Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

SSAP: Single-Shot Instance Segmentation With Affinity Pyramid

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that semantic segmentation and pixel-pair affinity grouping can be learned jointly in a single forward pass, and that a cascaded graph partition turning those affinities into instances yields state-of-the-art Cityscapes…

desk verdict Solid single-shot instance segmentation with a strong affinity pyramid, but the paper's headline cascade gain is not isolated from the benefit of adding more affinity resolutions. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01616 v1 pith:DD462OAL submitted 2019-09-04 cs.CV

Naiyu Gao , Yanhu Shan , Yupei Wang , Xin Zhao , Yinan Yu , Ming Yang , Kaiqi Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords instancesegmentationproposal-freepixel-pairaffinitypyramidcascadedgraphpartitionsingle-shotpredictionCityscapespanoptic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that instance segmentation should not be split into separate semantic-segmentation and pixel-grouping modules. It proposes a single-shot, proposal-free model that, in one forward pass of a U-shaped network, predicts per-pixel semantic class labels together with a pyramid of pixel-pair affinities, which are probabilities that two nearby pixels belong to the same object instance. On Cityscapes, this jointly trained model reaches 37.3% AP on the validation set and 32.7% on the test set, with 61.1% panoptic quality. The authors further show that feeding the affinity pyramid into a cascaded graph partition, which first segments at low resolution and refines at higher resolutions, gives a five-fold speedup and a nine percent relative AP gain over partitioning at full resolution directly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the affinity pyramid: at each of five resolutions (1/4 to 1/64), every pixel predicts affinities to neighbors in a small fixed window, so coarse layers encode long-range same-instance relations without a large memory-hungry window. It is learned jointly with semantic segmentation in one U-shaped decoder, and the two tasks are argued to benefit each other. The companion mechanism is the cascaded graph partition: graph nodes are pixels (or merged proposal regions at finer scales), edge scores are log-odds of averaged affinities, and the graph is partitioned by a lifted-multicut solver starting from the deepest, lowest-resolution layer and refining upward. The cascade collapses pixels inside low-resolution proposals into single super-nodes, shrinking the graph enough to make partition feasible and fast.

What would settle it

Take a scene with two large adjacent objects of the same class, and run the cascade starting at 1/16 resolution versus the non-cascaded full-resolution partition. If the aggregated super-node graph merges the two objects or splits one object along a boundary that the pixel-level affinities keep intact, then the cascade's optimality assumption fails; a public benchmark with controlled object sizes, scales, and adjacency patterns would settle how far the 5x speedup generalizes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that semantic labeling and instance grouping are complementary sub-tasks that should be learned together, and that a hierarchy of pixel-pair affinities can carry both in a single pass. Short-range affinities from a small window handle fine boundaries, while long-range affinities, obtained by applying the same window at lower resolutions, link distant or non-adjacent parts of large objects. The cascaded graph partition turns these affinities into instances: it solves a graph partition at low resolution, up-samples the resulting object interiors as proposals, and merges pixels inside each proposal into one node at the next resolution, summing pixel-pair edge scores between nodes. A final segmentation refinement reweights affinities by the Jensen-Shannon divergence between per-pixel semantic score distributions, and class labels are assigned by voting. The outcome, the paper reports, is state-of-the-art instance segmentation on Cityscapes and a 5x speedup with 9% relative AP improvement over the non-cascaded baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The cascade assumes that merging all pixels inside a low-resolution proposal into one graph node, with edge scores summed across pixel pairs, gives the same instance boundaries as partitioning the full-resolution pixel graph; the paper offers no proof or analysis that this aggregation preserves the optimal partition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Instance segmentation becomes a one-pass prediction task: the same forward pass yields semantic labels and the affinity pyramid, with no region proposals, second network, or repeated inference.
  • Joint training of semantic segmentation and affinities improves both tasks: the paper reports mIoU rising from 74.5% to 75.0% when the affinity branches are added, alongside higher AP.
  • The cascaded partition converts a time-consuming global graph cut into a sequence of smaller cuts, giving about 5x faster inference and better AP than a single full-resolution cut.
  • Long-range affinities matter: incrementally adding coarser affinity layers raises AP from 25.7% to 31.5%, showing multi-scale grouping is essential for large objects.
  • The method also transfers to panoptic segmentation on COCO, where it reports higher PQ than the previous proposal-free baseline across all submetrics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The summed edge-score aggregation between super-nodes is one possible merging rule; a natural test is whether max or learned aggregation changes the partition quality on objects with heterogeneous interiors, which the paper does not explore.
  • The coarse-to-fine cascade suggests a scheduling principle for any pairwise grouping problem: solve at low resolution to prune the search space, then refine locally; this could transfer to video instance segmentation or point-cloud grouping where graph sizes explode.
  • Because the affinity pyramid is trained with plain L2 loss on balanced samples, the same architecture may be adapted to weakly supervised settings where instance masks are unavailable, using only semantic labels plus a pairwise consistency prior.
  • The paper tunes the cascade's starting resolution (1/16 works best) on the validation set; on datasets with very different object-size distributions, the optimal entry point would need to be re-selected, so the reported speedup is not architecture-free.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SSAP, a single-shot proposal-free instance segmentation method that jointly learns per-pixel semantic segmentation and a multi-scale pixel-pair affinity pyramid in a single U-Net forward pass. Instance grouping is performed by a cascaded graph partition module that starts from a low-resolution affinity map and progressively refines proposals at higher resolutions, followed by a segmentation-refinement step that combines semantic and affinity cues via a Jensen-Shannon divergence term. Experiments on Cityscapes report state-of-the-art results (37.3% AP val / 32.7% AP test with ResNet-101) and claim a 5x speedup and 9% relative AP improvement for the cascaded partition relative to a non-cascaded baseline; results on COCO panoptic segmentation are also reported.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution by demonstrating that semantic segmentation and multi-scale pixel-pair affinities can be learned jointly in a single pass, and that a coarse-to-fine graph partition can be a practical post-processing step. The ablations in Tables 1-7 are internally consistent and generally support the benefit of the affinity pyramid and joint learning. The claim with the greatest import, however, is the 5x speedup and 9% relative AP improvement attributed to the cascaded graph partition module, and the evidence for this specific claim is weakened by a confounded comparison. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or released code, but its benchmark evaluations and ablation coverage are a strength.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Tables 4 and 5] The headline claim that the cascaded graph partition module provides a 5x speedup and 9% relative AP improvement is not isolated by the reported experiments. Table 4 compares initialization at 1/4 resolution (which uses only the 1/4-resolution affinities) with initialization at 1/16 (which sequentially uses the 1/16, 1/8, and 1/4 affinity maps). These two conditions differ both in the contraction scheme and in the set of affinity levels available to the partitioner. Since Table 5 shows that adding A2 and A3 to A1 raises AP from 25.7% to 30.8%, a large part of the 28.9%-to-31.5% increase in Table 4 could be due to the additional long-range affinities rather than to the cascade contraction itself. Please add an ablation that holds the affinity levels fixed while varying only whether proposals are contracted (for example, a non-cascaded partition that uses the full affinity pyramid as long-range edges, or a cascade at 1/4 resolution that includes all affinity levels).
  2. [Section 3.2, 'Cascade Scheme'] The aggregation step, in which all pixels inside a low-resolution proposal are collapsed into a single node and the edge score between two nodes is defined as the sum of the pixel-pair edge scores, is introduced without any formal or empirical analysis of its relationship to the original optimization problem in Eqs. (4)-(5). The paper asserts that instance predictions are 'progressively refined' but does not show that the optimal partition of the aggregated graph corresponds to the optimal pixel-level partition, nor that the refinement converges to a good solution. Given that this heuristic is the basis for both the reported speedup and accuracy gain, it needs either a theoretical justification (e.g., an approximation bound) or a direct ablation comparing the contracted cascade against a non-contracted partition using the same affinity levels.
  3. [Section 4, Tables 5 and 6] The experimental protocol for the cascade ablations is incompletely specified. For Table 5, the text does not state whether the cascade initialization resolution changes when affinities A2-A5 are added, nor which resolutions are used for each row; for Table 4, the text does not state which affinity maps are used for each 'Init. Res.' row. Without this specification, the reader cannot determine whether the monotonic improvements are caused by the range of affinities, the resolution of the initial partition, or both, and the headline 9% relative improvement cannot be interpreted. Please clarify the exact settings for each row in both tables.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, after Eq. (1)] The phrase 'an r2×h×w affinity response map' should read 'an r²×h×w affinity response map' for mathematical clarity.
  2. [Section 4, Table 8] The Mask R-CNN row contains a stray '1' after the PQTh value (49.6) that appears to be a misplaced footnote marker; please format it as a proper superscript.
  3. [Section 4, 'Results on COCO'] The word 'outperformes' should be corrected to 'outperforms'.
  4. [Section 3.2, paragraph on the optimization problem] The sentence 'the inequality 5 constrains each feasible solution representing a partition' is imprecise; the cycle constraints encode the cut structure, so please rephrase to state explicitly that the inequalities are the lifted-multicut cycle constraints.
  5. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The '5× speedup' claim refers to graph-partition time only, not end-to-end inference time; the abstract and Section 3.2 should state this qualification explicitly to avoid overstating the practical benefit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the affinity pyramid and cascade are empirically evaluated against external benchmarks, and no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are assessed on Cityscapes and COCO against external published baselines (Tables 8-10), and the proposed affinity pyramid is trained with supervised ground-truth affinities derived from instance masks (Eq. 1 and Eq. 10). The balancing parameters alpha and lambda are tuned hyperparameters reported in Table 1; they are not quantities that the final AP values 'predict' by construction. The cascaded graph partition is an algorithmic post-processing module whose speed and accuracy are compared empirically in Table 4; even if that comparison is confounded by simultaneously changing the initial resolution and the set of affinity levels used, that is an experimental-design or correctness concern, not circularity. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The cascade's edge aggregation and coarse-to-fine contraction are explicit heuristics, not hidden redefinitions of the evaluation metric. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained against external evidence and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external datasets and a borrowed solver from [26]; no new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The free parameters are all training and cascade hyperparameters tuned on the validation set. The cascade aggregation assumption is the only ad hoc-to-paper axiom.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha = 0.003
    Global loss-balancing weight between semantic and affinity branches; tuned on Cityscapes val (Table 1).
  • lambda_i = [0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, 1]
    Per-scale loss weights for affinity branches at 1/4 to 1/64 resolutions; chosen so losses are 'in the same order' (Section 4).
  • affinity window size r = 5
    Chosen from {3,5,7,9} on validation AP/PQ (Table 2).
  • cascade initial resolution = 1/16
    Selected from {1/4,1/8,1/16,1/32,1/64} as best AP on validation (Table 4).
  • data balancing drop/boost = 80% drop, 3x loss
    80% of all-1 ground-truth pixels dropped and 3x loss on object pixels; enabled jointly in Table 6.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ground-truth affinities derived from instance masks define a supervision signal that, if learned accurately, permits correct grouping
    Section 3.1 defines y_j as 1/0 based on same-instance membership; the whole grouping pipeline assumes this target is sufficient.
  • standard math The lifted multicut solver of Keuper et al. [26] solves problem (4)-(5) correctly and efficiently
    Section 3.2 borrows the optimization and solver without restating its guarantee.
  • ad hoc to paper Aggregating proposal-internal pixels into one node and summing edge scores preserves the optimal partition
    Section 3.2 'Cascade Scheme': the paper does not prove that the collapsed graph's min-cut equals the original graph's; this is the load-bearing heuristic.
  • domain assumption Cityscapes and COCO annotations and evaluation metrics are reliable proxies for instance segmentation quality
    Section 4 uses Cityscapes val/test and COCO val/test-dev; the SOTA claim depends on these benchmarks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SSAP: Single-Shot Instance Segmentation With Affinity Pyramid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DD462OAL

@misc{pith2026190901616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SSAP: Single-Shot Instance Segmentation With Affinity Pyramid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DD462OAL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01616}
}
abstract

Recently, proposal-free instance segmentation has received increasing attention due to its concise and efficient pipeline. Generally, proposal-free methods generate instance-agnostic semantic segmentation labels and instance-aware features to group pixels into different object instances. However, previous methods mostly employ separate modules for these two sub-tasks and require multiple passes for inference. We argue that treating these two sub-tasks separately is suboptimal. In fact, employing multiple separate modules significantly reduces the potential for application. The mutual benefits between the two complementary sub-tasks are also unexplored. To this end, this work proposes a single-shot proposal-free instance segmentation method that requires only one single pass for prediction. Our method is based on a pixel-pair affinity pyramid, which computes the probability that two pixels belong to the same instance in a hierarchical manner. The affinity pyramid can also be jointly learned with the semantic class labeling and achieve mutual benefits. Moreover, incorporating with the learned affinity pyramid, a novel cascaded graph partition module is presented to sequentially generate instances from coarse to fine. Unlike previous time-consuming graph partition methods, this module achieves $5\times$ speedup and 9% relative improvement on Average-Precision (AP). Our approach achieves state-of-the-art results on the challenging Cityscapes dataset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01616 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed method. The per-pixel seman [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of affinity pyramid. Pixel-pair affinity spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our instance segmentation model consists of two parts: (a) a unified U-shape framework that jointly learns the semantic seg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Influence of segmentation refinement (SR). (a) Input im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Running time for the cascaded graph partition module [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualizations of proposals generated from lower resolutions within the cascaded graph partition module and the final instance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualizations of sampled results on the validation set. Best viewed in color and zoom. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Learning pixel-level semantic affinity with image-level supervision for weakly supervised semantic segmentation

    Jiwoon Ahn and Suha Kwak. Learning pixel-level semantic affinity with image-level supervision for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 2018. 3

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Anurag Arnab and Philip H. S. Torr. Pixelwise instance segmentation with a dynamically instantiated network. In CVPR, 2017. 2

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Deep watershed transform for instance segmentation

    Min Bai and Raquel Urtasun. Deep watershed transform for instance segmentation. In CVPR, 2017. 2, 5

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Convolutional random walk networks for semantic im- age segmentation

    Gedas Bertasius, Lorenzo Torresani, Stella X Yu, and Jianbo Shi. Convolutional random walk networks for semantic im- age segmentation. In CVPR, 2017. 3

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Semantic instance segmentation with a discriminative loss function

    Bert De Brabandere, Davy Neven, and Luc Van Gool. Semantic instance segmentation with a discriminative loss function. arXiv:1708.02551, 2017. 2

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Deeplab: Semantic im- age segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous con- volution, and fully connected crfs

    Liangchieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin P Murphy, and Alan L Yuille. Deeplab: Semantic im- age segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous con- volution, and fully connected crfs. TPAMI, 40(4), 2018. 1, 2, 6

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Masklab: Instance segmentation by refining object detection with semantic and direction features

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Alexander Hermans, George Papan- dreou, Florian Schroff, Peng Wang, and Hartwig Adam. Masklab: Instance segmentation by refining object detection with semantic and direction features. In CVPR, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation. arXiv:1706.05587, 2017. 1, 2

    arXiv 2017

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Mxnet: A flexible and efficient ma- chine learning library for heterogeneous distributed systems

    Tianqi Chen, Mu Li, Yutian Li, Min Lin, Naiyan Wang, Minjie Wang, Tianjun Xiao, Bing Xu, Chiyuan Zhang, and Zheng Zhang. Mxnet: A flexible and efficient ma- chine learning library for heterogeneous distributed systems. arXiv:1512.01274, 2015. 6

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions

    Francois Chollet. Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions. In CVPR, 2017. 7

    2017

  3. [11]

    The partition problem

    Sunil Chopra and M R Rao. The partition problem. Mathe- matical Programming, 59(1), 1993. 4

    1993

  4. [12]

    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 CVPR,

  5. [13]

    Instance-sensitive fully convolutional networks

    Jifeng Dai, Kaiming He, Yi Li, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Instance-sensitive fully convolutional networks. In ECCV,

  6. [14]

    Instance-aware se- mantic segmentation via multi-task network cascadeds

    Jifeng Dai, Kaiming He, and Jian Sun. Instance-aware se- mantic segmentation via multi-task network cascadeds. In CVPR, 2016. 2

    2016

  7. [15]

    R-fcn: Object detection via region-based fully convolutional networks

    Jifeng Dai, Yi Li, Kaiming He, and Jian Sun. R-fcn: Object detection via region-based fully convolutional networks. In NIPS, 2016. 1, 2

    2016

  8. [16]

    Incorporating nesterov momentum into adam

    Timothy Dozat. Incorporating nesterov momentum into adam. 2016. 6

    2016

  9. [17]

    Alireza Fathi, Zbigniew Wojna, Vivek Rathod, Peng Wang, Hyun Oh Song, Sergio Guadarrama, and Kevin P. Murphy. Semantic instance segmentation via deep metric learning. arXiv:1703.10277, 2017. 2

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Fast r-cnn

    Ross Girshick. Fast r-cnn. In ICCV, 2015. 1

    2015

  11. [19]

    Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation

    Ross Girshick, Jeff Donahue, Trevor Darrell, and Jitendra Malik. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 2014. 1

    2014

  12. [20]

    Mask r-cnn

    Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollar, and Ross Gir- shick. Mask r-cnn. In ICCV, 2017. 2, 7, 8

    2017

  13. [21]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In CVPR,

  14. [22]

    Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal co- variate shift

    Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal co- variate shift. In ICML, 2015. 6

    2015

  15. [23]

    Adaptive affinity fields for semantic segmentation

    Tsungwei Ke, Jyhjing Hwang, Ziwei Liu, and Stella X Yu. Adaptive affinity fields for semantic segmentation. InECCV,

  16. [24]

    Tsung-Wei Ke, Jyh-Jing Hwang, Ziwei Liu, and Stella X. Yu. Adaptive affinity fields for semantic segmentation. In ECCV, 2018. 3, 6

    2018

  17. [25]

    Multi-task learning using uncertainty to weigh losses for scene geome- try and semantics

    Alex Kendall, Yarin Gal, and Roberto Cipolla. Multi-task learning using uncertainty to weigh losses for scene geome- try and semantics. In CVPR, 2018. 8

    2018

  18. [26]

    Efficient decomposition of image and mesh graphs by lifted multicuts

    Margret Keuper, Evgeny Levinkov, Nicolas Bonneel, Guil- laume Lavoue, Thomas Brox, and Bjoern Andres. Efficient decomposition of image and mesh graphs by lifted multicuts. In ICCV, 2015. 2, 4, 5

    2015

  19. [27]

    Panoptic segmentation

    Alexander Kirillov, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Carsten Rother, and Piotr Dollar. Panoptic segmentation. In CVPR,

  20. [28]

    Instancecut: From edges to instances with multicut

    Alexander Kirillov, Evgeny Levinkov, Bjoern Andres, Bog- dan Savchynskyy, and Carsten Rother. Instancecut: From edges to instances with multicut. In CVPR, 2017. 1, 2, 8

    2017

  21. [29]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural net- works

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural net- works. In NIPS, 2012. 1

    2012

  22. [30]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recog- nition

    Yann Lecun, Leon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recog- nition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11), 1998. 1

    1998

  23. [31]

    Joint graph decomposition & node labeling: Problem, algorithms, appli- cations

    Evgeny Levinkov, Jonas Uhrig, Siyu Tang, Mohamed Om- ran, Eldar Insafutdinov, Alexander Kirillov, Carsten Rother, Thomas Brox, Bernt Schiele, and Bjoern Andres. Joint graph decomposition & node labeling: Problem, algorithms, appli- cations. In CVPR, 2017. 2

    2017

  24. [32]

    Qizhu Li, Anurag Arnab, and Philip H.S. Torr. Weakly- and semi-supervised panoptic segmentation. In ECCV, 2018. 2, 7

    2018

  25. [33]

    Fully convolutional instance-aware semantic segmentation

    Yi Li, Haozhi Qi, Jifeng Dai, Xiangyang Ji, and Yichen Wei. Fully convolutional instance-aware semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 2017. 2

    2017

  26. [34]

    Proposal-free network for instance-level object segmentation

    Xiaodan Liang, Yunchao Wei, Xiaohui Shen, Jianchao Yang, Liang Lin, and Shuicheng Yan. Proposal-free network for instance-level object segmentation. arXiv:1509.02636,

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Focal loss for dense object detection

    Tsungyi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross B Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollar. Focal loss for dense object detection. In ICCV, 2017. 6

    2017

  28. [36]

    Learning affinity via spa- tial propagation networks

    Sifei Liu, Shalini De Mello, Jinwei Gu, Guangyu Zhong, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Jan Kautz. Learning affinity via spa- tial propagation networks. In NIPS, 2017. 3

    2017

  29. [37]

    Sgn: Sequential grouping networks for instance segmentation

    Shu Liu, Jiaya Jia, Sanja Fidler, and Raquel Urtasun. Sgn: Sequential grouping networks for instance segmentation. In ICCV, 2017. 2, 7, 8

    2017

  30. [38]

    Path aggregation network for instance segmentation

    Shu Liu, Lu Qi, Haifang Qin, Jianping Shi, and Jiaya Jia. Path aggregation network for instance segmentation. In CVPR, 2018. 2, 7, 8

    2018

  31. [39]

    SSD: Single shot multibox detector

    Wei Liu, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Christian Szegedy, Scott E Reed, Chengyang Fu, and Alexander C Berg. SSD: Single shot multibox detector. In ECCV, 2016. 1, 2

    2016

  32. [40]

    Affinity derivation and graph merge for instance segmentation

    Yiding Liu, Siyu Yang, Bin Li, Wengang Zhou, Jizheng Xu, Houqiang Li, and Yan Lu. Affinity derivation and graph merge for instance segmentation. In ECCV, 2018. 1, 3, 7, 8

    2018

  33. [41]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 2015. 1

    2015

  34. [42]

    Affin- ity cnn: Learning pixel-centric pairwise relations for fig- ure/ground embedding

    Michael Maire, Takuya Narihira, and Stella X Yu. Affin- ity cnn: Learning pixel-centric pairwise relations for fig- ure/ground embedding. In CVPR, 2016. 3

    2016

  35. [43]

    Instance segmentation by jointly optimiz- ing spatial embeddings and clustering bandwidth

    Davy Neven, Bert De Brabandere, Marc Proesmans, and Luc Van Gool. Instance segmentation by jointly optimiz- ing spatial embeddings and clustering bandwidth. In CVPR,

  36. [44]

    Yolo9000: Better, faster, stronger

    Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. Yolo9000: Better, faster, stronger. In CVPR, 2017. 1

    2017

  37. [45]

    End-to-end instance seg- mentation with recurrent attention

    Mengye Ren and Richard S Zemel. End-to-end instance seg- mentation with recurrent attention. In CVPR, 2017. 2

    2017

  38. [46]

    Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In NIPS, 2015. 1, 2

    2015

  39. [47]

    Recurrent instance segmentation

    Bernardino Romeraparedes and Philip H S Torr. Recurrent instance segmentation. In ECCV, 2016. 2

    2016

  40. [48]

    Collins, Yukun Zhu, Jyh-Jing Hwang, Ting Liu, Xiao Zhang, Vivienne Sze, George Pa- pandreou, and Liang-Chieh Chen

    Tien-Ju Yang, Maxwell D. Collins, Yukun Zhu, Jyh-Jing Hwang, Ting Liu, Xiao Zhang, Vivienne Sze, George Pa- pandreou, and Liang-Chieh Chen. Deeperlab: Single-shot image parser. arXiv:1902.05093, 2019. 2, 7

    1902 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Pyramid scene parsing network

    Hengshuang Zhao, Jianping Shi, Xiaojuan Qi, Xiaogang Wang, and Jiaya Jia. Pyramid scene parsing network. In CVPR, 2017. 1, 2

    2017

  42. [50]

    Conditional random fields as recurrent neural networks

    Shuai Zheng, Sadeep Jayasumana, Bernardino Romerapare- des, Vibhav Vineet, Zhizhong Su, Dalong Du, Chang Huang, and Philip H S Torr. Conditional random fields as recurrent neural networks. In ICCV, 2015. 2

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.