Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

CompetitorFormer: Competitor Transformer for 3D Instance Segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · 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 three plug-in modules, QCL, RRE, and RCA, reduce inter-query competition in transformer-based 3D instance segmentation and that adding them to existing baselines improves mAP on four benchmark datasets.

desk verdict Consistent direction of gains, but 'significant' is not supported by single-run mAP differences; worth a referee if the authors add seeds and error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14179 v3 pith:6KXUBYBU submitted 2024-11-21 cs.CV

Duanchu Wang (1) , Jing Liu (2) , Haoran Gong (2) , Yinghui Quan (1) , Di Wang (2) ((1) School of Electronic Engineering , Xidian University (2) School of Software Engineering , Xian Jiaotong University) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dinstancesegmentationinter-querycompetitionquerylayerrelativerelationshipencodingrankcrossattentionpointcloudmasktransformerplug-and-playmodules
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

Transformer-based 3D instance segmenters use a fixed number of instance queries that usually exceeds the number of objects, so several queries converge on the same instance while only one can win in the final ranking. The paper names this “inter-query competition” and argues that it slows convergence and lowers accuracy, because near-identical scores in early decoder layers stop a dominant query from emerging. To counter it, the paper proposes three plug-in components, the query competition layer, relative relationship encoding, and rank cross attention, which together mark competing pairs, label a leader and a laggard, and widen the score gap between them. Integrated into four existing transformer-based segmenters, the design is reported to improve mean average precision on ScanNetv2, ScanNet200, S3DIS, and STPLS3D, the largest gain being +3.1 mAP on the ScanNetv2 hidden test set over one baseline. If the claim holds, the practical payoff is that existing 3D instance segmentation models can be upgraded with a small, additive set of modules rather than a new architecture.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the per-layer competition state constructed from query pairs. It is built from two matrices: a signed leader/laggard matrix derived from the difference of each query's max classification score times predicted IoU, and an unsigned mask-IoU matrix that tells which queries are predicting the same object. QCL converts these into ordered leader and laggard lists that realign two static embeddings before fusing them with the query features; RRE quantizes the signed IoU into discrete bins and looks up a learned relation table to bias self-attention weights; RCA takes the raw dot-product similarities between queries and pooled scene features, min-max normalizes them across queries, and multiplies the similarities by this normalized rank signal before softmax. Together they widen the gap between the winning query and its rivals at each decoder step, so the winner absorbs richer features and the laggards fade.

What would settle it

Track, over the first training epochs of an unmodified baseline, the rank correlation between pair-wise IoU of predicted masks at decoder layer one and the event that the two queries are eventually matched to the same ground-truth instance; if the correlation is near zero early in training, the QCL and RRE signals are assigning leader/laggard labels before useful information exists and the mAP gain would need another explanation. A complementary check is to replace the mask-IoU competitor selection with random pairs while keeping the modules, which should collapse the gain if the competition signal is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that inter-query competition is an identifiable and correctable failure mode in transformer-based 3D instance segmentation. When multiple query tokens predict overlapping masks for the same instance, only one query is kept in the final output, yet the others still draw gradients and hold scores close to the winner in shallow decoder layers; the authors call this harmful and set out to suppress it. Their solution is to compute, before each decoder layer, a pairwise competition state from the IoU of the masks predicted by every two queries and from a leader/laggard sign based on each query's classification-confidence-times-IoU score. This state drives three modules: QCL reorders two static leader and laggard embeddings and fuses them into the queries, RRE quantizes the signed IoU into learned relative-relation biases added inside self-attention, and RCA normalizes the dot-product similarity between queries and pooling features along the query axis before the spatial softmax. The reported result is that these modules, alone or combined, shift classification scores so that matched queries score higher and unmatched queries score lower, and improve mAP across four benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the overlap between masks predicted by two queries in the previous decoder layer reliably indicates which queries are true competitors, and that this signal is accurate early enough in training for the leader/laggard labels to guide learning before masks stabilize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding the three modules to an existing transformer-based segmenter improves mAP without changing the training schedule or hyperparameters, according to the paper's experiments.
  • The largest reported improvement is +3.1 mAP over the SPFormer baseline on the ScanNetv2 hidden test set, with +2.7 mAP on the validation set.
  • Each module contributes independently: adding QCL, RRE, or RCA alone to SPFormer gives roughly +1.0 to +1.3 mAP on ScanNetv2 validation, and using all three gives +2.6 mAP.
  • The modules work by changing which query wins: matched-query classification scores move upward while unmatched-query scores move downward, and the IoU of the winning query with its target mask increases.
  • Because the modules are plug-in by design, they can be layered onto future transformer-based 3D segmenters that keep a fixed query count.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same over-querying and bipartite-matching setup appears in 2D mask transformers, so the competition-state mechanism is likely transferable to 2D instance or panoptic segmentation; the paper only demonstrates it in 3D.
  • Part of the mAP gain may come from a re-ranking effect: by widening score gaps early, the model changes which query is selected at inference without necessarily improving the underlying masks; separating these effects would clarify the mechanism.
  • The reported gains are largest on frameworks with many queries, while Mask3D's smaller query count showed smaller gains, suggesting the benefit scales with the amount of redundant query capacity; varying query count under fixed modules would test this.
  • The paper's two static embeddings are randomly initialized per layer; a natural extension is to initialize them from semantic label embeddings so the leader/laggard signal incorporates class semantics from the start.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CompetitorFormer, a set of three plug-and-play modules (query competition layer, QCL; relative relationship encoding, RRE; and rank cross attention, RCA) designed to reduce inter-query competition in transformer-based 3D instance segmentation. The modules use per-query classification scores and mask IoUs to identify leader/laggard query pairs, reorder static embeddings, inject relative relationship biases into self-attention, and renormalize cross-attention similarities. The method is evaluated by adding the modules to SPFormer, Mask3D, MAFT, and OneFormer3D on ScanNetv2, ScanNet200, S3DIS, and STPLS3D, with ablations on ScanNetv2 val. The reported improvements are up to +3.1 mAP on the ScanNet hidden test set for C-SPFormer, but several gains are small (+0.2 to +0.8 mAP).

Significance. If the reported gains are reproducible, the paper makes a useful empirical contribution by showing that explicit competition-aware query interactions can improve several strong transformer-based 3D instance segmentation baselines. The plug-and-play nature of the modules, the breadth of the evaluation across four datasets and four baselines, and the per-layer analyses of matched/unmatched query scores are strengths. The paper does not claim a new state-of-the-art architecture but rather a generally applicable mechanism, and the consistent positive direction of the reported gains across most baselines suggests the idea is worth pursuing. However, the central empirical claim of 'significant performance improvements' is currently supported only by single-run mAP differences, with no seed variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests; several gains are within the typical run-to-run noise for these benchmarks.

major comments (3)
  1. The claim that integrating the designs 'consistently resulted in significant performance improvements' is not supported by the evidence reported. All results are single runs: no standard deviations, multiple seeds, or statistical tests are given. Several reported gains are very small, e.g., C-Mask3D on STPLS3D (+0.2 mAP, +0.1 mAP50, Table 4b), C-Mask3D on S3DIS (+0.3 mAP, Table 3), C-Mask3D on ScanNetv2 val (+0.8 mAP, Table 2), and C-OneFormer3D on ScanNetv2 val (+0.7 mAP, Table 2). For transformer-based instance segmentation, run-to-run variance on these datasets is typically on the order of 0.5-1.5 mAP, so these gains are indistinguishable from noise. The abstract and conclusion should either be reworded to 'reported improvements' without 'significant', or the authors should add error bars and a paired significance test (or at least multiple seeds) for the key comparisons. This is load-bearing because the paper's main contribution is the empirical improvement claim.
  2. The notation in Eqs. (5)-(6) is not well-defined and appears to contain an error. Eq. (5) writes B^{l-1} = max_{j=0}^{n-1}(C^{l-1}_{IoU}(i,j)), but n is never defined (should presumably be N', the number of queries), and the expression as written is a scalar max rather than an index set. Eq. (6) then uses A[B] with the explanation 'arrangement of A in accordance with the index of B', which is nonstandard and ambiguous. Since the leader/laggard lists I_leader and I_laggard in Eqs. (7)-(8) are constructed from these quantities, the correctness of the QCL algorithm cannot be verified without a precise definition. Please rewrite Eqs. (5)-(6) with explicit index sets and define all variables.
  3. The relative relationship encoding depends on two free hyperparameters, the quantization size v and the table length Y, but no sensitivity analysis or ablation is provided for them. The default values are not even stated in the implementation details section. Since RRE contributes a nontrivial part of the reported gain (e.g., +1.1 mAP when added alone in Table 5b), the choice of v and Y could materially affect the results, and the reader cannot judge how robust the improvement is to these settings. Please report the values used and include an ablation or sensitivity study for at least one dataset.
minor comments (5)
  1. The text says 'the sparse query distribution limit the performance of ComeptitorFormer'; 'ComeptitorFormer' is a typo for 'CompetitorFormer', and the sentence should read 'limits' for subject-verb agreement.
  2. There are several spacing typos: 'V oxels are applied as superpoint on STPLS3D' should be 'Voxels are applied as superpoints on STPLS3D', and 'the query decoder' section header has an extra space.
  3. In the QueryFormer row, the mAP50 column contains '57,7' with a comma instead of a decimal point; the formatting should be consistent with the rest of the table.
  4. The caption says 'The color of each fraction matches the corresponding bounding box's color'; 'fraction' should likely be 'prediction' or 'box'.
  5. The reference to 'SPFormer' as [24] in the related work (Jieru Mei et al., 'SPFormer: Enhancing vision transformer with superpixel representation') is confusing because the same name is used for the superpoint transformer baseline [30] in the main text; please clarify whether these are different works or use distinct names.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical gains are measured on held-out benchmarks; the self-referential competition signal is a training mechanism, not a derivation from fitted constants.

full rationale

The paper's claimed contribution is a set of architectural modules (QCL, RRE, RCA) whose effectiveness is evaluated by adding them to SPFormer, Mask3D, MAFT, and OneFormer3D and measuring mAP on held-out ScanNetv2 test/val, ScanNet200, S3DIS Area 5, and STPLS3D splits. No parameter is fitted to the reported test/val numbers and then renamed as a prediction. The competition score K = max(p) * s_IoU and the mask-IoU matrix C_IoU are computed from the model's own predictions and used to define leader/laggard relationships; this is self-referential in mechanism but not circular in the paper's reasoning, because the paper does not claim those quantities are external ground truth, and the final claim is an empirical performance comparison. The modules do not assume the conclusion that competition is mitigated; they are trained and tested. The conclusion's limitation passage explicitly states QCL is incompatible with variable-query frameworks such as OneFormer3D, which is a scope constraint, not a circular step. The only notable weakness is statistical: gains like +0.2 and +0.8 mAP are reported as single runs without error bars or significance tests, so 'significant improvements' is overstated, but that is a correctness and evidence concern, not circularity. The paper is not built on self-citations: cited works are external baselines and prior 2D/3D methods, and no load-bearing claim reduces to the authors' own prior results. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with the required quote-and-reduction standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim is empirical rather than derived. It relies on standard benchmark assumptions and on the domain-specific belief that inter-query competition, measured by predicted-mask IoU, is harmful. The only new hand-set hyperparameters are v and Y in RRE; their values are omitted from the main text. No new physical or conceptual entities with independent evidence are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • RRE quantization size v
    Introduced in Eq. (13) to discretize the relative competitive state. The value is not reported in the main text and must be chosen by hand.
  • RRE relationship table length Y
    Introduced in Eq. (13) as the size of the learned relationship encoding table. The value is not reported in the main text and must be chosen by hand.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Transformer-based 3D instance segmentation models use more queries than instances, so multiple queries predict the same instance and compete.
    Motivates the entire paper. Supported by Figure 1, but not formally proven; it is an empirical observation about existing models.
  • domain assumption The IoU between masks predicted by two queries is a valid and sufficiently reliable measure of inter-query competition.
    Used in Section 3.2, Eq. (4), to build the competitor sets and leader/laggard relationships. If this proxy is noisy, the QCL and RRE mechanisms may misassign roles.
  • domain assumption Suppressing laggard queries and amplifying leading queries improves final instance segmentation accuracy.
    The core design choice behind QCL and RCA. The paper provides empirical support, but the assumption is not derived from first principles and could in principle hurt exploration of false-positive queries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CompetitorFormer: Competitor Transformer for 3D Instance Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KXUBYBU

@misc{pith2026241114179,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CompetitorFormer: Competitor Transformer for 3D Instance Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KXUBYBU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14179}
}
read the original abstract

Transformer-based methods have become the dominant approach for 3D instance segmentation. These methods predict instance masks via instance queries, ranking them by classification confidence and IoU scores to select the top prediction as the final outcome. However, it has been observed that the current models employ a fixed and higher number of queries than the instances present within a scene. In such instances, multiple queries predict the same instance, yet only a single query is ultimately optimized. The close scores of queries in the lower-level decoders make it challenging for the dominant query to distinguish itself rapidly, which ultimately impairs the model's accuracy and convergence efficiency. This phenomenon is referred to as inter-query competition. To address this challenge, we put forth a series of plug-and-play competition-oriented designs, collectively designated as the CompetitorFormer, with the aim of reducing competition and facilitating a dominant query. Experiments showed that integrating our designs with state-of-the-art frameworks consistently resulted in significant performance improvements in 3D instance segmentation across a range of datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14179 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The visualization of competing queries from the ini [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of our pipeline. (a) shows the overall pipeline, in which the query competitor layer (QCL) processes input to derive spatial and competitive information, bifurcating into branches for static embedding-enhanced instance queries and dynamic self￾attention weight adjustment via relative relationship encoding (RRE), followed by the rank cross attention (RCA) for query differentiation. The details of each mo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    3d instance segmentation via enhanced spatial and semantic supervision

    Salwa Al Khatib, Mohamed El Amine Boudjoghra, Jean La- houd, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. 3d instance segmentation via enhanced spatial and semantic supervision. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 541–550, 2023. 1, 2

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    3d seman- tic parsing of large-scale indoor spaces

    Iro Armeni, Ozan Sener, Amir R Zamir, Helen Jiang, Ioan- nis Brilakis, Martin Fischer, and Silvio Savarese. 3d seman- tic parsing of large-scale indoor spaces. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition, pages 1534–1543, 2016. 5, 6

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Align-detr: Improving detr with sim- ple iou-aware bce loss, 2023

    Zhi Cai, Songtao Liu, Guodong Wang, Zheng Ge, Xiangyu Zhang, and Di Huang. Align-detr: Improving detr with sim- ple iou-aware bce loss, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Stpls3d: A large-scale synthetic and real aerial photogrammetry 3d point cloud dataset

    Meida Chen, Qingyong Hu, Zifan Yu, Hugues THOMAS, Andrew Feng, Yu Hou, Kyle McCullough, Fengbo Ren, and Lucio Soibelman. Stpls3d: A large-scale synthetic and real aerial photogrammetry 3d point cloud dataset. In 33rd British Machine Vision Conference 2022, BMVC 2022, Lon- don, UK, November 21-24, 2022 . BMV A Press, 2022. 5, 6, 7

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Hierarchical aggregation for 3d instance segmentation

    Shaoyu Chen, Jiemin Fang, Qian Zhang, Wenyu Liu, and Xinggang Wang. Hierarchical aggregation for 3d instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15467–15476,

  6. [6]

    Schwing, Alexan- der Kirillov, and Rohit Girdhar

    Bowen Cheng, Ishan Misra, Alexander G. Schwing, Alexan- der Kirillov, and Rohit Girdhar. Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 1290–1299, 2022. 1

    2022

  7. [7]

    Box2mask: Weakly supervised 3d se- mantic instance segmentation using bounding boxes

    Julian Chibane, Francis Engelmann, Tuan Anh Tran, and Gerard Pons-Moll. Box2mask: Weakly supervised 3d se- mantic instance segmentation using bounding boxes. In Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) . Springer,

    work page

  8. [8]

    4d spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convolutional neural networks

    Christopher Choy, JunYoung Gwak, and Silvio Savarese. 4d spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convolutional neural networks. In 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019. 3

    work page 2019

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes

    Angela Dai, Angel X Chang, Manolis Savva, Maciej Hal- ber, Thomas Funkhouser, and Matthias Nießner. Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5828–5839, 2017. 5, 6

    2017

  2. [10]

    3d-mpa: Multi-proposal ag- gregation for 3d semantic instance segmentation

    Francis Engelmann, Martin Bokeloh, Alireza Fathi, Bastian Leibe, and Matthias Nießner. 3d-mpa: Multi-proposal ag- gregation for 3d semantic instance segmentation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9031–9040, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  3. [11]

    Tood: Task-aligned one-stage object detec- tion

    Chengjian Feng, Yujie Zhong, Yu Gao, Matthew R Scott, and Weilin Huang. Tood: Task-aligned one-stage object detec- tion. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision (ICCV), pages 3490–3499. IEEE Computer So- ciety, 2021. 2

    2021

  4. [12]

    Ease-detr: Easing the competition among object queries

    Yulu Gao, Yifan Sun, Xudong Ding, Chuyang Zhao, and Si Liu. Ease-detr: Easing the competition among object queries. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 17282– 17291, 2024. 1, 2, 5

    2024

  5. [13]

    DyCo3d: Robust instance segmentation of 3d point clouds through dynamic convolution

    Tong He, Chunhua Shen, and Anton van den Hengel. DyCo3d: Robust instance segmentation of 3d point clouds through dynamic convolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  6. [14]

    3d-sis: 3d se- mantic instance segmentation of rgb-d scans

    Ji Hou, Angela Dai, and Matthias Nießner. 3d-sis: 3d se- mantic instance segmentation of rgb-d scans. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4421–4430, 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  7. [15]

    Pointgroup: Dual-set point grouping for 3d instance segmentation

    Li Jiang, Hengshuang Zhao, Shaoshuai Shi, Shu Liu, Chi- Wing Fu, and Jiaya Jia. Pointgroup: Dual-set point grouping for 3d instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and Pattern recognition, pages 4867–4876, 2020. 1, 2, 7

    2020

  8. [16]

    Oneformer3d: One transformer for unified point cloud segmentation

    Maxim Kolodiazhnyi, Anna V orontsova, Anton Konushin, and Danila Rukhovich. Oneformer3d: One transformer for unified point cloud segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20943–20953, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7

    2024

  9. [17]

    Top-down beats bottom-up in 3d in- stance segmentation

    Maksim Kolodiazhnyi, Anna V orontsova, Anton Konushin, and Danila Rukhovich. Top-down beats bottom-up in 3d in- stance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Win- ter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 3566–3574, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  10. [18]

    Mask-attention-free transformer for 3d in- stance segmentation

    Xin Lai, Yuhui Yuan, Ruihang Chu, Yukang Chen, Han Hu, and Jiaya Jia. Mask-attention-free transformer for 3d in- stance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3693–3703,

  11. [19]

    Large-scale point cloud semantic segmentation with superpoint graphs

    Loic Landrieu and Martin Simonovsky. Large-scale point cloud semantic segmentation with superpoint graphs. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, 2018. 3

    2018

  12. [20]

    Generalized focal loss: Learning qualified and distributed bounding boxes for dense object detection

    Xiang Li, Wenhai Wang, Lijun Wu, Shuo Chen, Xiaolin Hu, Jun Li, Jinhui Tang, and Jian Yang. Generalized focal loss: Learning qualified and distributed bounding boxes for dense object detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:21002–21012, 2020. 2

    2020

  13. [21]

    Clustseg: Clustering for universal segmentation,

    James Liang, Tianfei Zhou, Dongfang Liu, and Wenguan Wang. Clustseg: Clustering for universal segmentation,

  14. [22]

    Instance segmentation in 3d scenes using semantic superpoint tree networks

    Zhihao Liang, Zhihao Li, Songcen Xu, Mingkui Tan, and Kui Jia. Instance segmentation in 3d scenes using semantic superpoint tree networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2783– 2792, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  15. [23]

    Query refinement transformer for 3d in- stance segmentation

    Jiahao Lu, Jiacheng Deng, Chuxin Wang, Jianfeng He, and Tianzhu Zhang. Query refinement transformer for 3d in- stance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision , pages 18516– 18526, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 6

    2023

  16. [24]

    SPFormer: Enhancing vision transformer with superpixel representation, 2024

    Jieru Mei, Liang-Chieh Chen, Alan Yuille, and Cihang Xie. SPFormer: Enhancing vision transformer with superpixel representation, 2024. 3

    2024

  17. [25]

    Isbnet: a 3d point cloud instance segmentation network with instance- aware sampling and box-aware dynamic convolution

    Tuan Duc Ngo, Binh-Son Hua, and Khoi Nguyen. Isbnet: a 3d point cloud instance segmentation network with instance- aware sampling and box-aware dynamic convolution. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13550–13559, 2023. 7

    2023

  18. [26]

    Rank-detr for high quality object detection

    Yifan Pu, Weicong Liang, Yiduo Hao, Yuhui Yuan, Yukang Yang, Chao Zhang, Han Hu, and Gao Huang. Rank-detr for high quality object detection. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 2

    2024

  19. [27]

    Language- grounded indoor 3d semantic segmentation in the wild

    David Rozenberszki, Or Litany, and Angela Dai. Language- grounded indoor 3d semantic segmentation in the wild. 2022. 5, 6, 7

    2022

  20. [28]

    Mask3d: Mask trans- former for 3d semantic instance segmentation

    Jonas Schult, Francis Engelmann, Alexander Hermans, Or Litany, Siyu Tang, and Bastian Leibe. Mask3d: Mask trans- former for 3d semantic instance segmentation. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 8216–8223. IEEE, 2023. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7

    2023

  21. [29]

    Spherical mask: Coarse-to- fine 3d point cloud instance segmentation with spherical rep- resentation

    Sangyun Shin, Kaichen Zhou, Madhu Vankadari, Andrew Markham, and Niki Trigoni. Spherical mask: Coarse-to- fine 3d point cloud instance segmentation with spherical rep- resentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 406...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Superpoint transformer for 3d scene instance segmentation

    Jiahao Sun, Chunmei Qing, Junpeng Tan, and Xiangmin Xu. Superpoint transformer for 3d scene instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, pages 2393–2401, 2023. 1, 2, 5, 6

    2023

  23. [31]

    Neuralbf: Neural bilateral filtering for top- down instance segmentation on point clouds

    Weiwei Sun, Daniel Rebain, Renjie Liao, Vladimir Tankovich, Soroosh Yazdani, Kwang Moo Yi, and Andrea Tagliasacchi. Neuralbf: Neural bilateral filtering for top- down instance segmentation on point clouds. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of C...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Softgroup for 3d instance segmentation on point clouds

    Thang Vu, Kookhoi Kim, Tung M Luu, Thanh Nguyen, and Chang D Yoo. Softgroup for 3d instance segmentation on point clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2708– 2717, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  25. [33]

    Groupvit: Semantic segmentation emerges from text supervision

    Jiarui Xu, Shalini De Mello, Sifei Liu, Wonmin Byeon, Thomas Breuel, Jan Kautz, and Xiaolong Wang. Groupvit: Semantic segmentation emerges from text supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 18134–18144, 2022. 3

    2022

  26. [34]

    Learning ob- ject bounding boxes for 3d instance segmentation on point clouds

    Bo Yang, Jianan Wang, Ronald Clark, Qingyong Hu, Sen Wang, Andrew Markham, and Niki Trigoni. Learning ob- ject bounding boxes for 3d instance segmentation on point clouds. 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  27. [35]

    Li Yi, Wang Zhao, He Wang, Minhyuk Sung, and Leonidas J. Guibas. Gspn: Generative shape proposal network for 3d instance segmentation in point cloud. In 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 3942–3951, 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  28. [36]

    Cmt-deeplab: Clustering mask transformers for panoptic segmentation

    Qihang Yu, Huiyu Wang, Dahun Kim, Siyuan Qiao, Maxwell Collins, Yukun Zhu, Hartwig Adam, Alan Yuille, and Liang-Chieh Chen. Cmt-deeplab: Clustering mask transformers for panoptic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition...

    2022

  29. [37]

    k-means mask transformer

    Qihang Yu, Huiyu Wang, Siyuan Qiao, Maxwell Collins, Yukun Zhu, Hartwig Adam, Alan Yuille, and Liang-Chieh Chen. k-means mask transformer. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 288–307. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  30. [38]

    Varifocalnet: An iou-aware dense object detector

    Haoyang Zhang, Ying Wang, Feras Dayoub, and Niko Sun- derhauf. Varifocalnet: An iou-aware dense object detector. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 8514–8523, 2021. 2

    2021

  31. [39]

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

    Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Shilong Liu, Lei Zhang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Lionel M Ni, and Heung-Yeung Shum. Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to-end object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03605, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Maskgroup: Hierarchical point grouping and masking for 3d instance segmentation

    Min Zhong, Xinghao Chen, Xiaokang Chen, Gang Zeng, and Yunhe Wang. Maskgroup: Hierarchical point grouping and masking for 3d instance segmentation. In 2022 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pages 1–6, 2022. 1, 2 10

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.