Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

DEARLi: Decoupled Enhancement of Recognition and Localization for Semi-supervised Panoptic Segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DEARLi claims a semi-supervised panoptic method that reaches 29.9 PQ and 38.9 mIoU on ADE20K with only 158 labeled images, beating both previous semi-supervised methods and supervised models trained on four times more data.

desk verdict Strong empirical SSL segmentation paper whose central gains are credible, but the abstract's unmeasured '8x less GPU memory' claim should be fixed before this is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10118 v1 pith:D5IZFXMN submitted 2025-07-14 cs.CV

Ivan Martinović , Josip Šarić , Marin Oršić , Matej Kristan , Siniša Šegvić This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semi-supervisedpanopticsegmentationmasktransformersCLIPzero-shotrecognitionSAMpseudo-labelsgeometricensemblingdecoderwarm-upmean-teacherconsistencylow-annotation
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

Panoptic segmentation normally needs dense pixel labels, which cost over an hour per image. This paper argues that two cheap, pretrained foundation models can supply most of that signal in semi-supervised training, provided each is aimed at a separate weakness: CLIP, a vision-language model, contributes recognition by zero-shot naming of mask regions, while SAM, a class-agnostic segmentation model, contributes localization by pre-training the decoder on region boundaries. The method wraps both signals around a mask transformer trained with mean-teacher consistency on labeled and unlabeled images. On ADE20K with only 158 labeled images it reports 29.9 PQ and 38.9 mIoU, exceeding the previous semi-supervised semantic segmentation state of the art by a wide margin while using 8 times less GPU memory and beating supervised models trained on four times more labels. The significance is that very low-label, high-taxonomy panoptic setups stop being annotation-bound.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the weighted geometric ensembling of mask-transformer posteriors $P_{\mathrm{MT}}$ with mask-pooled CLIP zero-shot posteriors $P_{\mathrm{CLIP}}$ via $P_{\mathrm{ENS}} = (P_{\mathrm{MT}})^\alpha \odot (P_{\mathrm{CLIP}})^{1-\alpha}$ with $\alpha = 0.6$, where mask pooling averages frozen CLIP features over each thresholded candidate mask. Around this sits the class-agnostic decoder warm-up (DeWa): before semi-supervised training, the mask-transformer decoder is optimized only on localization losses against SAM pseudo-labels, so the segmentation heads start with object-boundary knowledge that the few labeled images cannot provide. The two mechanisms are orthogonal, which is why their gains add.

What would settle it

Train DEARLi on ADE20K 1/128 and degrade only the mask proposals used for CLIP mask pooling, for example by jittering their boundaries or randomly dropping low-recall masks while keeping CLIP features and the rest of the pipeline identical; if panoptic quality does not drop in step with the degradation, the claimed recognition mechanism is not what carries the gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that recognition and localization should be enhanced separately and then recombined in a mask transformer. For recognition, the teacher's mask-wide class probabilities are combined with zero-shot CLIP predictions obtained by averaging frozen CLIP image features inside each candidate mask; this geometric ensembling biases pseudo-labels toward classes that are rare in the tiny labeled set. For localization, the decoder is first warmed up by training only its segmentation losses against class-agnostic SAM masks, avoiding the granularity mismatch between SAM regions and dataset taxonomy, and then fine-tuned in the semi-supervised stage. The authors report that this decoupled pipeline yields panoptic quality that no semi-supervised panoptic method has previously reached at these label budgets, and that it transfers to semantic evaluation without retraining.

Load-bearing premise

The ensembling benefit assumes the mask transformer already produces candidate masks with reasonably accurate boundaries; if those masks are poorly localized or CLIP's text-image alignment is weak for the target class names, the ensembled pseudo-labels simply inherit that noise and the recognition gains collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Semi-supervised panoptic models can surpass fully supervised models trained on four times more labels at the lowest annotation budgets.
  • Freezing the CLIP backbone removes backpropagation through the feature extractor, which is what keeps training on a single GPU with roughly eight times less memory than the previous CLIP-based semi-supervised method.
  • The gains are concentrated in long-tail classes, so the method directly attacks the failure mode that makes large class taxonomies hard under label scarcity.
  • One panoptically trained model also serves as a semantic segmentation model, since the same masks can be scored with semantic inference without retraining.
  • Class-agnostic decoder warm-up improves the mask transformer even when the SAM pseudo-labels come from a different domain, indicating the localization pre-training generalizes beyond the target dataset.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the recognition signal is a zero-shot posterior over arbitrary class names, the trained decoder could probably be re-pointed at new taxonomies at inference time without retraining; the paper does not test this.
  • The paper's own ablation shows higher $\alpha$ helps as labeled data grows, so an adaptive ensembling weight that rises during training would likely squeeze out additional gains; the authors list this as a limitation.
  • Decoder warm-up distills only objectness, not class identity, so the same recipe may transfer to other mask-based dense prediction tasks such as instance segmentation; this is an untested extension.
  • The qualitative failure where house doors and windows are split into separate segments suggests CLIP's labeling policy can diverge from the dataset's, so gains on long-tail classes may need dataset-specific prompt engineering.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DEARLi, a three-stage semi-supervised panoptic segmentation method built on a frozen CLIP (ConvNeXt) backbone and a Mask2Former decoder. Recognition is enhanced by ensembling the mask-transformer's mask-wide posteriors with zero-shot, mask-pooled CLIP posteriors, while localization is enhanced by a class-agnostic decoder warm-up stage using SAM pseudo-labels. Training then proceeds with a Mean Teacher consistency loss on labeled and unlabeled images. The method is evaluated on ADE20K, COCO-Panoptic, and COCO-Objects across low-label regimes, reporting consistent improvements over baselines and large margins over the semi-supervised semantic segmentation state of the art (SemiVL). The supplement provides additional ablations, three-seed variance, and a limitations discussion.

Significance. The paper is a well-executed empirical study of foundation-model exploitation for low-label panoptic segmentation. It introduces a sensible decoupling of recognition and localization enhancement, validates each component with detailed ablations, and provides reproducible code. The reported gains are substantial and the three-seed variance in the supplement is a strength. However, the headline efficiency claim ('8x less GPU memory' in the abstract, '8x fewer GPUs' in the conclusion) is not measured anywhere in the paper, and the headline semantic-segmentation comparison partly relies on the SAM-augmented DEARLi variant, which the authors themselves admit may be an unfair comparison with SemiVL. These issues affect the abstract's central claims and need correction, although the core technical contributions and the main empirical results remain defensible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion; Section 4.1] The claim of an 8x reduction in GPU memory or GPU count is not supported by any measurement in the manuscript. Section 4 states only that all frozen-backbone experiments run on a single A100-40GB GPU, and Section 4.1 notes that backbone fine-tuning 'roughly doubles' memory. No controlled comparison of peak GPU memory or GPU count between DEARLi and SemiVL is reported, and the methods differ in batch size, resolution, and backbone training strategy. The conclusion's phrasing '8x fewer GPUs' is a different quantity from the abstract's '8x less GPU memory.' This is a load-bearing headline claim and must be either substantiated with a controlled measurement or corrected/removed before the abstract can be accepted as written.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4.2 (Tables 3 and 5)] The abstract's headline semantic-segmentation number (38.9 mIoU on ADE20K with 158 labeled images) belongs to DEARLi, which includes the class-agnostic SAM warm-up. In Section 4.2 the authors state that comparing DEARLi with SemiVL 'might be unfair' because DEARLi distills knowledge from SAM, and they present DEAR as the fair comparison (36.5 mIoU on the same partition). The abstract and the 'outperforms the state of the art' phrasing do not carry this qualification. Please either report DEAR as the primary comparison or explicitly note in the abstract that the cited number includes the SAM-augmented variant.
  3. [Section 4.2 (Tables 3 and 5) and Supplementary Table 12] The comparison with the state of the art in semantic segmentation uses panoptic-trained models evaluated with semantic inference. The authors provide a supporting control (Supplementary Table 12) showing that retraining the same model on semantic labels yields roughly comparable mIoU. This control is valuable and largely mitigates concern about objective mismatch. However, the main text should point to this control more explicitly, as the current text in Section 4.2 only says the comparison is 'relevant and fair' based on the typical behavior of Mask2Former; the control is the actual evidence for that statement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Supplementary Section A (heading)] The heading 'Semantic segmentaiton ablations' contains a typo ('Segmentaiton'); please correct it.
  2. [References and Tables 3, 5, 15, 16] SemiVL [22] is cited as 'ECCV'24' in the tables and text, but the bibliography entry lists the year 2025; please make the year consistent.
  3. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'preliminary experiments show -4.8 p.p. PQ on 1/128' reports a result without any details or reference; please include the setup in the supplement or a footnote so the claim can be checked.
  4. [Throughout] The manuscript uses both 'pseudo-labels' and 'pseudolabels' (e.g., 'pseudo-labels generation' and 'SAM pseudo-labels'); please unify the spelling.
  5. [Table 3 and Supplementary Figure captions] The caption of Table 3 says improvements over SemiVL are in green, but the textual version of the paper cannot convey color; please ensure the published PDF uses accessible color coding and that the caption explains any color encoding used.
  6. [Appendix C (Limitations)] The limitation discussion on the manually set alpha is good, but it appears only in the supplementary material; consider adding a brief version to the main paper, as the appropriate range of alpha is relevant to practical use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main gains come from external foundation-model signals (CLIP/SAM) with standard self-training; the only noted issue is an unmeasured and internally inconsistent compute-resource claim, which is an evidence problem rather than circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a standard Mean Teacher self-training pipeline augmented by two external foundation models. Recognition enhancement (Eq. 6) is a weighted geometric mean of the mask-transformer posterior and a zero-shot CLIP mask-pooled posterior; the weight alpha is fixed across experiments and ablated on validation partitions (Table 8), not fit to test labels. The CLIP zero-shot capacity is probed independently with oracle ground-truth masks (Figure 3), and the SAM decoder warm-up is compared against alternative initializations, including SA1B pretraining (Table 6), so the localization gain is not simply an artifact of the final evaluation protocol. No uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation is invoked: the only self-citation ([46], MC-PANDA) appears in a related-work survey and does not justify any design choice. The abstract's '8x less GPU memory' claim is contradicted by the conclusion's '8x fewer GPUs' and is not supported by a controlled memory measurement anywhere in the paper; however, this is a correctness/evidence concern, not a circularity. No equation or fitted parameter reduces by construction to the reported predictions, and the comparison against SemiVL uses independently reproduced checkpoints and external benchmarks. Score 2 reflects one minor, non-load-bearing self-citation and the unsubstantiated resource claim, not circular derivation.

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

The method depends on CLIP's zero-shot mask-level classification quality and SAM's objectness signal, both validated empirically in the paper. The only hand-set parameter that controls the fusion is alpha; the mask threshold is a standard binarization choice. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • geometric ensembling weight alpha = 0.6
    Manually set in Sec. 3.2 and validated in Tab. 8; chosen as best balance across data splits.
  • mask binarization threshold = 0.5
    Threshold for converting sigmoid masks to binary masks for mask pooling, Sec. 3.2.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption CLIP text-image embedding alignment permits zero-shot mask classification via mask pooling of frozen features
    Invoked in Sec. 3.2, Eq. (5), validated on ADE20K and COCO-Panoptic with oracle masks (Fig. 3).
  • domain assumption SAM class-agnostic pseudo-labels provide a useful localization signal despite granularity mismatch with the target taxonomy
    Invoked in Sec. 3.3, validated in Tab. 6 against SA1B pretraining and labeled-only init.
  • domain assumption Mean Teacher EMA yields stable pseudo-labels
    Standard SSL assumption from [61], used in Eq. (2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DEARLi: Decoupled Enhancement of Recognition and Localization for Semi-supervised Panoptic Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D5IZFXMN

@misc{pith2026250710118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DEARLi: Decoupled Enhancement of Recognition and Localization for Semi-supervised Panoptic Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D5IZFXMN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10118}
}
read the original abstract

Pixel-level annotation is expensive and time-consuming. Semi-supervised segmentation methods address this challenge by learning models on few labeled images alongside a large corpus of unlabeled images. Although foundation models could further account for label scarcity, effective mechanisms for their exploitation remain underexplored. We address this by devising a novel semi-supervised panoptic approach fueled by two dedicated foundation models. We enhance recognition by complementing unsupervised mask-transformer consistency with zero-shot classification of CLIP features. We enhance localization by class-agnostic decoder warm-up with respect to SAM pseudo-labels. The resulting decoupled enhancement of recognition and localization (DEARLi) particularly excels in the most challenging semi-supervised scenarios with large taxonomies and limited labeled data. Moreover, DEARLi outperforms the state of the art in semi-supervised semantic segmentation by a large margin while requiring 8x less GPU memory, in spite of being trained only for the panoptic objective. We observe 29.9 PQ and 38.9 mIoU on ADE20K with only 158 labeled images. The source code is available at https://github.com/helen1c/DEARLi.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10118 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Unlike semi-supervised-trained state-of-the-art panop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our three-stage semi-supervised learning pipeline. The first stage corresponds to large-scale contrastive language [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Zero-shot panoptic quality with ground-truth masks and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of granularity mismatch between ADE20K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PQ performance on ADE 1/128 (top) and ADE 1/64 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PQ performance of DEAR and DEARLi with two dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panoptic predictions of the baseline M2F+SSL CN-B-L2B ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Panoptic predictions of the baseline M2F+SSL CN-B-L2B ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of DEAR with the state-of-the-art method SemiVL [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative comparison of DEAR with the state-of-the-art method SemiVL [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. What Holds Back Open-Vocabulary Segmentation?

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Open-vocabulary segmentation is bottlenecked by CLIP's weak region-level classification, mask proposer quality, the no-object mask filter, and COCO-ADE20K annotation conflicts, each quantified with oracle experiments.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Combining labeled and un- labeled data with co-training

    Avrim Blum and Tom Mitchell. Combining labeled and un- labeled data with co-training. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual conference on Computational learning theory, pages 92–100, 1998. 2

    1998

  2. [2]

    Semi-supervised medical image segmentation via learning consistency under transformations

    Gerda Bortsova, Florian Dubost, Laurens Hogeweg, Ioan- nis Katramados, and Marleen De Bruijne. Semi-supervised medical image segmentation via learning consistency under transformations. In Medical Image Computing and Com- puter Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd Interna- tional Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedings, Part VI 22...

    2019

  3. [3]

    End-to- end object detection with transformers

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End-to- end object detection with transformers. In European confer- ence on computer vision, pages 213–229. Springer, 2020. 2, 3

    2020

  4. [4]

    Panoptic segmentation on panoramic radiographs: Deep learning-based segmentation of various structures including maxillary sinus and mandibu- lar canal

    Jun-Young Cha, Hyung-In Yoon, In-Sung Yeo, Kyung- Hoe Huh, and Jung-Suk Han. Panoptic segmentation on panoramic radiographs: Deep learning-based segmentation of various structures including maxillary sinus and mandibu- lar canal. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(12):2577, 2021. 1

    2021

  5. [5]

    Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Yukun Zhu, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 801–818, 2018. 2

    2018

  6. [6]

    Naive-student: Leveraging semi-supervised learning in video sequences for urban scene segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Bowen Cheng, Maxwell D Collins, Ekin D Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Hartwig Adam, and Jonathon Shlens. Naive-student: Leveraging semi-supervised learning in video sequences for urban scene segmentation. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th Euro- pean Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Pro- ceedings, Part IX 16, page...

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Panoptic-deeplab: A simple, strong, and fast baseline for bottom-up panoptic segmentation

    Bowen Cheng, Maxwell D Collins, Yukun Zhu, Ting Liu, Thomas S Huang, Hartwig Adam, and Liang-Chieh Chen. Panoptic-deeplab: A simple, strong, and fast baseline for bottom-up panoptic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 12475–12485, 2020. 1, 2

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Per- pixel classification is not all you need for semantic segmen- tation

    Bowen Cheng, Alex Schwing, and Alexander Kirillov. Per- pixel classification is not all you need for semantic segmen- tation. Advances in neural information processing systems , 34:17864–17875, 2021. 1, 2, 4, 7

    work page 2021

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation

    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, pages 1290–1299, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7

    2022

  2. [10]

    Reproducible scal- ing laws for contrastive language-image learning

    Mehdi Cherti, Romain Beaumont, Ross Wightman, Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Cade Gordon, Christoph Schuh- mann, Ludwig Schmidt, and Jenia Jitsev. Reproducible scal- ing laws for contrastive language-image learning. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer ...

    2023

  3. [11]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding

    Marius Cordts, Mohamed Omran, Sebastian Ramos, Timo Rehfeld, Markus Enzweiler, Rodrigo Benenson, Uwe Franke, Stefan Roth, and Bernt Schiele. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern re...

    2016

  4. [12]

    Panoptic segmentation meets remote sensing

    Osmar Luiz Ferreira de Carvalho, Osmar Ab ´ılio de Car- valho J´unior, Cristiano Rosa e Silva, Anesmar Olino de Al- buquerque, Nickolas Castro Santana, Dibio Leandro Borges, Roberto Arnaldo Trancoso Gomes, and Renato Fontes Guimar˜aes. Panoptic segmentation meets remote sensin...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009. 6

    2009

  6. [14]

    De- coupling zero-shot semantic segmentation

    Jian Ding, Nan Xue, Gui-Song Xia, and Dengxin Dai. De- coupling zero-shot semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11583–11592, 2022. 2

    2022

  7. [15]

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

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition ...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Finlayson

    Geoffrey French, Samuli Laine, Timo Aila, Michal Mack- iewicz, and Graham D. Finlayson. Semi-supervised seman- tic segmentation needs strong, varied perturbations. In 31st British Machine Vision Conference 2020, BMVC 2020, Vir- tual Event, UK, September 7-10, 2020, 2020. 2, 7

    2020

  9. [17]

    Scal- ing open-vocabulary image segmentation with image-level labels

    Golnaz Ghiasi, Xiuye Gu, Yin Cui, and Tsung-Yi Lin. Scal- ing open-vocabulary image segmentation with image-level labels. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 540–557. Springer, 2022. 2, 4, 5

    2022

  10. [18]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014. 2

    2014

  11. [19]

    Revisit- ing consistency for semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Ivan Grubi ˇsi´c, Marin Or ˇsi´c, and Sini ˇsa ˇSegvi´c. Revisit- ing consistency for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. Sensors, 23(2):940, 2023. 2

    2023

  12. [20]

    Open-vocabulary object detection via vision and language knowledge distillation

    Xiuye Gu, Tsung-Yi Lin, Weicheng Kuo, and Yin Cui. Open-vocabulary object detection via vision and language knowledge distillation. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. 2, 5

    2022

  13. [21]

    Mask r-cnn

    Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Gir- shick. Mask r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2961–2969, 2017. 2

    2017

  14. [22]

    Semivl: Semi- supervised semantic segmentation with vision-language guidance

    Lukas Hoyer, David Joseph Tan, Muhammad Ferjad Naeem, Luc Van Gool, and Federico Tombari. Semivl: Semi- supervised semantic segmentation with vision-language guidance. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 257–275. Springer, 2025. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 3, 6

    2025

  15. [23]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation via adaptive equalization learning

    Hanzhe Hu, Fangyun Wei, Han Hu, Qiwei Ye, Jinshi Cui, and Liwei Wang. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation via adaptive equalization learning. Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems , 34:22106–22118, 2021. 2, 7

    2021

  16. [24]

    Pseudo-label alignment for semi-supervised instance segmentation

    Jie Hu, Chen Chen, Liujuan Cao, Shengchuan Zhang, An- nan Shu, Guannan Jiang, and Rongrong Ji. Pseudo-label alignment for semi-supervised instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 16337–16347, 2023. 1

    2023

  17. [25]

    Training vision transformers for semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Xinting Hu, Li Jiang, and Bernt Schiele. Training vision transformers for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition , pages 4007–4017, 2024. 2, 7

    2024

  18. [26]

    Scaling up visual and vision-language representa- tion learning with noisy text supervision

    Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. Scaling up visual and vision-language representa- tion learning with noisy text supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 4904–4916. PMLR,

  19. [27]

    Learning mask-aware clip representations for zero-shot segmentation

    Siyu Jiao, Yunchao Wei, Yaowei Wang, Yao Zhao, and Humphrey Shi. Learning mask-aware clip representations for zero-shot segmentation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:35631–35653, 2023. 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    A three- stage self-training framework for semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Rihuan Ke, Angelica I Aviles-Rivero, Saurabh Pandey, Saikumar Reddy, and Carola-Bibiane Sch ¨onlieb. A three- stage self-training framework for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31: 1805–1815, 2022. 2

    2022

  21. [29]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings, 2015. 5

    2015

  22. [30]

    Panoptic feature pyramid networks

    Alexander Kirillov, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Doll´ar. Panoptic feature pyramid networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6399–6408, 2019. 1

    2019

  23. [31]

    Panoptic segmentation

    Alexander Kirillov, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Carsten Rother, and Piotr Doll ´ar. Panoptic segmentation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9404–9413, 2019. 1, 2, 5

    2019

  24. [32]

    Segment any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 4015–4026, 202...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Open-vocabulary object detection upon frozen vision and language models

    Weicheng Kuo, Yin Cui, Xiuye Gu, AJ Piergiovanni, and Anelia Angelova. Open-vocabulary object detection upon frozen vision and language models. In The Eleventh Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 2

    2023

  26. [34]

    Semi-supervised learning for optical flow with generative ad- versarial networks

    Wei-Sheng Lai, Jia-Bin Huang, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Semi-supervised learning for optical flow with generative ad- versarial networks. Advances in neural information process- ing systems, 30, 2017. 1

    2017

  27. [35]

    Semi-supervised semantic seg- mentation with directional context-aware consistency

    Xin Lai, Zhuotao Tian, Li Jiang, Shu Liu, Hengshuang Zhao, Liwei Wang, and Jiaya Jia. Semi-supervised semantic seg- mentation with directional context-aware consistency. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 1205–1214, 2021. 2

    2021

  28. [36]

    Proxyclip: Proxy at- tention improves clip for open-vocabulary segmentation

    Mengcheng Lan, Chaofeng Chen, Yiping Ke, Xinjiang Wang, Litong Feng, and Wayne Zhang. Proxyclip: Proxy at- tention improves clip for open-vocabulary segmentation. In ECCV, 2024. 2, 4

    2024

  29. [37]

    Language-driven semantic seg- mentation

    Boyi Li, Kilian Q Weinberger, Serge Belongie, Vladlen Koltun, and Rene Ranftl. Language-driven semantic seg- mentation. In International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, 2022. 2

    2022

  30. [38]

    Mask dino: Towards a unified transformer-based framework for object detection and segmentation

    Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Huaizhe Xu, Shilong Liu, Lei Zhang, Lionel M Ni, and Heung-Yeung Shum. Mask dino: Towards a unified transformer-based framework for object detection and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pa...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Weakly-and semi-supervised panoptic segmentation

    Qizhu Li, Anurag Arnab, and Philip HS Torr. Weakly-and semi-supervised panoptic segmentation. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 102–118, 2018. 1

    2018

  32. [40]

    Logic-induced diagnostic reasoning for semi-supervised se- mantic segmentation

    Chen Liang, Wenguan Wang, Jiaxu Miao, and Yi Yang. Logic-induced diagnostic reasoning for semi-supervised se- mantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision , pages 16197– 16208, 2023. 2, 7

    2023

  33. [41]

    Open-vocabulary semantic segmentation with mask-adapted clip

    Feng Liang, Bichen Wu, Xiaoliang Dai, Kunpeng Li, Yinan Zhao, Hang Zhang, Peizhao Zhang, Peter Vajda, and Diana Marculescu. Open-vocabulary semantic segmentation with mask-adapted clip. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pa...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll´ar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceeding...

    2014

  35. [43]

    A convnet for the 2020s

    Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao-Yuan Wu, Christoph Feicht- enhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. A convnet for the 2020s. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition , pages 11976–11986,

  36. [44]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net, 2019. 5

    2019

  37. [45]

    Rankmatch: Exploring the better consistency regularization for semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Huayu Mai, Rui Sun, Tianzhu Zhang, and Feng Wu. Rankmatch: Exploring the better consistency regularization for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 3391–3401, 2024. 2

    2024

  38. [46]

    Mc-panda: Mask confidence for panoptic domain adaptation

    Ivan Martinovi ´c, Josip ˇSari´c, and Siniˇsa ˇSegvi´c. Mc-panda: Mask confidence for panoptic domain adaptation. In Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision , pages 167–185. Springer, 2024. 2

    2024

  39. [47]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with high-and low- level consistency

    Sudhanshu Mittal, Maxim Tatarchenko, and Thomas Brox. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with high-and low- level consistency. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(4):1369–1379, 2019. 2

    2019

  40. [48]

    Semi- supervised semantic segmentation with cross-consistency training

    Yassine Ouali, C ´eline Hudelot, and Myriam Tami. Semi- supervised semantic segmentation with cross-consistency training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 12674– 12684, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  41. [49]

    Ca-ssl: Class-agnostic semi-supervised learning for detection and segmentation

    Lu Qi, Jason Kuen, Zhe Lin, Jiuxiang Gu, Fengyun Rao, Dian Li, Weidong Guo, Zhen Wen, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Jiaya Jia. Ca-ssl: Class-agnostic semi-supervised learning for detection and segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 59–77. Springer, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  42. [50]

    Ke- gan: Knowledge embedded generative adversarial networks for semi-supervised scene parsing

    Mengshi Qi, Yunhong Wang, Jie Qin, and Annan Li. Ke- gan: Knowledge embedded generative adversarial networks for semi-supervised scene parsing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5237–5246, 2019. 2

    2019

  43. [51]

    Deep co-training for semi-supervised image recogni- tion

    Siyuan Qiao, Wei Shen, Zhishuai Zhang, Bo Wang, and Alan Yuille. Deep co-training for semi-supervised image recogni- tion. In Proceedings of the european conference on computer vision (eccv), pages 135–152, 2018. 2

    2018

  44. [52]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  45. [53]

    Zero-shot text-to-image generation

    Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea V oss, Alec Radford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In International confer- ence on machine learning, pages 8821–8831. Pmlr, 2021. 2

    2021

  46. [54]

    Imagenet-21k pretraining for the masses

    Tal Ridnik, Emanuel Ben Baruch, Asaf Noy, and Lihi Zel- nik. Imagenet-21k pretraining for the masses. In Proceed- ings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS Datasets and Bench- marks 2021, December 2021, virtual, 2021. 2

    2021

  47. [55]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2

    2022

  48. [56]

    Acdc: The adverse conditions dataset with correspondences for se- mantic driving scene understanding

    Christos Sakaridis, Dengxin Dai, and Luc Van Gool. Acdc: The adverse conditions dataset with correspondences for se- mantic driving scene understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 10765–10775, 2021. 1

    2021

  49. [57]

    Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models

    Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Worts- man, et al. Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in Neural In- f...

    2022

  50. [58]

    Fixmatch: Simplifying semi- supervised learning with consistency and confidence

    Kihyuk Sohn, David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Zizhao Zhang, Han Zhang, Colin Raffel, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Alexey Kurakin, and Chun-Liang Li. Fixmatch: Simplifying semi- supervised learning with consistency and confidence. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 3...

    2020

  51. [59]

    Semi supervised semantic segmentation using generative ad- versarial network

    Nasim Souly, Concetto Spampinato, and Mubarak Shah. Semi supervised semantic segmentation using generative ad- versarial network. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 5688–5696, 2017. 2

    2017

  52. [60]

    Corrmatch: Label propagation via correlation matching for semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Boyuan Sun, Yuqi Yang, Le Zhang, Ming-Ming Cheng, and Qibin Hou. Corrmatch: Label propagation via correlation matching for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 3097–3107, 2024. 2

    2024

  53. [61]

    Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results

    Antti Tarvainen and Harri Valpola. Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 2, 3, 5

    2017

  54. [62]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017. 2

    2017

  55. [63]

    Sclip: Rethink- ing self-attention for dense vision-language inference

    Feng Wang, Jieru Mei, and Alan Yuille. Sclip: Rethink- ing self-attention for dense vision-language inference. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 315–332. Springer, 2024. 2, 4

    2024

  56. [64]

    Max-deeplab: End-to-end panoptic segmentation with mask transformers

    Huiyu Wang, Yukun Zhu, Hartwig Adam, Alan Yuille, and Liang-Chieh Chen. Max-deeplab: End-to-end panoptic segmentation with mask transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5463–5474, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  57. [65]

    Allspark: Reborn labeled features from unlabeled in trans- former for semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Haonan Wang, Qixiang Zhang, Yi Li, and Xiaomeng Li. Allspark: Reborn labeled features from unlabeled in trans- former for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3627–3636, 2024. 2, 7

    2024

  58. [66]

    Towards the uncharted: Density-descending feature perturbation for semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Xiaoyang Wang, Huihui Bai, Limin Yu, Yao Zhao, and Jimin Xiao. Towards the uncharted: Density-descending feature perturbation for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 3303–3312, 2024. 2

    2024

  59. [67]

    Robust fine-tuning of zero-shot models

    Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Jong Wook Kim, Mike Li, Simon Kornblith, Rebecca Roelofs, Raphael Gon- tijo Lopes, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Ali Farhadi, Hongseok Namkoong, et al. Robust fine-tuning of zero-shot models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- ...

    2022

  60. [68]

    Querying labeled for unlabeled: Cross- image semantic consistency guided semi-supervised seman- tic segmentation

    Linshan Wu, Leyuan Fang, Xingxin He, Min He, Jiayi Ma, and Zhun Zhong. Querying labeled for unlabeled: Cross- image semantic consistency guided semi-supervised seman- tic segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(7):8827–8844, 2023. 2, 7

    2023

  61. [69]

    Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training

    Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard Hovy, Thang Luong, and Quoc Le. Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6256–6268, 2020. 2, 3

    2020

  62. [70]

    Open-vocabulary panop- tic segmentation with text-to-image diffusion models

    Jiarui Xu, Sifei Liu, Arash Vahdat, Wonmin Byeon, Xiao- long Wang, and Shalini De Mello. Open-vocabulary panop- tic segmentation with text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 2955–2966, 2023. ...

    2023

  63. [71]

    End-to- end semi-supervised object detection with soft teacher

    Mengde Xu, Zheng Zhang, Han Hu, Jianfeng Wang, Lijuan Wang, Fangyun Wei, Xiang Bai, and Zicheng Liu. End-to- end semi-supervised object detection with soft teacher. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 3060–3069, 2021. 1

    2021

  64. [72]

    Vid2seq: Large-scale pretraining of a vi- sual language model for dense video captioning

    Antoine Yang, Arsha Nagrani, Paul Hongsuck Seo, An- toine Miech, Jordi Pont-Tuset, Ivan Laptev, Josef Sivic, and Cordelia Schmid. Vid2seq: Large-scale pretraining of a vi- sual language model for dense video captioning. In CVPR,

  65. [73]

    St++: Make self-training work better for semi-supervised se- mantic segmentation

    Lihe Yang, Wei Zhuo, Lei Qi, Yinghuan Shi, and Yang Gao. St++: Make self-training work better for semi-supervised se- mantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4268–4277, 2022. 2

    2022

  66. [74]

    Revisiting weak-to-strong consistency in semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Lihe Yang, Lei Qi, Litong Feng, Wayne Zhang, and Yinghuan Shi. Revisiting weak-to-strong consistency in semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7236–7246, 2023. 2, 5, 6, 7

    2023

  67. [75]

    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, 3

    2022

  68. [76]

    Convolutions die hard: Open-vocabulary seg- mentation with single frozen convolutional clip

    Qihang Yu, Ju He, Xueqing Deng, Xiaohui Shen, and Liang- Chieh Chen. Convolutions die hard: Open-vocabulary seg- mentation with single frozen convolutional clip. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:32215–32234,

  69. [77]

    A simple baseline for semi-supervised semantic seg- mentation with strong data augmentation

    Jianlong Yuan, Yifan Liu, Chunhua Shen, Zhibin Wang, and Hao Li. A simple baseline for semi-supervised semantic seg- mentation with strong data augmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 8229–8238, 2021. 2

    2021

  70. [78]

    Cutmix: Regu- larization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features

    Sangdoo Yun, Dongyoon Han, Seong Joon Oh, Sanghyuk Chun, Junsuk Choe, and Youngjoon Yoo. Cutmix: Regu- larization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international con- ference on computer vision, pages 6023–6032, 2019. 5, 3

    2019

  71. [79]

    Unifying panop- tic segmentation for autonomous driving

    Oliver Zendel, Matthias Sch ¨orghuber, Bernhard Rainer, Markus Murschitz, and Csaba Beleznai. Unifying panop- tic segmentation for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 21351–21360, 2022. 1

    2022

  72. [80]

    Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training

    Xiaohua Zhai, Basil Mustafa, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Lucas Beyer. Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 11975–11986, 2023. 2

    2023

  73. [81]

    Pixel contrastive-consistent semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Yuanyi Zhong, Bodi Yuan, Hong Wu, Zhiqiang Yuan, Jian Peng, and Yu-Xiong Wang. Pixel contrastive-consistent semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 7273–7282, 2021. 2, 7

    2021

  74. [82]

    Scene parsing through ade20k dataset

    Bolei Zhou, Hang Zhao, Xavier Puig, Sanja Fidler, Adela Barriuso, and Antonio Torralba. Scene parsing through ade20k dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 633–641,

  75. [83]

    Extract free dense labels from clip

    Chong Zhou, Chen Change Loy, and Bo Dai. Extract free dense labels from clip. In European Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 696–712. Springer, 2022. 2, 4

    2022

  76. [84]

    Pseudoseg: Designing pseudo labels for semantic segmentation

    Yuliang Zou, Zizhao Zhang, Han Zhang, Chun-Liang Li, Xiao Bian, Jia-Bin Huang, and Tomas Pfister. Pseudoseg: Designing pseudo labels for semantic segmentation. In In- ternational Conference on Learning Representations , 2021. 2, 7

    2021

  77. [85]

    Lars: A diverse panoptic maritime obstacle detection dataset and benchmark

    Lojze ˇZust, Janez Per ˇs, and Matej Kristan. Lars: A diverse panoptic maritime obstacle detection dataset and benchmark. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 20304–20314, 2023. 1 DEARLi: Decoupled Enhancement of Recognition and Loc...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.