Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

O2Former:Direction-Aware and Multi-Scale Query Enhancement for SAR Ship Instance Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read O2Former claims that giving Mask2Former a multi-scale query generator and an orientation-aware embedding module produces state-of-the-art SAR ship instance segmentation, reaching 71.9% AP offshore and 63.2% AP inshore on PSeg-SSDD.

desk verdict O2Former's modules are reasonable, but the reported SOTA margin is not credible because the SSDD runs use HRSID transfer initialization while baselines likely do not. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11913 v1 pith:4ME4NV5X submitted 2025-06-13 cs.CV

F. Gao , Y Li , X He , J Sun , J Wang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords SARshipinstancesegmentationMask2Formerquery-basedlearningorientation-awareembeddingpolarcoordinateencodingmulti-scalefeaturefusionPSeg-SSDDHRSID
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

O2Former claims that the standard query-based instance segmentation architecture Mask2Former can be made substantially more accurate on SAR ship imagery by intervening at two points: how the decoder queries are initialized and how directional information is encoded into features. The paper introduces the Optimized Query Generator (OQG), which builds queries from globally pooled multi-scale backbone features plus a learned ship prototype, and the Orientation-Aware Embedding Module (OAEM), which extracts features at several rotated angles and fuses them with polar-coordinate geometric priors. On the PSeg-SSDD benchmark the combined model reaches 71.9% AP in offshore scenes and 63.2% AP inshore, versus 70.6% and 56.2% for the previous best model DiffSARShipInst and 67.2% and 52.5% for Mask2Former. On HRSID the reported gains are smaller but consistent, with O2Former leading on high-IoU (AP75) inshore segmentation, which the paper reads as evidence of sharper mask boundaries. If these numbers hold under matched training conditions, the work shows that query initialization and orientation priors are decisive for dense, directionally diverse SAR scenes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pair of modules inserted between the backbone and the transformer decoder. The Optimized Query Generator (OQG) performs a softmax-weighted fusion of global-average-pooled multi-scale features with learnable scale embeddings, then updates a randomly initialized ship prototype through a cosine-similarity signal, so each query carries multi-scale semantic information before it enters the decoder. The Orientation-Aware Embedding Module (OAEM) samples the feature map at N angles θ_i = iπ/N via affine-grid rotation, applies an independent convolution to each rotated copy, encodes spatial position as normalized polar coordinates (r, θ), and merges these two streams with an input-dependent weight. The polar-coordinate radius is meant to separate central and edge regions, while the angle channel lets convolution kernels learn rotation patterns explicitly, and the dynamic fusion weight lets the network choose how much to trust semantic versus geometric structure per location. Together they are intended to fix the feature-alignment and directional-diversity failures the paper attributes to zero-initialized queries and orientation-blind attention in Mask2Former.

What would settle it

Re-train O2Former and every baseline on PSeg-SSDD and HRSID with identical data splits, augmentation, learning-rate schedule, and inference settings, running at least five seeds per method, and check whether the 1.3-point offshore and 7.0-point inshore AP margins over DiffSARShipInst persist; a separate check is to sweep the OAEM angle count N (for example N=4, 8, 12) and measure whether performance is flat, which would indicate the orientation module is not the source of the gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that O2Former, by adding OQG and OAEM to Mask2Former, outperforms state-of-the-art instance segmentation methods on the PSeg-SSDD and HRSID SAR ship datasets. The OQG replaces zero-initialized queries with a context-aware initialization: the four backbone feature maps C2 through C5 are globally pooled, flattened, stacked with per-scale embeddings, and passed through a linear layer with softmax attention; the resulting fused feature is matched against a learnable ship prototype by cosine similarity, and the updated prototype becomes the query set. The OAEM rotates the input feature map by N preset angles using affine-grid sampling, runs a dedicated convolution branch per angle, converts Cartesian coordinates into normalized polar coordinates (radius and angle), and dynamically fuses the orientation-sensitive and polar features with softmax-derived weights. The paper reports that the two modules together lift Mask2Former from 67.2% to 71.9% AP in PSeg-SSDD offshore scenes and from 52.5% to 63.2% AP inshore, with the biggest absolute gains at the high IoU threshold AP75.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains assume that all comparison methods were trained and evaluated under genuinely matched conditions (same data splits, preprocessing, and hyperparameter care) and that a single run of each method represents its true performance; the paper gives only coarse training details and does not state the number of queries, the angle count N in OAEM, or multiple seeds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On PSeg-SSDD, adding both modules raises AP over Mask2Former by 4.7 points offshore and 10.7 points inshore, with the largest gains at the high IoU threshold AP75 (up 9.7 points offshore and 21.3 points inshore).
  • OQG alone improves multi-scale and small-object perception, while OAEM alone improves boundary detail, so the two modules are complementary rather than redundant.
  • On HRSID, which has more small ships and complex background clutter, O2Former still leads on most metrics, including AP75 inshore (45.9%), indicating the orientation priors help in dense and cluttered scenes.
  • The model's reduced false alarms, fewer missed small targets, and clearer separation of adjacent ships in the reported visualizations suggest it can be applied to maritime monitoring tasks that demand reliable instance-level masks.
  • Because both modules attach to the Mask2Former backbone-decoder interface, the reported improvements are obtained without changing the training data or the base query-based segmentation paradigm.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test the paper leaves implicit is to rotate ships in the test set by arbitrary angles and measure AP; OAEM's polar encoding is angle-sensitive, but the fixed set of N angles may not deliver full rotation invariance, and the paper does not report an angle sweep.
  • OQG's design is not SAR-specific and could be plugged into other query-based detectors and segmenters where query initialization is a known convergence bottleneck, possibly transferring the multi-scale initialization benefit to optical imagery as well.
  • The reported AP_L numbers on PSeg-SSDD rest on very few large targets (19 inshore, 52 offshore), so the large-object gains are statistically fragile and should be read as indicative rather than conclusive.
  • The single-run evaluation protocol leaves open the possibility that part of the reported lead comes from training stochasticity; reporting seeded variance would let the field separate architectural gains from run-to-run noise.
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 O2Former, an extension of Mask2Former for SAR ship instance segmentation, with two new modules: an Optimized Query Generator (OQG) that initializes transformer queries from multi-scale backbone features, and an Orientation-Aware Embedding Module (OAEM) that injects direction-sensitive and polar-coordinate geometric priors. The method is evaluated on PSeg-SSDD and HRSID against several state-of-the-art baselines, reporting improved AP in most settings, with the largest gains on inshore scenarios of PSeg-SSDD (63.2% AP vs. 56.2% for the strongest baseline). The paper also includes an ablation study quantifying the contribution of each module.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper provides a practically useful improvement for a niche but application-relevant task: instance segmentation of ships in SAR imagery. The design is well motivated by SAR-specific challenges (scale variation, orientation diversity, boundary fuzziness), and the combination of query initialization with orientation-aware features is a reasonable extension of Mask2Former. The experimental scope is appropriate for the venue, with two public datasets and multiple baselines. However, the paper currently lacks the experimental rigor needed to substantiate the central claim of state-of-the-art performance: no repeated runs or error bars, unspecified baseline initialization, and incomplete method details that prevent independent reproduction. The theoretical novelty is limited, but the empirical contribution could be acceptable if the issues are resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-C, Table II] The SSDD results are obtained with a model that was pre-trained on HRSID and then fine-tuned on SSDD ('initialized on HRSID ... and fine-tuned on SSDD'), but the paper does not state whether any of the comparison baselines (Mask2Former, DiffSARShipInst, etc.) received the same transfer initialization. In small-data SAR settings, HRSID pre-training can yield gains of several AP points, which is larger than the reported 0.8–1.3 point offshore margins over DiffSARShipInst. To support the claim that OQG and OAEM are responsible for the improvement, the authors must either specify that all baselines used identical pre-training/initialization procedures or provide an additional controlled comparison, e.g., training every method from ImageNet-only weights and reporting both settings.
  2. [§III-B, Eqs. (1)–(4)] The OQG equations are internally inconsistent and prevent reproduction. Global average pooling in Eq. (1) reduces each feature map to a 1×1×C vector, so after flattening and stacking, F in Eq. (2) should be of shape B×4×C. The text, however, states F∈R^{B×N×C} with N=H×W, which cannot be obtained from the stated operations. Moreover, Eq. (4) sums over i=0 to 4, but there are only four scales (C2–C5), so the index range is incorrect (should be i=1..4 or i=0..3). These ambiguities must be corrected or the module described precisely.
  3. [§III-C, Eq. (7)] In the OAEM description, Eq. (7) declares X_rot^i ∈ R^{(C/N)×H×W} after rotating the input X∈R^{C×H×W}, but rotating a feature map should preserve the channel dimension. It is unclear whether the channels are split into N groups before rotation, or whether the rotation is applied to the full tensor and the output dimension is a typo. This matters because Eq. (9) concatenates N branches to obtain C×H×W, which implies each branch has C/N channels. Please clarify the channel handling and specify the hyperparameter N used in the experiments, as it does not appear in Section IV-C.
  4. [§IV-C and Table IV] The paper reports single-run results for all methods and ablations, with no error bars, standard deviations, or repeated-seed experiments. Given that several reported differences are small (e.g., 0.8 AP on HRSID offshore in Table III), and the ablation gains vary substantially (e.g., OQG+OAEM inshore AP75 is 0.812 versus 0.631 for OAEM alone in Table IV), it is impossible to assess whether these differences are statistically meaningful. Please add at least three runs with different seeds and report mean±std, or justify why single runs are adequate for the claimed conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-C] The implementation description states 'PyTorch 3.8,' which is not a valid PyTorch version; presumably this should be Python 3.8 with a specific PyTorch release.
  2. [§III-C, Eq. (15)] There is a typo in Eq. (15): 'F_poalr' should be 'F_polar'.
  3. [§IV-B, Eqs. (16)–(17)] 'presion' should be 'precision.'
  4. [§IV-B, Eq. (18)] The AP integral in Eq. (18) is written without integration limits; consider adding 0 to 1 explicitly for clarity.
  5. [§I] The introduction refers to 'traditional method [15], [16], [17], [18]' with inconsistent singular/plural agreement; minor editorial revision is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central claim rests on external benchmark comparisons, not on self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: O2Former reports 71.9% AP on PSeg-SSDD offshore and 63.2% inshore versus DiffSARShipInst at 70.6% and 56.2%, and 71.7% offshore on HRSID. These results are measured on external datasets (PSeg-SSDD/SSDD and HRSID) against external baselines, so they are not derived from the method's own definitions. OQG and OAEM are architectural additions whose contributions are evaluated by ablations (Table IV) under the same training pipeline; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations present ([3], [4], [7], [18], [57]) are related-work or baseline references and are not load-bearing premises of the empirical claim. The paper does contain a reproducibility inconsistency in Eq. (1): global average pooling followed by flattening yields a per-scale vector of length C, yet the text states F in R^{B×N×C} with N=H×W; this is a correctness concern, not a circularity of derivation. Likewise, the stated HRSID-to-SSDD transfer initialization in Section IV-C could make the comparison uncontrolled if baselines did not receive the same initialization, but that is an experimental-control concern, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim draws on several hand-set or learned parameters (scale embeddings, ship prototype, similarity factor, angle count) and on unstated assumptions about rotation equivariance, polar geometry, and evaluation fairness. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Scale embedding E_i
    Learnable per-scale embeddings added to pooled features in Eq. (1) so OQG can distinguish different resolution levels.
  • Ship prototype P
    Randomly initialized learnable prototype used in Eqs. (5)-(6); updated via similarity with encoded multi-scale features.
  • Similarity scaling factor eta = 0.1
    Hand-set weight used to update the ship prototype in Eq. (6); no ablation or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • OAEM angle count N
    Predefined number of rotation branches in OAEM (Section III-C); the value is never disclosed, affecting reproducibility.
  • Transformer decoder query count
    Number of queries used by the decoder is not specified in Section IV-C, yet it is a central capacity parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mask2Former with a ResNet-50 backbone is a suitable and strong baseline for SAR ship instance segmentation.
    The entire framework builds on Mask2Former (Ref [14]) without questioning whether its inductive biases fit radar imagery.
  • ad hoc to paper Rotating feature maps and convolving them captures ship orientation information that improves segmentation.
    Section III-C assumes that direction-aware convolution via affine grid sampling provides rotation robustness; this is not proven, and SAR backscatter depends on illumination angle, not just object rotation.
  • domain assumption Polar coordinates (r, theta) encode geometric priors useful for distinguishing ships of different scales and positions.
    Equations (10)-(12) assume the feature map center is a meaningful origin for polar encoding, which is not true for object-centered features in general.
  • domain assumption Official dataset splits and random sampling produce fair and representative train/test partitions.
    Section IV-A and IV-C state official splits but also mention random sampling; the ambiguity could affect comparability with prior results.
  • ad hoc to paper Single-run evaluation is sufficient to determine performance differences.
    No seeds, repeats, or statistical tests are reported; conclusions treat point estimates as definitive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of O2Former:Direction-Aware and Multi-Scale Query Enhancement for SAR Ship Instance Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ME4NV5X

@misc{pith2026250611913,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: O2Former:Direction-Aware and Multi-Scale Query Enhancement for SAR Ship Instance Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ME4NV5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11913}
}
read the original abstract

Instance segmentation of ships in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery is critical for applications such as maritime monitoring, environmental analysis, and national security. SAR ship images present challenges including scale variation, object density, and fuzzy target boundary, which are often overlooked in existing methods, leading to suboptimal performance. In this work, we propose O2Former, a tailored instance segmentation framework that extends Mask2Former by fully leveraging the structural characteristics of SAR imagery. We introduce two key components. The first is the Optimized Query Generator(OQG). It enables multi-scale feature interaction by jointly encoding shallow positional cues and high-level semantic information. This improves query quality and convergence efficiency. The second component is the Orientation-Aware Embedding Module(OAEM). It enhances directional sensitivity through direction-aware convolution and polar-coordinate encoding. This effectively addresses the challenge of uneven target orientations in SAR scenes. Together, these modules facilitate precise feature alignment from backbone to decoder and strengthen the model's capacity to capture fine-grained structural details. Extensive experiments demonstrate that O2Former outperforms state of the art instance segmentation baselines, validating its effectiveness and generalization on SAR ship datasets.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cloud adversarial example generation for remote sensing image classification,

    F. Ma, Y . Feng, F. Zhang, and Y . Zhou, “Cloud adversarial example generation for remote sensing image classification,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    Improving doa estimation of gnss interference through sparse non-uniform array reconfiguration,

    L. Rongling, X. Hao, G. Fei, T. Zewen, W. Zhipenget al., “Improving doa estimation of gnss interference through sparse non-uniform array reconfiguration,”Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, p. 103384, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Novel category discovery without forgetting for automatic target recognition,

    H. Huang, F. Gao, J. Sun, J. Wang, A. Hussain, and H. Zhou, “Novel category discovery without forgetting for automatic target recognition,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 17, pp. 4408–4420, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Few- shot class-incremental sar target recognition via orthogonal distributed features,

    L. Kong, F. Gao, X. He, J. Wang, J. Sun, H. Zhou, and A. Hussain, “Few- shot class-incremental sar target recognition via orthogonal distributed features,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 325–341, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Fast sar image segmentation with deep task-specific superpixel sampling and soft graph convolution,

    F. Ma, F. Zhang, Q. Yin, D. Xiang, and Y . Zhou, “Fast sar image segmentation with deep task-specific superpixel sampling and soft graph convolution,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–16, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Sar ship detection algorithm based on deep dense sim attention mechanism network,

    H. Shan, X. Fu, Z. Lv, and Y . Zhang, “Sar ship detection algorithm based on deep dense sim attention mechanism network,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 23, no. 14, pp. 16 032–16 041, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Scattering characteristics guided network for isar space target component segmen- tation,

    F. Zhong, F. Gao, T. Liu, J. Wang, J. Sun, and H. Zhou, “Scattering characteristics guided network for isar space target component segmen- tation,”IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Gland instance segmentation using deep multichannel neural networks,

    Y . Xu, Y . Li, Y . Wang, M. Liu, Y . Fan, M. Lai, and E. I.-C. Chang, “Gland instance segmentation using deep multichannel neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 2901–2912, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Enhancing geometric factors in model learning and inference for object detection and instance segmentation,

    Z. Zheng, P. Wang, D. Ren, W. Liu, R. Ye, Q. Hu, and W. Zuo, “Enhancing geometric factors in model learning and inference for object detection and instance segmentation,”IEEE transactions on cybernetics, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 8574–8586, 2021. AUTHORet al.: PREPARATION OF PAPERS ...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Ccldet: A cross-modality and cross-domain low-light detector,

    X. Shang, N. Li, D. Li, J. Lv, W. Zhao, R. Zhang, and J. Xu, “Ccldet: A cross-modality and cross-domain low-light detector,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Edge-constrained guided feature perception network for ship detection in sar images,

    S. Xu, J. Fan, X. Jia, and J. Chang, “Edge-constrained guided feature perception network for ship detection in sar images,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 23, no. 21, pp. 26 828–26 838, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Multiscale accurate ship detection network driven by multiattention fusion for complex maritime backgrounds,

    Z. Li, D. Kong, J. Liu, X. Sun, Q. Du, and L. Zhang, “Multiscale accurate ship detection network driven by multiattention fusion for complex maritime backgrounds,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 9208–9216, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    An improved superpixel-level cfar detection method for ship targets in high-resolution sar images,

    T. Li, Z. Liu, R. Xie, and L. Ran, “An improved superpixel-level cfar detection method for ship targets in high-resolution sar images,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 184–194, 2017

    2017

  6. [15]

    A hybrid improved group search optimization and otsu method for color image segmenta- tion,

    L. D. Pacifico, T. B. Ludermir, and L. F. Britto, “A hybrid improved group search optimization and otsu method for color image segmenta- tion,” in2018 7th Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems (BRACIS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 296–301

    2018

  7. [16]

    An optimal multiedge detector for sar image segmentation,

    R. Fjortoft, A. Lopes, P. Marthon, and E. Cubero-Castan, “An optimal multiedge detector for sar image segmentation,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 793–802, 1998

    1998

  8. [17]

    Region-merging method with texture pattern attention for sar image segmentation,

    S. Fan, Y . Sun, and P. Shui, “Region-merging method with texture pattern attention for sar image segmentation,”IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 112–116, 2020

    2020

  9. [18]

    Weakly supervised segmentation of sar imagery using superpixel and hierarchically adver- sarial crf,

    F. Ma, F. Gao, J. Sun, H. Zhou, and A. Hussain, “Weakly supervised segmentation of sar imagery using superpixel and hierarchically adver- sarial crf,”Remote Sensing, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 512, 2019

    2019

  10. [19]

    Sar ship detection dataset (ssdd): Official release and comprehensive data analysis,

    T. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Li, X. Xu, B. Wang, X. Zhan, Y . Xu, X. Ke, T. Zeng, H. Suet al., “Sar ship detection dataset (ssdd): Official release and comprehensive data analysis,”Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 18, p. 3690, 2021

    2021

  11. [20]

    Hrsid: A high-resolution sar images dataset for ship detection and instance segmentation,

    S. Wei, X. Zeng, Q. Qu, M. Wang, H. Su, and J. Shi, “Hrsid: A high-resolution sar images dataset for ship detection and instance segmentation,”Ieee Access, vol. 8, pp. 120 234–120 254, 2020

    2020

  12. [21]

    Hybrid task cascade for instance segmentation,

    K. Chen, J. Pang, J. Wang, Y . Xiong, X. Li, S. Sun, W. Feng, Z. Liu, J. Shi, W. Ouyanget al., “Hybrid task cascade for instance segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 4974–4983

    2019

  13. [22]

    Path aggregation network for instance segmentation,

    S. Liu, L. Qi, H. Qin, J. Shi, and J. Jia, “Path aggregation network for instance segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 8759–8768

    2018

  14. [23]

    Mask r-cnn,

    K. He, G. Gkioxari, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Mask r-cnn,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2017, pp. 2961–2969

    2017

  15. [24]

    Feature pyramid networks for object detection,

    T.-Y . Lin, P. Doll´ar, R. Girshick, K. He, B. Hariharan, and S. Belongie, “Feature pyramid networks for object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 2117–2125

    2017

  16. [25]

    Cascade r-cnn: Delving into high quality object detection,

    Z. Cai and N. Vasconcelos, “Cascade r-cnn: Delving into high quality object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 6154–6162

    2018

  17. [26]

    Mask scoring r-cnn,

    Z. Huang, L. Huang, Y . Gong, C. Huang, and X. Wang, “Mask scoring r-cnn,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 6409–6418

    2019

  18. [27]

    Solo: Segmenting objects by locations,

    X. Wang, T. Kong, C. Shen, Y . Jiang, and L. Li, “Solo: Segmenting objects by locations,” inComputer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XVIII

    2020

  19. [28]

    Springer, 2020, pp. 649–665

    2020

  20. [29]

    Yolact: Real-time instance segmentation,

    D. Bolya, C. Zhou, F. Xiao, and Y . J. Lee, “Yolact: Real-time instance segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 9157–9166

    2019

  21. [30]

    Hq- isnet: High-quality instance segmentation for remote sensing imagery,

    H. Su, S. Wei, S. Liu, J. Liang, C. Wang, J. Shi, and X. Zhang, “Hq- isnet: High-quality instance segmentation for remote sensing imagery,” Remote Sensing, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 989, 2020

    2020

  22. [31]

    Scale in scale for sar ship instance segmentation,

    Z. Shao, X. Zhang, S. Wei, J. Shi, X. Ke, X. Xu, X. Zhan, T. Zhang, and T. Zeng, “Scale in scale for sar ship instance segmentation,”Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 629, 2023

    2023

  23. [32]

    Learning to aggregate multi-scale context for instance segmentation in remote sensing images,

    Y . Liu, H. Li, C. Hu, S. Luo, Y . Luo, and C. W. Chen, “Learning to aggregate multi-scale context for instance segmentation in remote sensing images,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 595–609, 2024

    2024

  24. [33]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Loet al., “Segment anything,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  25. [34]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

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

    2010 arXiv

  26. [35]

    End-to-end object detection with transformers,

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

    2020

  27. [36]

    Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation,

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

    2022

  28. [37]

    Segmenter: Trans- former for semantic segmentation,

    R. Strudel, R. Garcia, I. Laptev, and C. Schmid, “Segmenter: Trans- former for semantic segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 7262–7272

    2021

  29. [38]

    Segformer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers,

    E. Xie, W. Wang, Z. Yu, A. Anandkumar, J. M. Alvarez, and P. Luo, “Segformer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 12 077–12 090, 2021

    2021

  30. [39]

    Rsprompter: Learning to prompt for remote sensing instance seg- mentation based on visual foundation model,

    K. Chen, C. Liu, H. Chen, H. Zhang, W. Li, Z. Zou, and Z. Shi, “Rsprompter: Learning to prompt for remote sensing instance seg- mentation based on visual foundation model,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 62, pp. 1–17, 2024

    2024

  31. [40]

    Ef- ficient instance segmentation paradigm for interpreting sar and optical images,

    F. Fan, X. Zeng, S. Wei, H. Zhang, D. Tang, J. Shi, and X. Zhang, “Ef- ficient instance segmentation paradigm for interpreting sar and optical images,”Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 531, 2022

    2022

  32. [41]

    Imaggarment-1: Fine-grained garment generation for controllable fashion design,

    F. Shen, J. Yu, C. Wang, X. Jiang, X. Du, and J. Tang, “Imaggarment-1: Fine-grained garment generation for controllable fashion design,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13176, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Dab-detr: Dynamic anchor boxes are better queries for detr,

    S. Liu, F. Li, H. Zhang, X. Yang, X. Qi, H. Su, J. Zhu, and L. Zhang, “Dab-detr: Dynamic anchor boxes are better queries for detr,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12329, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to- end object detection,

    H. Zhang, F. Li, S. Liu, L. Zhang, H. Su, J. Zhu, L. M. Ni, and H.-Y . Shum, “Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to- end object detection,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03605, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Fastinst: A simple query-based model for real-time instance segmentation,

    J. He, P. Li, Y . Geng, and X. Xie, “Fastinst: A simple query-based model for real-time instance segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 23 663–23 672

    2023

  36. [45]

    Imagdressing-v1: Customizable virtual dressing,

    F. Shen, X. Jiang, X. He, H. Ye, C. Wang, X. Du, Z. Li, and J. Tang, “Imagdressing-v1: Customizable virtual dressing,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 7, 2025, pp. 6795–6804

    2025

  37. [46]

    Imagpose: A unified conditional framework for pose-guided person generation,

    F. Shen and J. Tang, “Imagpose: A unified conditional framework for pose-guided person generation,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 37, pp. 6246–6266, 2024

    2024

  38. [47]

    Long-term talkingface generation via motion-prior conditional diffusion model,

    F. Shen, C. Wang, J. Gao, Q. Guo, J. Dang, J. Tang, and T.-S. Chua, “Long-term talkingface generation via motion-prior conditional diffusion model,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09533, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Dawn: Direction-aware attention wavelet network for image deraining,

    K. Jiang, W. Liu, Z. Wang, X. Zhong, J. Jiang, and C.-W. Lin, “Dawn: Direction-aware attention wavelet network for image deraining,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM international conference on multimedia, 2023, pp. 7065–7074

    2023

  40. [49]

    Direction-aware attention aggregation for single-stage hazy-weather crowd counting,

    W. Kong, J. Shen, H. Li, J. Liu, and J. Zhang, “Direction-aware attention aggregation for single-stage hazy-weather crowd counting,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 225, p. 120088, 2023

    2023

  41. [50]

    Building extraction from remote sensing images with sparse token transformers,

    K. Chen, Z. Zou, and Z. Shi, “Building extraction from remote sensing images with sparse token transformers,”Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 21, p. 4441, 2021

    2021

  42. [51]

    Direction-aware multi-branch attention and gaussian label assignment for remote sensing aggregative object detection,

    H. Cheng, Y . Cao, B. Sui, S. Zhang, and Y . Zeng, “Direction-aware multi-branch attention and gaussian label assignment for remote sensing aggregative object detection,”International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 45, no. 17, pp. 5917–5945, 2024

    2024

  43. [52]

    Arbitrary-oriented ship detection based on kullback-leibler divergence regression in remote sensing images,

    Y . Chen, J. Wang, Y . Zhang, and Y . Liu, “Arbitrary-oriented ship detection based on kullback-leibler divergence regression in remote sensing images,”Earth Science Informatics, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 3243– 3255, 2023

    2023

  44. [53]

    Advancing pose-guided image synthesis with progressive conditional diffusion models,

    F. Shen, H. Ye, J. Zhang, C. Wang, X. Han, and W. Yang, “Advancing pose-guided image synthesis with progressive conditional diffusion models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06313, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Boost- ing consistency in story visualization with rich-contextual conditional diffusion models,

    F. Shen, H. Ye, S. Liu, J. Zhang, C. Wang, X. Han, and Y . Wei, “Boost- ing consistency in story visualization with rich-contextual conditional diffusion models,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 7, 2025, pp. 6785–6794. 12 IEEE SENS...

    2025

  46. [55]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,

    T.-Y . Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Doll ´ar, and C. L. Zitnick, “Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,” inComputer vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proceedings, part v 13. Springer, 2...

    2014

  47. [56]

    Conditional convolutions for instance segmentation,

    Z. Tian, C. Shen, and H. Chen, “Conditional convolutions for instance segmentation,” inComputer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Con- ference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 16. Springer, 2020, pp. 282–298

    2020

  48. [57]

    Rtmdet: An empirical study of designing real-time object detectors,

    C. Lyu, W. Zhang, H. Huang, Y . Zhou, Y . Wang, Y . Liu, S. Zhang, and K. Chen, “Rtmdet: An empirical study of designing real-time object detectors,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07784, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Anchor-free sar ship instance segmentation with centroid-distance based loss,

    F. Gao, Y . Huo, J. Wang, A. Hussain, and H. Zhou, “Anchor-free sar ship instance segmentation with centroid-distance based loss,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 14, pp. 11 352–11 371, 2021

    2021

  50. [59]

    Ship instance segmentation based on rotated bounding boxes for sar images,

    X. Yang, Q. Zhang, Q. Dong, Z. Han, X. Luo, and D. Wei, “Ship instance segmentation based on rotated bounding boxes for sar images,”Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 1324, 2023

    2023

  51. [60]

    Diffsarshipinst: Diffusion model for ship instance segmentation from synthetic aperture radar imagery,

    X. Xu, X. Zhang, S. Wei, J. Shi, W. Zhang, T. Zhang, X. Zhan, Y . Xu, and T. Zeng, “Diffsarshipinst: Diffusion model for ship instance segmentation from synthetic aperture radar imagery,”ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol. 223, pp. 440–455, 2025. Fei Gaore...

    2025

  52. [1991]

    degree in informa- tion engineering from the School of Mechanical and Electric Engineering,Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China, in 2012, and the Ph.D

    He received the B.S. degree in informa- tion engineering from the School of Mechanical and Electric Engineering,Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China, in 2012, and the Ph.D. de- gree in signal and information processing from the School of Electronics and Information En- ginee...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.