Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Morpho-Aware Global Attention for Image Matting

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 MAGA, a new attention mechanism, preserves fine hair structure in image matting by aligning Tetris-like local kernel shapes with global context, setting state-of-the-art results with average improvements of 4.3% SAD and 39.5% MSE.

desk verdict Novel attention variant with real Composition-1k gains, but the Distinctions-646 MSE headline rests on an undisclosed trimap protocol and the method section has too many undefined symbols. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10251 v1 pith:Q5D3KZCJ submitted 2024-11-15 cs.CV

Jingru Yang , Chengzhi Cao , Chentianye Xu , Zhongwei Xie , Kaixiang Huang , Yang Zhou , Shengfeng He This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords imagemattingalphaVisionTransformerattentionmechanismfinestructurepreservationsparseconvolutiontrimapstate-of-the-artcomparison
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

Image matting requires predicting an alpha matte that separates foreground from background, and fine structures like hair and fur are the hardest part. The paper argues that both CNNs (limited local receptive fields) and standard Vision Transformers (global but detail-blind) fail here, and introduces Morpho-Aware Global Attention (MAGA) to fix this. MAGA replaces ordinary self-attention in a ViT matting backbone: it uses four Tetris-like sparse-convolution shapes to capture local morphology, turns that morphology into query embeddings, and projects them onto global key and value embeddings. On the Adobe Composition-1k and Distinctions-646 benchmarks, the resulting MAGA-based ViT outperforms prior state-of-the-art methods, cutting SAD by 4.3% on average and MSE by 39.5% on average. If correct, this gives matting practitioners a drop-in attention module that preserves fine structural detail without sacrificing global coherence.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the Morpho-Aware Global Attention (MAGA) module, a drop-in replacement for the self-attention block in a Vision Transformer encoder. Given patch embeddings, MAGA reshapes them into a 2D feature map and runs four parallel sparse-convolution branches whose kernels have Tetris-like shapes — 1×k, k×1, and their 2-step compositions — to capture local morphology of fine structures. The outputs are instance-normalized, adaptively reweighted through a 1D convolution followed by sigmoid, and fused by morpho-active learning, which takes the maximum response across views at each spatial location; this yields enriched query embeddings $Q_l$. Attention is then computed as $\operatorname{softmax}(Q_l K^\top / \sqrt{d})\,V$ against global key and value embeddings, so local shape information is explicitly matched with global context. The module's name identifies the two things it carries: morphology (shape awareness) and global attention.

What would settle it

Run a controlled comparison on Adobe Composition-1k with identical trimaps, training data, and compute for MAGA versus DiffMatte-ViTB; if the reported 6.4% SAD and 12.6% MSE advantages do not reproduce, the state-of-the-art claim fails. For Distinctions-646, repeat the comparison using the same publicly released trimap-generation protocol applied to every method; if the 66.6% MSE advantage collapses, the gain is an artifact of the self-generated trimaps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that fine-structure preservation in matting is not a matter of choosing between local and global receptive fields but of explicitly aligning local shape patterns and fusing them into global context. MAGA does this in three steps: it reprojects patch embeddings into 2D feature maps and applies four parallel sparse-convolution branches with Tetris-like shapes (1×k, k×1, and their compositions) to capture local morphology; it normalizes and adaptively reweights these views and applies a 'morpho-active learning' maximum over spatial locations to form enriched query embeddings; and it computes $\operatorname{softmax}(Q_l K^\top / \sqrt{d})\,V$ against the original global key and value embeddings. The authors report that this mechanism, inserted into ViTMatte-style ViT-S and ViT-B encoders, achieves state-of-the-art results on Composition-1k (SAD 17.43, MSE 2.22 for ViT-B, with MSE values scaled by $10^{-3}$) and Distinctions-646 (SAD 18.74, MSE 1.80 for ViT-B), beating DiffMatte-ViTB and ViTMatte across all four metrics. They also report that gains grow with kernel size, number of MAGA blocks, and number of branches in ablations.

Load-bearing premise

On Distinctions-646, the authors generate trimaps themselves using an unspecified 'digital image processing' method based on ground truth, so the benchmark comparison assumes those self-generated trimaps are fair to all compared methods rather than systematically favoring MAGA.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ViT-based matting backbones can be upgraded by swapping self-attention for MAGA without changing the overall encoder-decoder design, yielding consistent gains on SAD, MSE, Grad, and Conn.
  • Fine structures like hair, fur, and beards can be preserved while remaining globally coherent, addressing a weakness that both pure CNN and plain ViT matting models exhibit.
  • The reported average improvements of 4.3% SAD and 39.5% MSE across the two benchmarks make MAGA the new state of the art at publication time, ahead of DiffMatte and ViTMatte.
  • Ablation results indicate matting quality improves monotonically with larger kernel sizes (3 to 7), more MAGA blocks, and all four kernel branches, suggesting the mechanism's capacity is not yet saturated.
  • The extra parameters and FLOPs are modest (26.8M vs 25.8M for ViT-S), but FPS drops from 39.3 to 12.2 on ViT-S due to sparse-convolution overhead, so deployment speed is the main cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The very large MSE gain on Distinctions-646 (66.6%) may reflect the authors' self-generated trimaps more than matting quality; a fair comparison using official trimaps or a shared released protocol is needed before taking that number as evidence about the model.
  • The same local-to-global morphology alignment could transfer to other dense prediction tasks where thin structures matter, such as portrait segmentation, video matting, or transparency estimation, though the paper does not test these.
  • The fixed set of four Tetris-like kernel shapes is a design choice; learning the kernel shapes per spatial location or per image could extend the idea and perhaps improve generalization.
  • Because MAGA is a drop-in replacement for self-attention, it could be plugged into other ViT backbones beyond ViTMatte, but cross-backbone generality is not demonstrated.
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 Morpho-Aware Global Attention (MAGA), a modification of ViT self-attention for image matting. MAGA first extracts local morphological features using Tetris-like sparse convolutional kernels in multiple branches, uses these features as query embeddings, and then projects the enriched queries onto global key and value embeddings. The authors build two variants, MAGA (ViT-S) and MAGA (ViT-B), on top of ViTMatte, train on Adobe Composition-1k, and evaluate on Composition-1k and Distinctions-646. They report state-of-the-art results, with abstract-level average improvements of 4.3% in SAD and 39.5% in MSE over prior methods, and they include ablations over kernel size, number of branches, and number of MAGA blocks, as well as a model-complexity comparison.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, MAGA would be a useful contribution to image matting: a relatively simple architectural change to ViT attention yields consistent gains over ViTMatte and DiffMatte on Composition-1k, including a 6.4% SAD and 12.6% MSE improvement over DiffMatte-ViTB (S10). The paper provides full quantitative tables, multiple ablation studies, and a complexity comparison, which are strengths. However, the headline two-benchmark claim, especially the 39.5% average MSE improvement, is dominated by the Distinctions-646 result (66.6% MSE reduction), whose evaluation protocol is not disclosed. Until that protocol is specified or the trimaps are released, the broad SOTA claim is not verifiable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Tables 2 and abstract] The Distinctions-646 trimaps are generated by an undisclosed 'digital image processing' method, and no code or trimaps are released. It is not stated whether the prior-method numbers in Table 2 were obtained on the same trimaps as the MAGA numbers; if they were not, the reported 66.6% MSE improvement over DiffMatte-ViTB (S10) (1.80 vs 5.39) could be an artifact of trimap difficulty. This single benchmark dominates the abstract's 39.5% average MSE claim, so the 'across two benchmarks' conclusion rests on this protocol. The paper's acknowledgment of 'potential impact' does not resolve the issue; the authors should specify the generation method, report trimap statistics such as the width of the unknown region, release the generated trimaps, and ideally re-run the comparison methods on identical trimaps.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (2) and (3)] The core definition of MAGA is incomplete. Equation (3) defines Ql = Qf * X without ever defining X, and Equation (2) contains an undefined symbol A in the second branch and appears to be missing a separator between the second and third set elements. These are not merely cosmetic issues: without definitions of X and A, the MAGA operation cannot be implemented, reproduced, or checked. Please define every symbol and correct Equation (2).
  3. [Section 4.4, Table 4] Table 4 shows that kernel size 7 is consistently better than the reported final kernel size 3 on all four metrics (SAD 19.57 vs 19.85, MSE 2.75 vs 2.83, Grad 6.14 vs 6.28, Conn 13.93 vs 14.27), yet the final MAGA models use kernel size 3 and no justification is given. As written, the ablation selects a suboptimal configuration. Either adopt the best-performing kernel size or explain why kernel size 3 is chosen despite the table's trend, for example because of computational cost or overfitting on the validation set.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'The learning rate is decreased to 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01 of its original value at epochs 30, 60, and 90' is ambiguous; it should state that the learning rate is multiplied by these factors.
  2. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'factor of10−3' is missing a space before '10−3', and the table header 'MSE(10−3)' is not fully consistent with the text's 'MSE values are scaled by a factor of 10−3'.
  3. [Throughout] The dataset name is inconsistent: 'Distinctions-646' appears in most places, but Table 2 and one paragraph in Section 4.3 use 'Distinction-646'.
  4. [Section 4.4, Figure 5] The block-number ablation is presented only as a figure without axis labels or numerical values, so the claimed monotonic improvement cannot be verified; a table or labeled axes would help.
  5. [Section 4.4, Table 5] The header 'Branch Config of MAGA' is confusing because the four kernel-shape combinations are indicated only by checkmarks. Please define the combinations in the text or in the table itself.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are empirical benchmark comparisons of a proposed attention mechanism, with no fitted inputs renamed as predictions and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

This is an empirical architecture paper rather than a derivation-driven one. The proposed MAGA mechanism is defined by Equations (2)-(4) as a concrete modification of self-attention, and the paper's central claims are benchmark numbers against external published methods. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then reported as a prediction of a closely related quantity; the reported SAD/MSE gains are direct evaluation results on Composition-1k and Distinctions-646. The method builds on ViTMatte and uses DINO/MAE pretrained weights, but those are external resources, not self-citations, and the comparison numbers for other methods come from the literature. The only notable weakness is the undisclosed generation of trimaps for Distinctions-646, which the paper itself acknowledges as a 'potential impact'; however, that is an evaluation-protocol and reproducibility concern, not a circularity of the type where an output is equivalent to an input by construction. No self-citation is load-bearing, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard matting assumptions, pretrained initialization, and several hand-chosen hyperparameters (kernel size, branch count, block count). The most fragile input is the undisclosed trimap generation for Distinctions-646, which directly affects the headline MSE improvement. No new physical entities are introduced; the invented algorithmic components (Tetris-like kernels, MAL) are part of the proposed method itself.

free parameters (3)
  • kernel size k = 3 (final), though k=7 yields better SAD 19.57 vs 19.85
    Table 4 shows larger kernels improve all metrics, but the final reported model uses k=3 with no explanation; this choice affects the reported numbers.
  • number of branches = 4
    Table 5 shows using all four Tetris-like kernel branch combinations gives the best SAD, MSE, Grad, and Conn values.
  • number of MAGA blocks = not stated explicitly; follows ViT-S and ViT-B depth
    Figure 5 shows performance improves as MAGA blocks increase, but the exact block count used in the final model is not reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The image matting composition equation I = alpha*F + (1-alpha)*B is an adequate model.
    Used in Section 1, Eq. (1), as the standard model following [24]; not justified beyond the reference.
  • domain assumption DINO and MAE pretrained ViT weights provide useful initialization for the matting task.
    Used for ViT-S and ViT-B in Section 4.2; this is inherited from ViTMatte and is not derived or tested independently.
  • domain assumption Sparse convolutions applied to 2D feature maps capture local morphological features useful for matting.
    Core mechanism of MAGA, Section 3.2 Eq. (2), validated only by the reported experiments, not by a theoretical argument.
  • domain assumption The automatically generated trimaps for Distinctions-646 are valid and comparable to official trimaps used by comparison methods.
    Section 4.1 states trimaps are generated using an undisclosed digital image processing procedure; this is load-bearing for the D646 comparison.
invented entities (1)
  • Morpho-Active Learning (MAL) selection
    purpose: Selects the maximum response at each spatial location across the Tetris-like kernel branches to emphasize salient morphological features.
    Introduced in Eq. (3) as an algorithmic component; its effectiveness is only shown indirectly through ablations, not through an independent falsifiable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Morpho-Aware Global Attention for Image Matting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5D3KZCJ

@misc{pith2026241110251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Morpho-Aware Global Attention for Image Matting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q5D3KZCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10251}
}
read the original abstract

Vision Transformers (ViTs) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) face inherent challenges in image matting, particularly in preserving fine structural details. ViTs, with their global receptive field enabled by the self-attention mechanism, often lose local details such as hair strands. Conversely, CNNs, constrained by their local receptive field, rely on deeper layers to approximate global context but struggle to retain fine structures at greater depths. To overcome these limitations, we propose a novel Morpho-Aware Global Attention (MAGA) mechanism, designed to effectively capture the morphology of fine structures. MAGA employs Tetris-like convolutional patterns to align the local shapes of fine structures, ensuring optimal local correspondence while maintaining sensitivity to morphological details. The extracted local morphology information is used as query embeddings, which are projected onto global key embeddings to emphasize local details in a broader context. Subsequently, by projecting onto value embeddings, MAGA seamlessly integrates these emphasized morphological details into a unified global structure. This approach enables MAGA to simultaneously focus on local morphology and unify these details into a coherent whole, effectively preserving fine structures. Extensive experiments show that our MAGA-based ViT achieves significant performance gains, outperforming state-of-the-art methods across two benchmarks with average improvements of 4.3% in SAD and 39.5% in MSE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) CNNs’ local receptive fields restrict them to capturing only local patterns. (b) ViTs’ global receptive fields capture overall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed MAGA-based matting architecture. The framework input consists of the image combined with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MAGA converts traditional patch embeddings from ViT architectures into 2D feature maps. Tetris-like convolutional kernels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparisons with previous state-of-the-art methods on Adobe Composition-1k. Please zoom in for a clearer view of the details. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evaluation on the number of MAGA blocks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

    Dosovitskiy Alexey. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2010.11929, 2020. 6

    arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    Trans- matting: Enhancing transparent objects matting with trans- formers

    Huanqia Cai, Fanglei Xue, Lele Xu, and Lili Guo. Trans- matting: Enhancing transparent objects matting with trans- formers. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 253–269. Springer, 2022. 2, 3, 6

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9650–9660, 2021. 6

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Learning affinity- aware upsampling for deep image matting

    Yutong Dai, Hao Lu, and Chunhua Shen. Learning affinity- aware upsampling for deep image matting. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6841–6850, 2021. 6

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Boosting robustness of image matting with context assem- bling and strong data augmentation

    Yutong Dai, Brian Price, He Zhang, and Chunhua Shen. Boosting robustness of image matting with context assem- bling and strong data augmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11707–11716, 2022. 2, 6

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Sta- ble diffusion is unstable

    Chengbin Du, Yanxi Li, Zhongwei Qiu, and Chang Xu. Sta- ble diffusion is unstable. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge

    Mark Everingham, Luc Van Gool, Christopher KI Williams, John Winn, and Andrew Zisserman. The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision, 88:303–338, 2010. 5

    2010

  8. [8]

    f, b, alpha matting

    Marco Forte and Franc ¸ois Piti´e. f, b, alpha matting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.07711, 2020. 6

    arXiv 2003

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Doll´ar, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16000– 16009, 2022. 6

    2022

  2. [10]

    Context-aware image matting for si- multaneous foreground and alpha estimation

    Qiqi Hou and Feng Liu. Context-aware image matting for si- multaneous foreground and alpha estimation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 4130–4139, 2019. 6

    2019

  3. [11]

    Ef- fective local-global transformer for natural image matting

    Liangpeng Hu, Yating Kong, Jide Li, and Xiaoqiang Li. Ef- fective local-global transformer for natural image matting. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Tech- nology, 33(8):3888–3898, 2023. 3, 6

    2023

  4. [12]

    Diffusion for natural image matting

    Yihan Hu, Yiheng Lin, Wei Wang, Yao Zhao, Yunchao Wei, and Humphrey Shi. Diffusion for natural image matting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05915, 2023. 3, 6

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Matting anything

    Jiachen Li, Jitesh Jain, and Humphrey Shi. Matting anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1775–1785, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  6. [14]

    Natural image matting via guided contextual attention

    Yaoyi Li and Hongtao Lu. Natural image matting via guided contextual attention. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 11450–11457, 2020. 3, 6

    2020

  7. [15]

    Disentangled pre-training for image mat- ting

    Yanda Li, Zilong Huang, Gang Yu, Ling Chen, Yunchao Wei, and Jianbo Jiao. Disentangled pre-training for image mat- ting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 169–178, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  8. [16]

    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 European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 740–755. Springer, 2014. 5

    2014

  9. [17]

    Boosting se- mantic human matting with coarse annotations

    Jinlin Liu, Yuan Yao, Wendi Hou, Miaomiao Cui, Xuansong Xie, Changshui Zhang, and Xian-sheng Hua. Boosting se- mantic human matting with coarse annotations. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8563–8572, 2020. 2

    2020

  10. [18]

    In- dices matter: Learning to index for deep image matting

    Hao Lu, Yutong Dai, Chunhua Shen, and Songcen Xu. In- dices matter: Learning to index for deep image matting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3266–3275, 2019. 2, 6

    2019

  11. [19]

    Matteformer: Transformer-based image mat- ting via prior-tokens

    GyuTae Park, SungJoon Son, JaeYoung Yoo, SeHo Kim, and Nojun Kwak. Matteformer: Transformer-based image mat- ting via prior-tokens. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11696–11706, 2022. 2, 3, 6

    2022

  12. [20]

    Attention-guided hi- erarchical structure aggregation for image matting

    Yu Qiao, Yuhao Liu, Xin Yang, Dongsheng Zhou, Mingliang Xu, Qiang Zhang, and Xiaopeng Wei. Attention-guided hi- erarchical structure aggregation for image matting. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13676–13685, 2020. 2, 5

    2020

  13. [21]

    Denois- ing diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denois- ing diffusion implicit models. In International Conference on Learning Representations. 6

  14. [22]

    Semantic image matting: General and specific semantics

    Yanan Sun, Chi-Keung Tang, and Yu-Wing Tai. Semantic image matting: General and specific semantics. Interna- tional Journal of Computer Vision , 132(3):710–730, 2024. 2, 3, 6

    2024

  15. [23]

    Learning-based sampling for natural image matting

    Jingwei Tang, Yagiz Aksoy, Cengiz Oztireli, Markus Gross, and Tunc Ozan Aydin. Learning-based sampling for natural image matting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3055– 3063, 2019. 6

    2019

  16. [24]

    Deep image matting

    Ning Xu, Brian Price, Scott Cohen, and Thomas Huang. Deep image matting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2970–2979, 2017. 2, 5, 6

    2017

  17. [25]

    Vitmatte: Boosting image matting with pre- trained plain vision transformers

    Jingfeng Yao, Xinggang Wang, Shusheng Yang, and Baoyuan Wang. Vitmatte: Boosting image matting with pre- trained plain vision transformers. Information Fusion, 103: 102091, 2024. 2, 3, 6

    2024

  18. [26]

    High-resolution deep image matting

    Haichao Yu, Ning Xu, Zilong Huang, Yuqian Zhou, and Humphrey Shi. High-resolution deep image matting. In Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 3217–3224, 2021. 2

    2021

  19. [27]

    Mask guided matting via progressive refinement network

    Qihang Yu, Jianming Zhang, He Zhang, Yilin Wang, Zhe Lin, Ning Xu, Yutong Bai, and Alan Yuille. Mask guided matting via progressive refinement network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 1154–1163, 2021. 2, 3, 6

    2021

Pith tools

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