Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 54 references

SAM-Aware Graph Prompt Reasoning Network for Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Frozen SAM masks, turned into graph-reasoned visual prompts, set new state-of-the-art results on four cross-domain few-shot segmentation benchmarks.

desk verdict GPRN is a well-built method-level innovation, but its SOTA claim rests on an underspecified fine-tuning protocol that a referee must pin down before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00303 v1 pith:TU25TOIJ submitted 2024-12-31 cs.CV cs.LG

Shi-Feng Peng , Guolei Sun , Yong Li , Hongsong Wang , Guo-Sen Xie This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords cross-domainfew-shotsegmentationSegmentAnythingModelvisualprompttuninggraphattentionnetworkpointrefinementprototypematchingmeanintersection-over-union
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

Cross-domain few-shot segmentation asks a model trained on one image domain and one set of classes to segment novel classes in unseen domains from one or five support examples. The paper argues that earlier methods fail not only because of weak backbone features but because the visual prompts they use carry no semantic or spatial prior. GPRN converts masks produced by the Segment Anything Model (SAM) into visual prompts, reasons over these prompts with a graph attention network so fragmented pieces of the same object share consistent semantics, and embeds the refined prompts back into the feature map. At test time it selects foreground and background point prompts from its own coarse prediction and asks SAM to refine the mask. On four standard CD-FSS datasets the method reports mean-IoU of 71.7 in the 1-shot setting and 75.3 in the 5-shot setting, ahead of the best fine-tuning baseline by 3.9 points in both settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the conversion of SAM's masks into visual prompts, followed by graph attention message passing and reverse masked average pooling. Each SAM mask region becomes one prompt vector via masked average pooling, with overlapping regions reassigned to the smallest mask so prompts stay clean. A graph attention network treats prompts as nodes and cosine similarity as edge weights, letting each prompt absorb information from similar prompts through a residual update v_i = v_i + alpha * sum_j phi_ij W v_j. Reverse masked average pooling then spreads each refined prompt back over its mask region, producing a prompt feature map with the same spatial resolution as the CNN features, so the prompt information can be fused without attention or a transformer. The test-time refinement object is the adaptive point selection procedure, which repeatedly takes the point inside a predicted mask region that maximizes a Gaussian-smoothed distance transform, selecting spatially spread positive and negative prompts for SAM.

What would settle it

Run the SPI and GPR modules with SAM replaced by an equal number of randomly placed or randomly shaped blobs on the same target images; if the mean-IoU gain over the SSP baseline stays at roughly the reported 4.1 points on FSS-1000, then the gain does not depend on SAM's semantic content. A second check is to feed SAM no point prompts at all (or prompts sampled from a fixed grid) and compare with APS; if the fusion result is unchanged, the distance-transform point selection is not the active ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SAM's class-agnostic mask proposals can be reused as task-specific visual prompts that carry both semantic and spatial information, and that this is enough to outperform dedicated cross-domain adaptation methods. The SPI module sorts SAM masks by area, resolves overlaps in favor of the smallest mask, and applies masked average pooling to produce one visual prompt per mask region. Because SAM over-segments, the GPR module places these prompts as nodes in a fully connected graph and uses graph attention with cosine-similarity edge weights so that each prompt aggregates information from similar prompts, giving globally consistent semantics. A reverse masked average pooling step turns the refined prompts back into a feature map that is added to the backbone features before prototype-based prediction with SSP. During testing, the parameter-free APS module selects 20 positive and 20 negative point prompts via a distance transform with Gaussian smoothing and feeds them to SAM in prompt mode, then fuses SAM's logits with the initial prediction (beta = 0.5) to produce the final mask. The paper reports state-of-the-art mean-IoU of 71.7 (1-shot) and 75.3 (5-shot) averaged over Deepglobe, ISIC, Chest X-Ray, and FSS-1000.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline assumes the masks SAM produces on each target image, capped at 40, are semantically meaningful and overlap the objects of interest, so that the prompts and the test-time point feedback carry useful signal rather than noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Frozen SAM mask proposals can substitute for learned domain-invariant feature projections: the graph-reasoned prompt path supplies the semantic prior that earlier CD-FSS methods tried to obtain through transformation modules.
  • Visual prompting need not be confined to transformer architectures, because reverse masked average pooling gives prompts spatial resolution and lets them interact with CNN feature maps.
  • A parameter-free test-time refinement stage using SAM point prompts contributes a consistent gain on top of any coarse segmentation prediction.
  • Fine-tuning on very few target samples (20 for Chest X-Ray, 60 for ISIC) is enough for GPRN to reach state of the art, suggesting the method is usable where target annotations are scarce.
  • The SPI and GPR modules are plug-and-play, so the same prompt-reasoning mechanism can be attached to other prototype-based few-shot segmentation baselines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the reported gains make a sharp testable prediction — on a target domain where SAM's masks are incoherent (for example, objects with very thin or low-contrast structures), the SPI and APS gains should shrink toward zero.
  • Editorial inference: the graph reasoning is agnostic to the source of the mask proposals, so replacing SAM with another proposal generator (e.g., a generic segmentation network) would isolate whether SAM's semantic prior or mere spatial grouping drives the improvement.
  • Editorial inference: the APS refinement stage is parameter-free and decoupled from the trained model, so it could be applied on top of other CD-FSS predictions without retraining, with the fusion weight beta tuned per domain rather than fixed at 0.5.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GPRN, a SAM-aware graph prompt reasoning network for cross-domain few-shot segmentation (CD-FSS). The method comprises three modules: SPI converts SAM-generated masks into visual prompts via masked average pooling; GPR reasons over these prompts with a graph attention network to enforce global semantic consistency; APS selects positive and negative point prompts from an initial prediction and feeds them to SAM at test time, fusing SAM's output with the model prediction. The authors report state-of-the-art mean-IoU on four CD-FSS benchmarks (Deepglobe, ISIC, Chest X-Ray, FSS-1000), outperforming prior methods with and without fine-tuning, and release code.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution by demonstrating how SAM's generalist masks can be turned into semantically consistent visual prompts for CD-FSS, and the APS test-time refinement is a plausible and interesting use of SAM. The release of code aids reproducibility. However, the central state-of-the-art claim depends on an incompletely specified fine-tuning protocol, and many hyperparameters are tuned on one of the test datasets; these issues currently prevent the empirical claims from being fully convincing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Experiments; Table 1] The fine-tuning protocol for GPRN is underspecified, which undermines the headline claim of outperforming IFA by 3.9 points in both 1-shot and 5-shot settings (Table 1). The text states only that 'we use 120, 520, 60, and 20 samples from the Deepglobe, FSS-1000, ISIC, and Chest X-ray datasets, respectively' during fine-tuning, without specifying whether these samples are labeled, how they relate to the episodic evaluation sets, how many gradient steps are performed, or what supervision budget the comparison methods (PATNet, DARNet, IFA, DMTNet) are given. If GPRN's fine-tuning uses labeled target images with many gradient steps while the baselines only use the per-episode support sets, the reported margin is an artifact of the evaluation budget rather than a method improvement. Please specify the full fine-tuning protocol, including data, labels, number of steps, and ensure that all compared methods are evaluated under matched supervision budgets.
  2. [Experiments; Tables 3–7] The hyperparameters α, l, |Z|, |N|, β, and γ are selected by ablations on FSS-1000, which is one of the four test datasets, and then fixed for all target domains. Because the method is evaluated on the same dataset used for hyperparameter selection, the reported mean-IoU on FSS-1000 (and potentially other domains if the choices are not robust) is likely optimistic. Please either tune on a held-out validation split or report per-domain sensitivity to these hyperparameters to demonstrate that the selected values generalize across domains.
  3. [Table 1; Comparisons with State-of-the-arts] The comparison 'GPRN vs. best non-fine-tuning method' (10.4% and 9.9% gains) is presented as a headline result, but it is not a like-for-like comparison because GPRN includes both a fine-tuning phase and SAM-based test-time refinement. The categorization in the table is a step in the right direction, but the text should clarify that the non-fine-tuning numbers are included as reference points, not as evidence of method superiority independent of the fine-tuning budget.
  4. [Table 2] The ablation study reports single numbers without error bars or significance tests. Given the small differences (e.g., 77.9 vs. 77.2 for SPI vs. GPR alone, and 81.1 vs. 80.7 for the two three-module configurations), it is unclear whether the observed gains are statistically meaningful. Please report mean±std over multiple seeds for the ablations, as done for the main evaluation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [SAM-aware Prompt Initialization] The overlap elimination rule in Eq. (1) assigns overlapping pixels to the mask with the largest index (smallest area), but the justification is only about 'finest information granularity.' A more detailed explanation or a sensitivity analysis would help the reader understand the design choice.
  2. [Adaptive Point Selection] The parameter γ is set to 0.1 'according to (Irving 2016)', but the downstream fusion weight β is not attributed to any source; please clarify whether β was also tuned on FSS-1000, as suggested by Table 7.
  3. [Equation (11)] The notation '1' for a matrix of ones is ambiguous and could be confused with the number one; suggest using a bold '1' or 'J' with dimensions specified.
  4. [Supplementary Table 9] The supplementary reports the effect of overlap elimination on each dataset, but the main text does not discuss this table; please integrate the result into the main ablation discussion or explicitly refer to it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains are empirical and the pipeline's components are external or independently benchmarked; no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper proposes GPRN as an empirical segmentation architecture whose inputs are externally generated SAM masks and ImageNet-pretrained backbone features. Equation 1-2 initialize prompts from SAM masks via masked average pooling; Eq. 3-4 apply graph attention over those prompts; Eq. 5 restores spatial features via reverse masked average pooling; Eq. 6-7 run the external SSP prototype matcher; Eq. 8-11 select point prompts from the model's own initial prediction; Eq. 12 fuses SAM's point-prompt output with the model's initial prediction. None of these equations defines the final prediction in terms of the evaluation metric or in terms of a parameter fitted to the reported IoU. The APS test-time stage does inherit segmentation ability from SAM by explicit design, but this is disclosed as 'SAM-aware' rather than being presented as a derivation from first principles. The fine-tuning protocol using 120, 520, 60, and 20 target samples is under-specified and could affect comparison fairness, but the paper transparently labels these results as fine-tuning results, and the loss is supervised on ground-truth masks rather than on the reported performance numbers. Citations to GAT, SSP, and maskSLIC are external; no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain appears. Therefore, no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on external SAM mask quality, on hyperparameters selected against FSS-1000, and on SSP as the prediction head. These are load-bearing assumptions rather than additions contributed by this paper. No new physical or architectural entities beyond learned prompt vectors are introduced; the visual prompts and point prompts are feature-engineering constructs built from existing components.

free parameters (7)
  • alpha (GPR scaling) = 0.1
    Residual weight in graph prompt aggregation, Eq. 4; selected by ablation on FSS-1000 in Table 3.
  • number of SAM masks l = 40
    Fixed cap and padding for SAM masks; selected by ablation on FSS-1000 in Table 4.
  • point prompt counts |Z| and |N| = 20 and 20
    Number of positive and negative points for APS; selected by ablation on FSS-1000 in Table 5.
  • fusion weight beta = 0.5
    Weight for fusing SAM refinement with the initial prediction, Eq. 12; selected by ablation on FSS-1000 in Table 7.
  • Gaussian smoothing gamma = 0.1
    Smoothing scalar in the distance transform, Eq. 9; adopted from maskSLIC and not ablated here.
  • SSP thresholds tau_f and tau_b = 0.7 and 0.6
    Confidence thresholds in the SSP baseline, supplementary Eqs. 15 and 16; inherited from Fan et al. 2022.
  • fine-tuning samples per target = 120, 520, 60, 20
    Labeled target-domain samples used for fine-tuning Deepglobe, FSS-1000, ISIC, and Chest X-Ray; a hand-chosen protocol that affects the cross-domain claims.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SAM-generated masks on arbitrary target-domain images are semantically coherent and cover the task-relevant objects.
    SPI builds all visual prompts from these masks; if SAM over-segments or misses the target object, the prompt path has no useful signal. Introduced in the SAM-aware Prompt Initialization section.
  • ad hoc to paper A fixed budget of 40 masks with zero-padding is sufficient to capture the relevant object structure in all four target domains.
    Stated in the Experiments section: the number of masks l is fixed as 40. Zero-padding means unused prompt slots do nothing, so the method implicitly assumes the real masks are few and informative.
  • domain assumption Prototype-based self-support matching (SSP) is a valid segmentation head for CD-FSS because target datasets obey the Gestalt principle.
    GPRN uses SSP for all predictions; the supplementary states that target datasets in CD-FSS adhere to the Gestalt principle without offering new evidence.
  • domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained ResNet-50 features plus fine-tuning on a small target set provide a workable starting representation.
    The backbone and fine-tuning protocol are taken from prior CD-FSS practice; if the backbone features are useless, the prompt adaptation cannot recover.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SAM-Aware Graph Prompt Reasoning Network for Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TU25TOIJ

@misc{pith2026250100303,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SAM-Aware Graph Prompt Reasoning Network for Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TU25TOIJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00303}
}
read the original abstract

The primary challenge of cross-domain few-shot segmentation (CD-FSS) is the domain disparity between the training and inference phases, which can exist in either the input data or the target classes. Previous models struggle to learn feature representations that generalize to various unknown domains from limited training domain samples. In contrast, the large-scale visual model SAM, pre-trained on tens of millions of images from various domains and classes, possesses excellent generalizability. In this work, we propose a SAM-aware graph prompt reasoning network (GPRN) that fully leverages SAM to guide CD-FSS feature representation learning and improve prediction accuracy. Specifically, we propose a SAM-aware prompt initialization module (SPI) to transform the masks generated by SAM into visual prompts enriched with high-level semantic information. Since SAM tends to divide an object into many sub-regions, this may lead to visual prompts representing the same semantic object having inconsistent or fragmented features. We further propose a graph prompt reasoning (GPR) module that constructs a graph among visual prompts to reason about their interrelationships and enable each visual prompt to aggregate information from similar prompts, thus achieving global semantic consistency. Subsequently, each visual prompt embeds its semantic information into the corresponding mask region to assist in feature representation learning. To refine the segmentation mask during testing, we also design a non-parameter adaptive point selection module (APS) to select representative point prompts from query predictions and feed them back to SAM to refine inaccurate segmentation results. Experiments on four standard CD-FSS datasets demonstrate that our method establishes new state-of-the-art results. Code: https://github.com/CVL-hub/GPRN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00303 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of existing visual prompting meth￾ods and ours. (a) Existing methods typically input randomly initialized visual prompts into the network alongside image tokens, which lack prior semantic information and spatial information. (b) Our approach leverages SAM to initialize task-specific visual prompts and constructs a graph convo￾lutional network (GCN) to reason about their inherent rela￾tionships. Zoom in fo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall architecture of our method. In the training or fine-tuning phase, support and query features along with their corresponding masks generated by SAM are first fed into the SAM-aware initialization module to create visual prompts. These prompts are then processed through a constructed graph to reason about their inter-prompt relationships. Finally, SSP (Fan et al. 2022) is employed to segment the query image. I… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative analysis results: I q and Mq represent the original query image and its ground truth mask, respectively. F q , F¯q , Fˆq correspond to the feature map extracted by the backbone network, the feature map of the visual prompts, and the feature map adapted to the new task, respectively. M¯ q , Mˆ q , M˜ q represent the model’s prediction, SAM’s prediction, and the final segmentation result after refinement, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Flowchart of SSP. SSFP refers to the self-support [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative analysis results: I q and Mq repre￾sent the original query image and its ground truth mask, re￾spectively. M¯ q , Mˆ q , M˜ q represent the model’s prediction, SAM’s prediction, and the final segmentation result after re￾finement, respectively. The green an…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative analysis results on FSS-1000: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative analysis results on FSS-1000: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative analysis results on ISIC: Mq represent the query ground truth mask. F q , F¯q , Fˆq correspond to the feature map extracted by the backbone network, the 3D feature map of the visual prompts, and the feature map adapted to the new task, respectively [PITH_F…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative analysis results on ISIC: Mq represent the query ground truth mask. M¯ q , Mˆ q and M˜ q represent the model’s prediction, SAM’s prediction, and the final segmentation result after refinement, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative analysis results on Chest X-Ray: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qualitative analysis results Chest X-Ray: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Qualitative analysis results on Deepglobe: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Qualitative analysis results on Deepglobe: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  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]

    D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al

    Brown, T.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J. D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877--1901

    2020

  4. [4]

    P.; Singh, R

    Candemir, S.; Jaeger, S.; Palaniappan, K.; Musco, J. P.; Singh, R. K.; Xue, Z.; Karargyris, A.; Antani, S.; Thoma, G.; and McDonald, C. J. 2013. Lung segmentation in chest radiographs using anatomical atlases with nonrigid registration. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 33(2): 577--590

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Chen, H.; Dong, Y.; Lu, Z.; Yu, Y.; and Han, J. 2024. Pixel matching network for cross-domain few-shot segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 978--987

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Chen, J.; Quan, R.; and Qin, J. 2024. Cross-Domain Few-Shot Semantic Segmentation via Doubly Matching Transformation. In Larson, K., ed., Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-24 , 641--649. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Chen, W.; Si, C.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, L.; Wang, Z.; and Tan, T. 2023. Semantic prompt for few-shot image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 23581--23591

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    E.; Dusza, S.; Gutman, D.; Helba, B.; Kalloo, A.; Liopyris, K.; Marchetti, M.; et al

    Codella, N.; Rotemberg, V.; Tschandl, P.; Celebi, M. E.; Dusza, S.; Gutman, D.; Helba, B.; Kalloo, A.; Liopyris, K.; Marchetti, M.; et al. 2019. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection 2018: A challenge hosted by the international skin imaging collaboration (isic). arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03368

    arXiv 2019

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Cordts, M.; Omran, M.; Ramos, S.; Rehfeld, T.; Enzweiler, M.; Benenson, R.; Franke, U.; Roth, S.; and Schiele, B. 2016. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 3213--3223

    2016

  2. [10]

    Demir, I.; Koperski, K.; Lindenbaum, D.; Pang, G.; Huang, J.; Basu, S.; Hughes, F.; Tuia, D.; and Raskar, R. D. 2018. A challenge to parse the earth through satellite images. arXiv 2018. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.06561

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Deng, J.; Dong, W.; Socher, R.; Li, L.-J.; Li, K.; and Fei-Fei, L. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 248--255. Ieee

    2009

  4. [12]

    Du, Y.; Wei, F.; Zhang, Z.; Shi, M.; Gao, Y.; and Li, G. 2022. Learning to prompt for open-vocabulary object detection with vision-language model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 14084--14093

    2022

  5. [13]

    K.; Winn, J.; and Zisserman, A

    Everingham, M.; Van Gool, L.; Williams, C. K.; Winn, J.; and Zisserman, A. 2010. The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge. International journal of computer vision, 88: 303--338

    2010

  6. [14]

    Fan, H.; Fan, Q.; Pagnucco, M.; and Song, Y. 2023. DARNet: Bridging Domain Gaps in Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation with Dynamic Adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04813

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Fan, Q.; Pei, W.; Tai, Y.-W.; and Tang, C.-K. 2022. Self-support few-shot semantic segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 701--719. Springer

    2022

  8. [16]

    Hariharan, B.; Arbel \'a ez, P.; Bourdev, L.; Maji, S.; and Malik, J. 2011. Semantic contours from inverse detectors. In 2011 international conference on computer vision, 991--998. IEEE

    2011

  9. [17]

    He, W.; Zhang, Y.; Zhuo, W.; Shen, L.; Yang, J.; Deng, S.; and Sun, L. 2024. APSeg: Auto-Prompt Network for Cross-Domain Few-Shot Semantic Segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 23762--23772

    2024

  10. [18]

    Herzog, J. 2024. Adapt Before Comparison: A New Perspective on Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 23605--23615

    2024

  11. [19]

    Hong, S.; Cho, S.; Nam, J.; Lin, S.; and Kim, S. 2022. Cost aggregation with 4d convolutional swin transformer for few-shot segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 108--126. Springer

    2022

  12. [20]

    Hossain, M. R. I.; Siam, M.; Sigal, L.; and Little, J. J. 2024. Visual Prompting for Generalized Few-shot Segmentation: A Multi-scale Approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 23470--23480

    2024

  13. [21]

    Huang, X.; Zhu, C.; and Chen, W. 2023. Restnet: Boosting cross-domain few-shot segmentation with residual transformation network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13469

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Irving, B. 2016. maskSLIC: regional superpixel generation with application to local pathology characterisation in medical images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.09518

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Jia, M.; Tang, L.; Chen, B.-C.; Cardie, C.; Belongie, S.; Hariharan, B.; and Lim, S.-N. 2022. Visual prompt tuning. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 709--727. Springer

    2022

  16. [24]

    C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al

    Kirillov, A.; Mintun, E.; Ravi, N.; Mao, H.; Rolland, C.; Gustafson, L.; Xiao, T.; Whitehead, S.; Berg, A. C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al. 2023. Segment Anything. arXiv e-prints, arXiv--2304

    2023

  17. [25]

    Lee, J.; and Toutanova, K. 2018. Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 3(8)

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Lei, S.; Zhang, X.; He, J.; Chen, F.; Du, B.; and Lu, C.-T. 2022. Cross-domain few-shot semantic segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 73--90. Springer

    2022

  19. [27]

    Li, S.; Liu, F.; Jiao, L.; Liu, X.; Chen, P.; and Li, L. 2024. Mask-guided correlation learning for few-shot segmentation in remote sensing imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing

    2024

  20. [28]

    P.; Tai, Y.-W.; and Tang, C.-K

    Li, X.; Wei, T.; Chen, Y. P.; Tai, Y.-W.; and Tang, C.-K. 2020. Fss-1000: A 1000-class dataset for few-shot segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2869--2878

    2020

  21. [29]

    Li, Y.; Zeng, J.; and Shan, S. 2020. Learning representations for facial actions from unlabeled videos. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(1): 302--317

    2020

  22. [30]

    Li, Y.; Zeng, J.; Shan, S.; and Chen, X. 2018. Occlusion aware facial expression recognition using CNN with attention mechanism. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 28(5): 2439--2450

    2018

  23. [31]

    Liu, J.; Bao, Y.; Xie, G.-S.; Xiong, H.; Sonke, J.-J.; and Gavves, E. 2022. Dynamic prototype convolution network for few-shot semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 11553--11562

    2022

  24. [32]

    Liu, Y.; Zhu, M.; Li, H.; Chen, H.; Wang, X.; and Shen, C. 2023. Matcher: Segment anything with one shot using all-purpose feature matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13310

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Min, J.; Kang, D.; and Cho, M. 2021. Hypercorrelation squeeze for few-shot segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 6941--6952

    2021

  26. [34]

    S.; Zhou, H.; Yoon, S.; Pavlovic, V.; Khan, M

    Moon, S.; Sohn, S. S.; Zhou, H.; Yoon, S.; Pavlovic, V.; Khan, M. H.; and Kapadia, M. 2023. Msi: Maximize support-set information for few-shot segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 19266--19276

    2023

  27. [35]

    C.; and Lu, S

    Nie, J.; Xing, Y.; Zhang, G.; Yan, P.; Xiao, A.; Tan, Y.-P.; Kot, A. C.; and Lu, S. 2024. Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation via Iterative Support-Query Correspondence Mining. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3380--3390

    2024

  28. [36]

    Peng, B.; Tian, Z.; Wu, X.; Wang, C.; Liu, S.; Su, J.; and Jia, J. 2023. Hierarchical dense correlation distillation for few-shot segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 23641--23651

    2023

  29. [37]

    Peng, S.-F.; Xie, G.-S.; Zhao, F.; Shu, X.; and Liu, Q. 2024. Multi-Granularity Aggregation Network for Remote Sensing Few-Shot Segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing

    2024

  30. [38]

    Sandler, M.; Zhmoginov, A.; Vladymyrov, M.; and Jackson, A. 2022. Fine-tuning image transformers using learnable memory. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 12155--12164

    2022

  31. [39]

    Shi, X.; Wei, D.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, D.; Ning, M.; Chen, J.; Ma, K.; and Zheng, Y. 2022. Dense cross-query-and-support attention weighted mask aggregation for few-shot segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 151--168. Springer

    2022

  32. [40]

    N.; and Jagersand, M

    Siam, M.; Oreshkin, B. N.; and Jagersand, M. 2019. Amp: Adaptive masked proxies for few-shot segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 5249--5258

    2019

  33. [41]

    Su, J.; Fan, Q.; Pei, W.; Lu, G.; and Chen, F. 2024. Domain-Rectifying Adapter for Cross-Domain Few-Shot Segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 24036--24045

    2024

  34. [42]

    Sun, G.; Liu, Y.; Ding, H.; Probst, T.; and Van Gool, L. 2022. Coarse-to-fine feature mining for video semantic segmentation. In proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 3126--3137

    2022

  35. [43]

    Tian, Z.; Zhao, H.; Shu, M.; Yang, Z.; Li, R.; and Jia, J. 2020. Prior guided feature enrichment network for few-shot segmentation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(2): 1050--1065

    2020

  36. [44]

    Velickovic, P.; Cucurull, G.; Casanova, A.; Romero, A.; Lio, P.; Bengio, Y.; et al. 2017. Graph attention networks. stat, 1050(20): 10--48550

    2017

  37. [45]

    H.; Zou, Y.; Zhou, D.; and Feng, J

    Wang, K.; Liew, J. H.; Zou, Y.; Zhou, D.; and Feng, J. 2019 a . Panet: Few-shot image semantic segmentation with prototype alignment. In proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 9197--9206

    2019

  38. [46]

    J.; and Shao, L

    Wang, W.; Lu, X.; Shen, J.; Crandall, D. J.; and Shao, L. 2019 b . Zero-shot video object segmentation via attentive graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 9236--9245

    2019

  39. [47]

    Wang, X.; and Gupta, A. 2018. Videos as space-time region graphs. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 399--417

    2018

  40. [48]

    Wu, J.; Li, X.; Wei, C.; Wang, H.; Yuille, A.; Zhou, Y.; and Xie, C. 2022. Unleashing the power of visual prompting at the pixel level. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10556

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Xie, G.-S.; Liu, J.; Xiong, H.; and Shao, L. 2021. Scale-aware graph neural network for few-shot semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 5475--5484

    2021

  42. [50]

    Xie, G.-S.; Liu, L.; Jin, X.; Zhu, F.; Zhang, Z.; Qin, J.; Yao, Y.; and Shao, L. 2019. Attentive region embedding network for zero-shot learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 9384--9393

    2019

  43. [51]

    Xie, G.-S.; Liu, L.; Zhu, F.; Zhao, F.; Zhang, Z.; Yao, Y.; Qin, J.; and Shao, L. 2020. Region graph embedding network for zero-shot learning. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part IV 16, 562--580. Springer

    2020

  44. [52]

    Yang, B.; Liu, C.; Li, B.; Jiao, J.; and Ye, Q. 2020. Prototype mixture models for few-shot semantic segmentation. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part VIII 16, 763--778. Springer

    2020

  45. [53]

    Zhang, R.; Jiang, Z.; Guo, Z.; Yan, S.; Pan, J.; Ma, X.; Dong, H.; Gao, P.; and Li, H. 2023. Personalize segment anything model with one shot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03048

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Zhou, B.; Zhao, H.; Puig, X.; Fidler, S.; Barriuso, A.; and Torralba, A. 2017. Scene parsing through ade20k dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 633--641

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.