Precision-Enhanced Human-Object Contact Detection via Depth-Aware Perspective Interaction and Object Texture Restoration

Nan Zhuang; Qi Liu; Weiying Xue; Wenpeng Neng; Xinyu Jiang; Yanwu Xu; Yu Lei; Yuxiao Wang; Zhenao Wei

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Precision-Enhanced Human-Object Contact Detection via Depth-Aware Perspective Interaction and Object Texture Restoration

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The PIHOT detector restores occluded object textures and compares depth maps to separate true human-object contact from mere 2D overlap, improving accuracy on all three HOT benchmarks.

desk verdict PIHOT is a plausible incremental extension of DHOT with consistent-looking gains, but the depth-differencing mechanism is less well supported than the title claims, and the paper contains a clear numerical inconsistency in its model-selection table. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09920 v2 pith:6W7X4LT5 submitted 2024-12-13 cs.CV

Yuxiao Wang , Wenpeng Neng , Zhenao Wei , Yu Lei , Weiying Xue , Nan Zhuang , Yanwu Xu , Xinyu Jiang

show 1 more author

Qi Liu

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords human-objectcontactdetectiondepth-differencesignalocclusionhandlingimageinpaintingsegmentationcross-attentionmechanismzero-shotdepthestimationHOTbenchmarks

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

This paper sets out to fix a blind spot in human-object contact detection: when a person's body hides the object they touch, current methods misplace or blur the contact boundary. Its proposed detector, PIHOT, restores the hidden object texture by inpainting the person out of the photo, then compares depth maps of the original and restored images so that only objects actually touching the person remain highlighted. On three established HOT benchmarks the method reports consistent gains over the previous DHOT approach, with Contact Accuracy improving by 14% on annotated images and 41% on generated images. If these results hold, occlusion no longer needs to be a hard barrier for contact-aware perception in robots, AR, and video analysis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the depth-difference map $d_s$: the pipeline runs the original image and the human-masked, inpainted image through the same zero-shot depth estimator (ZoeDepth), subtracts the two depth maps, and min–max normalizes the absolute difference. In the ideal case this leaves only the person and the contacted object, since both are present in the original but only the object remains in the inpainted image. Two attention modules then carry the signal: the Instances Perspective Interaction (IPI) module applies cross-attention between the restored-object features and the original contact features, and the Instances Depth Space Interaction (IDSI) module feeds $d_s$ through a second attention stage. The Contact Perception Operation fuses these features, with $d_s$ acting as a spatial gate that highlights exactly the pixels whose depth changes when the person is removed.

What would settle it

Replace ZoeDepth with a depth model that is known to output constant or random depth for inpainted regions, then measure PIHOT's gains over its baseline; if SC-Acc. and C-Acc. still improve, the depth channel is not the active mechanism. Alternatively, build a synthetic dataset with ground-truth geometry and check whether $d_s$ is zero at true contact areas and positive at mere 2D overlaps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the depth map of a photograph with the person inpainted away, subtracted from the depth map of the original photograph, yields a signal $d_s = |d_i - d_o|$ that isolates the occluding person and the once-hidden object. The paper argues that this depth-divergence channel, fed through cross-attention with restored object features, gives a segmentation network what it needs to draw contact boundaries that were previously invisible. The reported numbers—up to 45.3 SC-Acc. and 80.7 C-Acc. on the annotated set, and up to 34.9 SC-Acc. and 76.3 C-Acc. on the generated set—exceed every baseline in the paper, including the full DHOT model.

Load-bearing premise

The depth-difference logic assumes that subtracting the depth map of the restored image from the depth map of the original cleanly isolates the human and the contacted object; if the depth model assigns arbitrary depth to hallucinated inpainted regions, the signal carries no physical contact information.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Contact regions hidden by occluding body parts can be segmented without explicit 3D scene reconstruction.
The depth-difference channel transfers to all three HOT benchmarks, where adding the SPO and IDSI modules improves mIoU and wIoU in the ablations.
The object-inpainting model is a plug-in component: swapping LaMa for MAE changes results but the pipeline still functions.
The gap over DHOT reported in Table 1 suggests the earlier approach's occlusion failure mode is addressable by depth and texture cues.

Reading between the lines

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

This suggests the depth-divergence trick could apply to amodal segmentation, where the inpainted object shape supplies a plausible estimate of the hidden region.
Because the depth estimator is zero-shot, the pipeline may transfer to new scene types without retraining the depth component, bound mainly by the restorer's quality.
A testable extension would replace the provided human masks with automatic human segmentation at inference to measure how sensitive PIHOT is to mask errors.
The ablations accumulate modules in a fixed order, so the individual contribution of the depth channel without inpainting is not isolated; a factorial ablation would pin down the cause of each gain.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this one. First, it is a genuine extension of DHOT: it is the first to bring object inpainting and depth-map differencing to human-object contact detection, and the main results in Table 1 are internally consistent. Second, the paper has a real flaw in its model-selection comparison and a mechanism that may not do what the authors claim.

What is new: applying known techniques (LaMa inpainting, ZoeDepth) plus two attention modules to the HOT task. That is incremental but not trivial—occlusion is a real problem for contact segmentation, and the ablation suggests each module adds something. The reported gains over DHOT on HOT-Annotated and HOT-Generated look plausible, and the visualizations show cleaner boundaries in some cases.

Now the soft spots. Table 4 is simply wrong as written: MAE+MDENet gets mIoU 0.279 while the selected LaMa+ZoeDepth gets 0.236, and the text says the selected model is better on mIoU by 6%. That is a direct contradiction a referee will catch immediately. No error bars or multiple seeds are reported, so we cannot tell whether the gains over DHOT are noise. The depth-differencing signal d_s is the bigger conceptual concern. The appendix admits that in the difference map the body is brighter and the object/background darker, which is exactly what you would expect from subtracting the inpainted image's depth from the original: the human region dominates. That makes d_s closer to a human-position prior than a contact-specific spatial cue. The authors are honest about this in the appendix, but then they still lean on it as the core of the title's claim that depth "prevents false interaction detection." The attention modules or the mask itself could be doing the work.

None of this kills the empirical result—the method may still help in practice—but it shifts the paper from a clean demonstration of depth-aware disambiguation to a more modest claim: an inpainting-and-attention augmentation that works better than the baseline, with an unexplained depth component.

Who is this for? Researchers working on HOT or fine-grained HOI will want to see it, but they should treat the numbers as preliminary. It deserves a serious referee because the task is real and the baseline comparisons, once corrected, could be useful. I would recommend engaging with it, but only if the authors resolve the Table 4 inconsistency, release code or detailed implementation notes, and provide uncertainty estimates.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PIHOT, a human-object contact (HOT) detection method that aims to handle occlusion by combining object inpainting with depth-map cues. Specifically, it removes the human from the input via a dilated mask and an inpainting model, computes depth maps of the original and inpainted images, and uses their normalized absolute difference as a spatial-relation feature. Two attention mechanisms (IPI and IDSI) are introduced to fuse object, contact, and depth features, and a contact perception operation combines them for final segmentation. Experiments on HOT-Annotated and HOT-Generated (and the combined Full Set) report consistent improvements over the DHOT baseline, e.g., Table 1 shows +11%/+14%/+10%/+10% on SC-Acc., C-Acc., mIoU, and wIoU for HOT-Annotated and larger gains on HOT-Generated. The abstract claims state-of-the-art performance on three benchmarks with average improvements of 13%, 27.5%, 16%, and 18.5% over DHOT.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper makes a useful engineering contribution to a relatively new task (HOT detection) under occlusion, and the idea of using depth differences between original and inpainted images as a spatial prior is interesting. The paper also provides ablation studies and a comparison of inpainting/depth model choices, which is helpful for reproducibility. However, the central mechanistic claim that the depth-difference signal encodes contact-specific spatial relations is not validated, and the model-selection table (Table 4) contains an internal inconsistency. The empirical gains, while consistent, are based on single runs without error bars. Thus the current evidence supports the method's practical usefulness but not the depth-aware interpretation that motivates it.

major comments (4)

[Table 4] Table 4 lists MAE+MDENet with mIoU 0.279, which is higher than the selected LaMa+ZoeDepth mIoU of 0.236, yet the text states that MAE+MDENet 'fall[s] short of the selected models by 4%, 6%, 6%, and 2% across the four metrics.' For mIoU the alternative is better, not worse. Since the selection of LaMa+ZoeDepth is justified by this comparison, the discrepancy is load-bearing and must be corrected or explained.
[Appendix, 'The role of depth map ds'] The appendix states that in the difference map ds 'the body is brighter, the background and object parts are darker, and occlusions have intermediate brightness.' This pattern is exactly what one would expect from the human mask alone (the body region changes after inpainting, the rest does not), so it is not evidence that ds encodes contact-specific spatial relations. Equations (5)-(6) are the core of the proposed depth-aware disambiguation, but no quantitative analysis (e.g., correlation of ds with the human mask, or an ablation replacing ds with a dilated human mask) is provided to show that ds carries information beyond the human silhouette. Without such evidence, the claimed mechanism for 'preventing false interaction detection' is unsupported, even if the endpoint metrics are positive.
[Eq. (3) and Eq. (7)] Equation (3) uses the symbol xb in the definition of Q, but xb is never defined in the paper; the surrounding text says Q is derived from the object feature xo. Also, Eq. (7) defines S as a concatenation of ds with two identical terms E(conv2d(oa)), which appears to be a typographical error. These undefined/inconsistent quantities make the IPI and IDSI modules formally incomplete and should be corrected.
[Tables 1-5] No error bars or multiple-seed results are reported in any of the experimental tables. The headline claim of state-of-the-art performance rests on single runs; the improvements over DHOT vary widely across metrics (e.g., 10% vs 41% on C-Acc. for the two datasets in Table 1), so without variance estimates the statistical significance of the gains cannot be assessed. Reporting mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds is needed to support the SOTA claim.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract reports average improvements of 13%, 27.5%, 16%, and 18.5% without stating that these are averages over the HOT-Annotated and HOT-Generated datasets; the corresponding numbers are not directly visible in a single table, so the averaging should be defined.
[Table 2] In Table 2, row 2, the SC-Acc. improvement from 40.5 to 42.4 is labeled +7%, but the relative increase is 4.7%; this percentage should be recalculated or the convention (percentage points vs relative) clarified.
[Eq. (9)] Equation (9) applies a per-pixel binary cross-entropy loss independently to each of the Cy channels, but the task is described as segmentation with 17 foreground classes plus background. If a softmax over classes is intended, the loss is mis-specified; if multi-label binary CE is intended, this should be stated explicitly.
[Figure 5] Figure 5 reports Full Set results visually, but the corresponding numeric values are never tabulated; including a table would make the SOTA claim on the Full Set easier to verify.
[Throughout] There are minor typographical and stylistic issues (e.g., 'twofolds' in Related Work, repeated sentence fragments such as 'Occlusion' as a standalone label), and the paper would benefit from a careful proofread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central claim is an empirical benchmark comparison, and the depth-difference construction is a design choice rather than a result forced by its inputs.

full rationale

PIHOT's central claim is an empirical state-of-the-art comparison on three HOT benchmarks. The pipeline (Eqs. 1-9) defines components—OI, IPI, SPO, and IDSI—and tests them through ablations against held-out metrics; no result is obtained by renaming a fitted parameter or by importing a self-citation as a theorem. The quantity ds = |di - do| (Eqs. 5-6) is a computed input feature derived from monocular depth maps, not the optimization target, and the cross-entropy loss (Eq. 9) is standard and independent of ds. The appendix's admission that in ds 'the body is brighter, the background and object parts are darker, and occlusions have intermediate brightness' is a validity concern about whether ZoeDepth's inpainted-depth signal is contact-specific, not a circularity: even a mask-like ds is an external image-derived signal rather than the contact label itself. The self-citation to TED-Net (Wang, Liu, and Lei 2024) is contextual related-work and bears no load-bearing premise. Finally, the selection of LaMa and ZoeDepth based on Table 4 is post-hoc model selection on the evaluation set, which is a selection-bias/correctness concern outside the circularity definition. No equation reduces to its own inputs, and no prediction is forced by construction.

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

The method introduces no new physical entities. It relies on three key domain assumptions: that depth estimates are reliable for inpainted regions, that inpainting restores occluded object geometry faithfully, and that mask dilation is a safe correction. The free parameters (alpha, beta, dilation kernel size, background loss weight) are hand-set and some are not even specified, which limits the precision of the method description.

free parameters (4)

alpha (alpha) = 0.1
Weight hyperparameter in the Contact Perception Operation (Eq. 8). Chosen by hand without reported tuning or ablation.
beta (beta) = 0.1
Weight hyperparameter in the Contact Perception Operation (Eq. 8). Chosen by hand without reported tuning or ablation.
Dilation kernel size N = not specified
The mask dilation in Eq. 1-2 uses an N x N all-ones kernel, but N is never given a value in the paper. The dilation behavior depends critically on this value.
Background loss ratio = 0.2
The cross-entropy loss for the background class is set to 0.2, which affects training but is not justified.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption ZoeDepth produces depth maps accurate enough that subtracting the depth of the inpainted image from the original yields meaningful relative-position information.
Invoked in Section 'Instances Depth Space Interaction' (Eqs. 5-6). The entire spatial disambiguation relies on depth values being physically consistent, including in regions that are inpainted and hallucinated.
domain assumption The LaMa inpainting model restores occluded object texture and shape without introducing artifacts that mislead the contact branch.
Invoked in Section 'Object Inpainting Module'. The repaired image is used as a second input to the backbone, and errors in the inpainted object could corrupt the object features used for contact reasoning.
domain assumption Mask dilation corrects human annotation errors without erasing the object pixels needed to define the contact boundary.
Invoked in Section 'Object Inpainting Module' and Figure 4. If dilation expands the human mask too aggressively, it will hide the object's contact region, reducing rather than improving accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision-Enhanced Human-Object Contact Detection via Depth-Aware Perspective Interaction and Object Texture Restoration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6W7X4LT5

@misc{pith2026241209920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision-Enhanced Human-Object Contact Detection via Depth-Aware Perspective Interaction and Object Texture Restoration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6W7X4LT5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09920}
}

read the original abstract

Human-object contact (HOT) is designed to accurately identify the areas where humans and objects come into contact. Current methods frequently fail to account for scenarios where objects are frequently blocking the view, resulting in inaccurate identification of contact areas. To tackle this problem, we suggest using a perspective interaction HOT detector called PIHOT, which utilizes a depth map generation model to offer depth information of humans and objects related to the camera, thereby preventing false interaction detection. Furthermore, we use mask dilatation and object restoration techniques to restore the texture details in covered areas, improve the boundaries between objects, and enhance the perception of humans interacting with objects. Moreover, a spatial awareness perception is intended to concentrate on the characteristic features close to the points of contact. The experimental results show that the PIHOT algorithm achieves state-of-the-art performance on three benchmark datasets for HOT detection tasks. Compared to the most recent DHOT, our method enjoys an average improvement of 13%, 27.5%, 16%, and 18.5% on SC-Acc., C-Acc., mIoU, and wIoU metrics, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09920 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Description of the issue with occlusion in the con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The overall design of the PIHOT that is being proposed. PIHOT is primarily comprised of three main components: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Description of human-annotated masks. Instances Perspective Interaction Mechanism. Merging the characteristics of xc and xo in the channel is a basic method of fusion, but it does not effectively leverage object information to restrict the features obtained from the o…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) compares the SC-Acc. and C-Acc. metrics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Visualizing the segmentation results of HOT on a portion of the dataset. Each group of pictures is separated into four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The structure of the IDSI mechanism. The depth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The structure of the IPI mechanism. Using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Description of contact area occlusion problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[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]

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]

F.; Birkl, R.; Wofk, D.; Wonka, P.; and M \"u ller, M

Bhat, S. F.; Birkl, R.; Wofk, D.; Wonka, P.; and M \"u ller, M. 2023. Zoedepth: Zero-shot transfer by combining relative and metric depth. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12288

arXiv 2023
[4]

K.; Black, M

Chen, Y.; Dwivedi, S. K.; Black, M. J.; and Tzionas, D. 2023. Detecting human-object contact in images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 17100--17110

work page 2023
[5]

Cui, Z.; Lei, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yang, W.; and Qi, J. 2023. Hand gesture segmentation against complex background based on improved atrous spatial pyramid pooling. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 14(9): 11795--11807

work page 2023
[6]

Gao, Y.; Kuang, Z.; Li, G.; Zhang, W.; and Lin, L. 2021. Hierarchical Reasoning Network for Human-Object Interaction Detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30: 8306--8317

work page 2021
[7]

Gupta, S.; and Malik, J. 2015. Visual semantic role labeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.04474

arXiv 2015
[8]

Hassan, M.; Choutas, V.; Tzionas, D.; and Black, M. J. 2019. Resolving 3D human pose ambiguities with 3D scene constraints. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2282--2292

work page 2019

Show all 34 references

[9]

J.; Laptev, I.; and Schmid, C

Hasson, Y.; Varol, G.; Tzionas, D.; Kalevatykh, I.; Black, M. J.; Laptev, I.; and Schmid, C. 2019. Learning joint reconstruction of hands and manipulated objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 11807--11816

2019
[10]

He, K.; Chen, X.; Xie, S.; Li, Y.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Girshick, R. 2022. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 16000--16009

2022
[11]

He, T.; Gao, L.; Song, J.; and Li, Y.-F. 2023. Toward a Unified Transformer-Based Framework for Scene Graph Generation and Human-Object Interaction Detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 32: 6274--6288

2023
[12]

P.; Yi, H.; H \"o schle, M.; Safroshkin, M.; Alexiadis, T.; Polikovsky, S.; Scharstein, D.; and Black, M

Huang, C.-H. P.; Yi, H.; H \"o schle, M.; Safroshkin, M.; Alexiadis, T.; Polikovsky, S.; Scharstein, D.; and Black, M. J. 2022. Capturing and inferring dense full-body human-scene contact. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 13...

2022
[13]

a m \"a r \

Illahi, G. K.; Vaishnav, A.; K \"a m \"a r \"a inen, T.; Siekkinen, M.; and Di Francesco, M. 2023. Learning to Predict Head Pose in Remotely-Rendered Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on ACM Multimedia Systems, 27--38

2023
[14]

Kim, D.-J.; Sun, X.; Choi, J.; Lin, S.; and Kweon, I. S. 2021. ACP++: Action Co-Occurrence Priors for Human-Object Interaction Detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30: 9150--9163

2021
[15]

Li, Y.-L.; Xu, L.; Liu, X.; Huang, X.; Xu, Y.; Wang, S.; Fang, H.-S.; Ma, Z.; Chen, M.; and Lu, C. 2020. PastaNet : Toward human activity knowledge engine. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 382--391

2020
[16]

Liao, Y.; Zhang, A.; Lu, M.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; and Liu, S. 2022. GEN-VLKT : Simplify Association and Enhance Interaction Understanding for HOI Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 20123--20132

2022
[17]

Lin, W.-K.; Zhang, H.-B.; Fan, Z.; Liu, J.-H.; Yang, L.-J.; Lei, Q.; and Du, J. 2023. Point-Based Learnable Query Generator for Human–Object Interaction Detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 32: 6469--6484

2023
[18]

Liu, Y.; Yuan, J.; and Chen, C. W. 2020. ConsNet : Learning consistency graph for zero-shot human-object interaction detection. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 4235--4243

2020
[19]

Narasimhaswamy, S.; Nguyen, T.; and Nguyen, M. H. 2020. Detecting hands and recognizing physical contact in the wild. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 7841--7851

2020
[20]

A.; Tzionas, D.; and Black, M

Pavlakos, G.; Choutas, V.; Ghorbani, N.; Bolkart, T.; Osman, A. A.; Tzionas, D.; and Black, M. J. 2019. Expressive body capture: 3d hands, face, and body from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10975--10985

2019
[21]

Rempe, D.; Birdal, T.; Hertzmann, A.; Yang, J.; Sridhar, S.; and Guibas, L. J. 2021. Humor: 3d human motion model for robust pose estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 11488--11499

2021
[22]

Shan, D.; Geng, J.; Shu, M.; and Fouhey, D. F. 2020. Understanding human hands in contact at internet scale. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 9869--9878

2020
[23]

Shimada, S.; Golyanik, V.; Li, Z.; P \'e rez, P.; Xu, W.; and Theobalt, C. 2022. Hulc: 3d human motion capture with pose manifold sampling and dense contact guidance. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 516--533. Springer

2022
[24]

Shiota, T.; Takagi, M.; Kumagai, K.; Seshimo, H.; and Aono, Y. 2024. Egocentric action recognition by capturing hand-object contact and object state. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 6541--6551

2024
[25]

Suvorov, R.; Logacheva, E.; Mashikhin, A.; Remizova, A.; Ashukha, A.; Silvestrov, A.; Kong, N.; Goka, H.; Park, K.; and Lempitsky, V. 2022. Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of co...

2022
[26]

Tekin, B.; Bogo, F.; and Pollefeys, M. 2019. H+ o: Unified egocentric recognition of 3d hand-object poses and interactions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4511--4520

2019
[27]

Wang, H.; Jiao, L.; Liu, F.; Li, L.; Liu, X.; Ji, D.; and Gan, W. 2021. IPGN : Interactiveness Proposal Graph Network for Human-Object Interaction Detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30: 6583--6593

2021
[28]

Wang, Y.; Liu, Q.; and Lei, Y. 2024. TED-Net : Dispersal Attention for Perceiving Interaction Region in Indirectly-Contact HOI Detection. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology

2024
[29]

Wu, C.; Zhang, J.; Savarese, S.; and Saxena, A. 2015. Watch-n-Patch : Unsupervised understanding of actions and relations. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4362--4370

2015
[30]

Xiao, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, B.; Jiang, Y.; and Sun, J. 2018. Unified perceptual parsing for scene understanding. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 418--434

2018
[31]

Yang, L.; Zhan, X.; Li, K.; Xu, W.; Zhang, J.; Li, J.; and Lu, C. 2024. Learning a contact potential field for modeling the hand-object interaction. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence

2024
[32]

Zhang, L.; Zhou, S.; Stent, S.; and Shi, J. 2022. Fine-grained egocentric hand-object segmentation: Dataset, model, and applications. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 127--145. Springer

2022
[33]

Zhao, H.; Shi, J.; Qi, X.; Wang, X.; and Jia, J. 2017. Pyramid scene parsing network. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2881--2890

2017
[34]

Zou, C.; Wang, B.; Hu, Y.; Liu, J.; Wu, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Li, B.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, C.; Wei, Y.; et al. 2021. End-to-end human object interaction detection with HOI transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 11825--11834

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[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]

F.; Birkl, R.; Wofk, D.; Wonka, P.; and M \"u ller, M

Bhat, S. F.; Birkl, R.; Wofk, D.; Wonka, P.; and M \"u ller, M. 2023. Zoedepth: Zero-shot transfer by combining relative and metric depth. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12288

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

K.; Black, M

Chen, Y.; Dwivedi, S. K.; Black, M. J.; and Tzionas, D. 2023. Detecting human-object contact in images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 17100--17110

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Cui, Z.; Lei, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yang, W.; and Qi, J. 2023. Hand gesture segmentation against complex background based on improved atrous spatial pyramid pooling. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 14(9): 11795--11807

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Gao, Y.; Kuang, Z.; Li, G.; Zhang, W.; and Lin, L. 2021. Hierarchical Reasoning Network for Human-Object Interaction Detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30: 8306--8317

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Gupta, S.; and Malik, J. 2015. Visual semantic role labeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.04474

arXiv 2015

[8] [8]

Hassan, M.; Choutas, V.; Tzionas, D.; and Black, M. J. 2019. Resolving 3D human pose ambiguities with 3D scene constraints. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2282--2292

work page 2019