023 b . Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In International conference on machine learning, 19730--19742. PMLR

    2023

  19. [27]

    Lin, T. 2017. Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.02002

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Liu, H.; Li, C.; Wu, Q.; and Lee, Y. J. 2023. Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 34892--34916

    2023

  21. [29]

    Luo, H.; Zhai, W.; Zhang, J.; Cao, Y.; and Tao, D. 2022. Learning affordance grounding from exocentric images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2252--2261

    2022

  22. [30]

    Ma, T.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, J.; Wang, M.; and Liang, J. 2024. GLOVER: Generalizable open-vocabulary affordance reasoning for task-oriented grasping. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12286

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Mai, J.; Yang, M.; and Luo, W. 2020. Erasing integrated learning: A simple yet effective approach for weakly supervised object localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 8766--8775

    2020

  24. [32]

    Minaee, S.; Boykov, Y.; Porikli, F.; Plaza, A.; Kehtarnavaz, N.; and Terzopoulos, D. 2021. Image segmentation using deep learning: A survey. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(7): 3523--3542

    2021

  25. [33]

    L.; Ferm \"u ller, C.; and Aloimonos, Y

    Myers, A.; Teo, C. L.; Ferm \"u ller, C.; and Aloimonos, Y. 2015. Affordance detection of tool parts from geometric features. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 1374--1381. IEEE

    2015

  26. [34]

    Nagarajan, T.; Feichtenhofer, C.; and Grauman, K. 2019. Grounded human-object interaction hotspots from video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 8688--8697

    2019

  27. [35]

    Oquab, M.; Darcet, T.; Moutakanni, T.; Vo, H.; Szafraniec, M.; Khalidov, V.; Fernandez, P.; Haziza, D.; Massa, F.; El-Nouby, A.; et al. 2023. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Pan, X.; Gao, Y.; Lin, Z.; Tang, F.; Dong, W.; Yuan, H.; Huang, F.; and Xu, C. 2021. Unveiling the potential of structure preserving for weakly supervised object localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 11642--11651

    2021

  29. [37]

    J.; Iyer, A.; Itti, L.; and Koch, C

    Peters, R. J.; Iyer, A.; Itti, L.; and Koch, C. 2005. Components of bottom-up gaze allocation in natural images. Vision research, 45(18): 2397--2416

    2005

  30. [38]

    Qian, S.; Chen, W.; Bai, M.; Zhou, X.; Tu, Z.; and Li, L. E. 2024. Affordancellm: Grounding affordance from vision language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 7587--7597

    2024

  31. [39]

    W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al

    Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, 8748--8763. PMLR

    2021

  32. [40]

    Ravi, N.; Gabeur, V.; Hu, Y.-T.; Hu, R.; Ryali, C.; Ma, T.; Khedr, H.; R \"a dle, R.; Rolland, C.; Gustafson, L.; et al. 2024. Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ren, T.; Liu, S.; Zeng, A.; Lin, J.; Li, K.; Cao, H.; Chen, J.; Huang, X.; Chen, Y.; Yan, F.; et al. 2024. Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14159

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Ruby, U.; and Yendapalli, V. 2020. Binary cross entropy with deep learning technique for image classification. Int. J. Adv. Trends Comput. Sci. Eng, 9(10)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Schuhmann, C.; Vencu, R.; Beaumont, R.; Kaczmarczyk, R.; Mullis, C.; Katta, A.; Coombes, T.; Jitsev, J.; and Komatsuzaki, A. 2021. Laion-400m: Open dataset of clip-filtered 400 million image-text pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02114

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    H.; Li, W.; Vercauteren, T.; Ourselin, S.; and Jorge Cardoso, M

    Sudre, C. H.; Li, W.; Vercauteren, T.; Ourselin, S.; and Jorge Cardoso, M. 2017. Generalised dice overlap as a deep learning loss function for highly unbalanced segmentations. In Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support: Thi...

    2017

  37. [45]

    J.; and Ballard, D

    Swain, M. J.; and Ballard, D. H. 1991. Color indexing. International journal of computer vision, 7(1): 11--32

    1991

  38. [46]

    Wang, M.; Xing, J.; Mei, J.; Liu, Y.; and Jiang, Y. 2023 a . ActionCLIP: Adapting Language-Image Pretrained Models for Video Action Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems

    2023

  39. [47]

    K.; Singhal, S.; Som, S.; et al

    Wang, W.; Bao, H.; Dong, L.; Bjorck, J.; Peng, Z.; Liu, Q.; Aggarwal, K.; Mohammed, O. K.; Singhal, S.; Som, S.; et al. 2023 b . Image as a foreign language: Beit pretraining for vision and vision-language tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and...

    2023

  40. [48]

    Wang, Y.; Wu, A.; Yang, M.; Min, Y.; Zhu, Y.; and Deng, C. 2025. Reasoning Mamba: Hypergraph-Guided Region Relation Calculating for Weakly Supervised Affordance Grounding. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 27618--27627

    2025

  41. [49]

    Xu, P.; and Mu, Y. 2025. Weakly-supervised affordance grounding guided by part-level semantic priors

    2025

  42. [50]

    Yang, X.; Ji, Z.; Wu, J.; and Lai, Y.-K. 2023. Recent advances of deep robotic affordance learning: a reinforcement learning perspective. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 15(3): 1139--1149

    2023

  43. [51]

    C.; and Berg, T

    Yu, L.; Poirson, P.; Yang, S.; Berg, A. C.; and Berg, T. L. 2016. Modeling context in referring expressions. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 14, 69--85. Springer

    2016

  44. [52]

    Zhai, W.; Luo, H.; Zhang, J.; Cao, Y.; and Tao, D. 2022. One-shot object affordance detection in the wild. International Journal of Computer Vision, 130(10): 2472--2500

    2022

  45. [53]

    Zhang, Y.; Cheng, T.; Hu, R.; Liu, H.; Ran, L.; Chen, X.; Liu, W.; Wang, X.; et al. 2024. Evf-sam: Early vision-language fusion for text-prompted segment anything model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.20076

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Z.; Zhang, D

    Zhao, R.; Gu, Y.; Wu, J. Z.; Zhang, D. J.; Liu, J.; Wu, W.; Keppo, J.; and Shou, M. Z. 2023 a . Motiondirector: Motion customization of text-to-video diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08465

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Zhao, X.; Ding, W.; An, Y.; Du, Y.; Yu, T.; Li, M.; Tang, M.; and Wang, J. 2023 b . Fast segment anything. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12156

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Zhao, Z.-Q.; Zheng, P.; Xu, S.-t.; and Wu, X. 2019. Object detection with deep learning: A review. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 30(11): 3212--3232

    2019

  49. [57]

    Zhou, B.; Khosla, A.; Lapedriza, A.; Oliva, A.; and Torralba, A. 2016. Learning deep features for discriminative localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2921--2929

    2016

  50. [58]

    C.; and Liu, Z

    Zhou, K.; Yang, J.; Loy, C. C.; and Liu, Z. 2022. Learning to prompt for vision-language models. International Journal of Computer Vision, 130(9): 2337--2348

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.