Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Static-Dynamic Class-level Perception Consistency in Video Semantic Segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Video segmentation rethought at class level beats state of the art.

desk verdict A solid, incremental VSS paper with a genuine selective-aggregation twist, but the reference-frame inconsistency between method and experiments must be fixed before the SOTA claim is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08034 v1 pith:X5XKTIJC submitted 2024-12-11 cs.CV

Zhigang Cen , Ningyan Guo , Wenjing Xu , Zhiyong Feng , Danlan Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords videosemanticsegmentationclass-levelperceptionconsistencystatic-dynamicaggregationclassprototypescontrastivelearningselectivecross-attentionwindow-basedattentionVSPW
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 proposes a video semantic segmentation framework that models spatio-temporal context at the level of semantic classes rather than individual pixels. The premise is that adjacent frames share strong perceptual similarity in category type, feature distribution, spatial layout, and motion, so a current-frame pixel only needs to selectively aggregate a few pixels from previous frames instead of computing dense pixel-to-pixel attention. Three components implement this: static semantic efficient aggregation for intra-frame multi-scale alignment, dynamic semantic selective aggregation for coarse-to-fine cross-frame aggregation guided by an attention coordinate map, and multivariate class prototypes with contrastive learning for class-level feature constraints. On VSPW and Cityscapes the method reports state-of-the-art mIoU at lower GFLOPs than comparable methods, for example 39.9 versus 38.9 mIoU with one backbone on VSPW.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the class-level perception-consistency assumption, implemented as a static-dynamic semantic alignment pipeline. The dynamic semantic selective aggregation module (DSSA) is the central piece: it interleaves static features from frames t-1 and t-2, runs convolutions on the interleaved rows or columns to produce an attention coordinate map of size $H\times W\times 2P$, and lets each query pixel in the current frame attend to $P$ selected pixels in the reference frame. The selected pixels are gathered from $K$ and $V$, grouped into $\sqrt{P}\times\sqrt{P}$ windows, and the attention map is computed by a normalized Hadamard product of $Q$ and $K$ within each window, cutting cost from $O(N^2)$ to $O(NP)$. SSEA supplies the static features through multi-scale, multi-level aggregation with deformable convolution and linear attention. MCP-CL adds class-level supervision by computing prototypes from correctly predicted pixels, pulling same-class variate features together and pushing different-class prototypes apart.

What would settle it

A concrete check: take the trained model and, on VSPW validation, compare the predicted P reference pixels per query against oracle correspondences (e.g., forward optical flow or ground-truth semantic labels projected across frames). If the oracle-coordinate variant substantially outperforms the learned-coordinate variant, the coordinate predictor, not the class-level consistency idea, is what drives the margin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that static and dynamic contexts in video semantic segmentation should be aligned at the level of semantic classes, not individual pixels. Adjacent frames are assumed to share category types, feature distributions, spatial layouts, and motion patterns, so the current frame needs only a sparse, selective aggregation of reference-frame pixels. The framework realizes this through static-dynamic class-level perception consistency (SD-CPC): SSEA mixes multi-scale backbone features with deformable convolution and linear attention for intra-frame static alignment; DSSA interleaves static features from adjacent frames, applies convolutions to generate an attention coordinate map of $2P$ coordinates per pixel, and performs coarse-to-fine cross-frame selective cross-attention in windows using a Hadamard-product attention map; MCP-CL builds multivariate class prototypes from correctly predicted pixels and adds contrastive and multivariate-similarity losses. Experiments on VSPW and Cityscapes report state-of-the-art mIoU at lower GFLOPs than current methods, for example 51.1 versus 49.9 mIoU with MiT-B5 on VSPW.

Load-bearing premise

The approach assumes that the static perceptual differences between frames are enough to predict, for each pixel, the few (P=4) reference-frame pixels that actually carry its semantically matching context; the paper never directly verifies how often those predicted coordinates hit the right places.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Video segmentation can aggregate temporal context by attending to a sparse set of points per pixel, making the cost linear in spatial resolution rather than quadratic.
  • The two-stage coarse-to-fine aggregation extends the temporal receptive field through intermediate frames without dense matching, so longer frame gaps stay tractable.
  • Computing class prototypes only from correctly predicted pixels sharpens the class-level constraints as the network improves, coupling the learning signal to segmentation quality.
  • The gains on sparsely annotated Cityscapes indicate the framework does not require dense per-frame labels to benefit from temporal context.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An editor's inference: since the P-ablation shows mIoU still rising from P=4 to P=16, the reported speed-accuracy point is a compromise; making P adaptive per pixel or per motion region is a natural next test.
  • An editor's inference: the paper never checks where the predicted attention coordinates land; plugging in oracle correspondences (optical flow or propagated labels) would isolate whether the coordinate predictor or the selective-attention idea carries the accuracy gain.
  • An editor's inference: the same class-level selective aggregation could extend to video instance or panoptic segmentation by replacing semantic prototypes with instance-level prototypes, since the mechanism only needs a prototype space to align.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a video semantic segmentation framework called SD-CPC that treats static and dynamic contexts at the class level rather than the pixel level. The method has three main components: (1) a static semantic efficient aggregation module (SSEA) that combines deformable convolution with linear attention for intra-frame multi-scale correlation; (2) a dynamic semantic selective aggregation module (DSSA) that predicts attention coordinate maps from interleaved static features and performs two-stage coarse-to-fine cross-frame selective attention; and (3) a multivariate class prototype contrastive learning module (MCP-CL) that constrains inter-class separation and intra-class compactness. The reported experiments on VSPW and Cityscapes show improvements over state-of-the-art methods with lower GFLOPs, for example 39.9 mIoU with MiT-B1 on VSPW versus 38.9 for MRCFA, and 76.4 mIoU with MiT-B1 on Cityscapes versus 75.1 for MRCFA and CFFM-VSS. The paper also provides ablations for each component and for attention-point count P.

Significance. If the reported improvements hold, the class-level consistency design is a meaningful contribution to video semantic segmentation, offering a better accuracy-efficiency trade-off than prior pixel-level attention and optical-flow methods. The paper explicitly ships a complexity analysis and extensive component ablations, which are strengths. The proposed window-based attention map computation is clearly motivated by sparsity and is compared to DAT. However, the empirical claim is not yet fully supported because (i) the implementation details appear to use different reference frames than the method description, (ii) no error bars or multiple-run statistics are given for the relatively small accuracy gaps, and (iii) the core coordinate-prediction mechanism of DSSA is not directly validated. These issues are fixable and do not undermine the conceptual contribution, but they must be addressed before the SOTA claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 vs. Section 4] The method described in Section 3.2 performs two-stage progressive aggregation on consecutive frames S^{t-1}, S^{t-2}, S^t, culminating in D^t_coarse and D^t_fine. Section 4 states 'We use frames t-3 and t-6 as reference frames', which is inconsistent with the progressive chain and with the paper's rationale that short temporal intervals make partial aggregation sufficient. If t-3/t-6 were used in the experiments, then the evaluated system is not the pipeline in Section 3.2 and the reported numbers (Table 1 and Table 2) cannot be attributed to the proposed method. If the sentence is a typo, the current text prevents reproducibility. Please correct the discrepancy and report results for both consecutive and longer-interval settings, or clearly state the exact frame spacing used in each experiment.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The central empirical claim is that SD-CPC outperforms state-of-the-art methods, but the reported margins are small (for example, 1.0 mIoU over MRCFA with MiT-B1 on VSPW, 1.2 mIoU with MiT-B5, and 1.3 mIoU on Cityscapes MiT-B1). No error bars, standard deviations, or multiple-seed results are provided, so it is impossible to assess whether these differences are statistically significant or merely run-to-run variation. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three runs, or otherwise justify that the differences are significant.
  3. [Section 3.2, DSSA coordinate map; Table 3 (P-ablation)] DSSA's core assumption is that the coordinate map predicted from interleaved static features locates semantically matching pixels in the reference frame, so that P=4 sampled points suffice for selective aggregation. The paper never measures whether the predicted coordinates actually fall on same-class or semantically consistent pixels. The P-ablation (4 to 16) shows that more attention points improve mIoU, which indicates that P=4 is a compromise rather than demonstrated sufficient coverage. Please add a direct evaluation of coordinate-map precision (for example, fraction of sampled reference pixels sharing the query's class) or an oracle experiment that replaces predicted coordinates with ground-truth same-class coordinates. This would substantiate the 'selective' mechanism and help interpret the ablation results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4, Implementation details] Please clarify the reference-frame sentence: if 't-3 and t-6' is used, the method description in Section 3.2 must be revised; if it is a typo, the correct setting should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Section 4, title 'Comparsions with state-of-the-art Methods'] The word 'Comparsions' is misspelled and should be 'Comparisons'.
  3. [Section 4, qualitative comparison] The text says 'We also qualitatively compare the proposed method with the baseline on the sampled video clips in Table 3', but Table 3 is the ablation table; the qualitative results are shown in Figure 3. Please correct the cross-reference.
  4. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries: Nilsson and Sminchisescu 2018a and 2018b refer to the same paper, and Zhao et al. 2017a and 2017b also refer to the same paper. Please merge these duplicates.
  5. [Equation (2)] The normalization in the windowed attention computation divides by a sum over both p and c, which is unusual for softmax attention. Please clarify the exact normalization dimensions and how the denominator is computed (per window, per query, or per channel).
  6. [Section 3.2] The notation D^{t-1} is used before it is explicitly defined as the output of the first-stage selective aggregation. Please define all symbols at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: SD-CPC is a standard trainable architecture whose reported gains are empirical and not baked into its definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central claim, that SD-CPC outperforms state-of-the-art methods on VSPW and Cityscapes, is an empirical claim evaluated by held-out mIoU, WIoU, and video-consistency metrics. No component of the method is defined in terms of those target metrics. The SSEA, DSSA, and MCP-CL modules are specified by concrete operations: multi-scale fusion with deformable convolution and linear attention, coordinate-map generation from interleaved static features, two-stage selective cross-attention, and contrastive losses built from multivariate class prototypes. The class prototypes are computed from pixels that the current model predicts correctly under the ground-truth mask G^t, which is standard self-referenced training, not a circular reduction; the contrastive loss still depends on ground-truth labels and does not encode validation mIoU. Hyperparameters such as P, D, M, lambda1, lambda2, and tau are hand-set and ablated, not fitted to the reported results. The paper compares against external baselines and does not rely on any load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. The notable internal inconsistency, where Section 3.2 describes reference frames t-1 and t-2 while Section 4 reports using t-3 and t-6, is a correctness and reproducibility concern, not a circularity pattern. Therefore, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on standard deep learning components plus four manually set hyperparameters (lambda1, lambda2, tau, P, D, M). The central assumption is that class-level static-dynamic consistency can be captured by a learned sparse coordinate map; this is not independently verified.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda1 (contrastive loss weight) = not reported
    Weight of LCR in Eq. (7); chosen by hand, no sensitivity analysis given.
  • lambda2 (multivariate feature loss weight) = not reported
    Weight of LMF in Eq. (7); chosen by hand, no sensitivity analysis.
  • tau (temperature) = not reported
    Temperature in contrastive loss Eq. (5); standard in contrastive learning, no ablation.
  • P (number of sampled attention points) = 4
    Number of pixels selected from reference frame per target pixel in DSSA; sensitivity tested with P=9 and P=16 but P=4 used for main results.
  • D (DCN aggregation points) = 9
    Deformable convolution sampling points in SSEA; set without ablation.
  • M (number of multivariate features) = 4
    Number of parallel class-prototype branches; ablation shows M>1 helps by 0.45 mIoU.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Backbone MiT-B1/B2/B5 pre-trained as in SegFormer transfer their weights
    The paper reuses SegFormer backbones and implicitly assumes their pretrained weights transfer; no pretraining details are given.
  • ad hoc to paper Class-level perceptual consistency holds across adjacent video frames: same-category pixels are similar in feature, location, and motion between frames
    This is the central premise of DSSA and MCP-CL; stated in Section 1 and 3.2 but not measured independently.
  • ad hoc to paper A coordinate map predicted by convolution on interleaved static features locates all relevant pixels in the reference frame, so P sampled points suffice
    Section 3.2; the accuracy of the learned coordinate map is not evaluated directly, only indirectly through final mIoU.
  • domain assumption The complexity analysis assumes per-operation cost counts that ignore memory-bandwidth effects
    The paper notes FPS is bandwidth-limited, so the GFLOPs comparison does not fully capture efficiency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Static-Dynamic Class-level Perception Consistency in Video Semantic Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5XKTIJC

@misc{pith2026241208034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Static-Dynamic Class-level Perception Consistency in Video Semantic Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5XKTIJC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08034}
}
read the original abstract

Video semantic segmentation(VSS) has been widely employed in lots of fields, such as simultaneous localization and mapping, autonomous driving and surveillance. Its core challenge is how to leverage temporal information to achieve better segmentation. Previous efforts have primarily focused on pixel-level static-dynamic contexts matching, utilizing techniques such as optical flow and attention mechanisms. Instead, this paper rethinks static-dynamic contexts at the class level and proposes a novel static-dynamic class-level perceptual consistency (SD-CPC) framework. In this framework, we propose multivariate class prototype with contrastive learning and a static-dynamic semantic alignment module. The former provides class-level constraints for the model, obtaining personalized inter-class features and diversified intra-class features. The latter first establishes intra-frame spatial multi-scale and multi-level correlations to achieve static semantic alignment. Then, based on cross-frame static perceptual differences, it performs two-stage cross-frame selective aggregation to achieve dynamic semantic alignment. Meanwhile, we propose a window-based attention map calculation method that leverages the sparsity of attention points during cross-frame aggregation to reduce computation cost. Extensive experiments on VSPW and Cityscapes datasets show that the proposed approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Our implementation will be open-sourced on GitHub.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08034 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the different methods. (a) The di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework of the proposed SD-CPC framework. First, we model the spatial relationship of pixel features extracted by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results. We compare the proposed method with the baseline (SegFormer with backbone MiT-B1) visually. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 34 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]

    Cai, H.; Li, J.; Hu, M.; Gan, C.; and Han, S. 2023. Efficientvit: Lightweight multi-scale attention for on-device semantic segmentation. arXiv

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Chen, L.-C.; Papandreou, G.; Schroff, F.; and Adam, H. 2017. Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05587

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Chen, T.; Kornblith, S.; Norouzi, M.; and Hinton, G. 2020 a . A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, 1597--1607. PMLR

    2020

  6. [6]

    Chen, W.; Zhu, X.; Sun, R.; He, J.; Li, R.; Shen, X.; and Yu, B. 2020 b . Tensor low-rank reconstruction for semantic segmentation. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XVII 16, 52--69. Springer

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    Ding, M.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, B.; Shi, J.; Lu, Z.; and Luo, P. 2020. Every frame counts: Joint learning of video segmentation and optical flow. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, 10713--10720

    work page 2020

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Dosovitskiy, A.; Beyer, L.; Kolesnikov, A.; Weissenborn, D.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Dehghani, M.; Minderer, M.; Heigold, G.; Gelly, S.; et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dutson, M.; Li, Y.; and Gupta, M. 2023. Eventful Transformers: Leveraging Temporal Redundancy in Vision Transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 16911--16923

    2023

  3. [11]

    Gao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhuang, J.; Zhang, Y.; and Li, J. 2023. Exploit domain-robust optical flow in domain adaptive video semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 641--649

    2023

  4. [12]

    M.; and Pai, R

    Girisha, S.; Verma, U.; Pai, M. M.; and Pai, R. M. 2021. Uvid-net: Enhanced semantic segmentation of uav aerial videos by embedding temporal information. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 14: 4115--4127

    2021

  5. [13]

    He, K.; Fan, H.; Wu, Y.; Xie, S.; and Girshick, R. 2020. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 9729--9738

    2020

  6. [14]

    Hu, Y.; He, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, J.; Han, Y.; Wen, J.; and Liu, Y.-J. 2023. Efficient Semantic Segmentation by Altering Resolutions for Compressed Videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 22627--22637

    2023

  7. [15]

    Jain, S.; Wang, X.; and Gonzalez, J. E. 2019. Accel: A corrective fusion network for efficient semantic segmentation on video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 8866--8875

    2019

  8. [16]

    L.; and Cheng, L

    Ji, W.; Li, J.; Bian, C.; Zhou, Z.; Zhao, J.; Yuille, A. L.; and Cheng, L. 2023. Multispectral Video Semantic Segmentation: A Benchmark Dataset and Baseline. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1094--1104

    2023

  9. [17]

    Katharopoulos, A.; Vyas, A.; Pappas, N.; and Fleuret, F. 2020. Transformers are rnns: Fast autoregressive transformers with linear attention. In International conference on machine learning, 5156--5165. PMLR

    2020

  10. [18]

    Li, X.; Zhang, W.; Pang, J.; Chen, K.; Cheng, G.; Tong, Y.; and Loy, C. C. 2022. Video k-net: A simple, strong, and unified baseline for video segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 18847--18857

    2022

  11. [19]

    Liu, S.; Wang, C.; Qian, R.; Yu, H.; Bao, R.; and Sun, Y. 2017. Surveillance video parsing with single frame supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 413--421

    2017

  12. [20]

    Liu, Y.; Shen, C.; Yu, C.; and Wang, J. 2020. Efficient semantic video segmentation with per-frame inference. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part X 16, 352--368. Springer

    2020

  13. [21]

    Liu, Z.; Lin, Y.; Cao, Y.; Hu, H.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Lin, S.; and Guo, B. 2021. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 10012--10022

    2021

  14. [22]

    Long, J.; Shelhamer, E.; and Darrell, T. 2015. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 3431--3440

    2015

  15. [23]

    Loshchilov, I.; and Hutter, F. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Mehta, S.; and Rastegari, M. 2021. Mobilevit: light-weight, general-purpose, and mobile-friendly vision transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02178

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Miao, J.; Wei, Y.; Wu, Y.; Liang, C.; Li, G.; and Yang, Y. 2021. Vspw: A large-scale dataset for video scene parsing in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4133--4143

    2021

  18. [26]

    Nilsson, D.; and Sminchisescu, C. 2018 a . Semantic video segmentation by gated recurrent flow propagation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 6819--6828

    2018

  19. [27]

    Nilsson, D.; and Sminchisescu, C. 2018 b . Semantic video segmentation by gated recurrent flow propagation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 6819--6828

    2018

  20. [28]

    Qin, T.; Zheng, Y.; Chen, T.; Chen, Y.; and Su, Q. 2021. A light-weight semantic map for visual localization towards autonomous driving. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 11248--11254. IEEE

    2021

  21. [29]

    Shao, C.; Zhang, L.; and Pan, W. 2021. Faster R-CNN learning-based semantic filter for geometry estimation and its application in vSLAM systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(6): 5257--5266

    2021

  22. [30]

    Shelhamer, E.; Rakelly, K.; Hoffman, J.; and Darrell, T. 2016. Clockwork convnets for video semantic segmentation. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2016 Workshops: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 8-10 and 15-16, 2016, Proceedings, Part III 14, 852--868. Springer

    2016

  23. [31]

    Su, J.; Yin, R.; Zhang, S.; and Luo, J. 2023. Motion-state Alignment for Video Semantic Segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3570--3579

    2023

  24. [32]

    Sun, G.; Liu, Y.; Ding, H.; Probst, T.; and Van Gool, L. 2022 a . 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

  25. [33]

    Sun, G.; Liu, Y.; Tang, H.; Chhatkuli, A.; Zhang, L.; and Van Gool, L. 2022 b . Mining relations among cross-frame affinities for video semantic segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 522--539. Springer

    2022

  26. [34]

    Sun, G.; Wang, W.; Dai, J.; and Van Gool, L. 2020. Mining cross-image semantics for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16, 347--365. Springer

    2020

  27. [35]

    Tan, M.; and Le, Q. 2019. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, 6105--6114. PMLR

    2019

  28. [36]

    N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  29. [37]

    Wang, H.; Wang, W.; and Liu, J. 2021. Temporal memory attention for video semantic segmentation. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2254--2258. IEEE

    2021

  30. [38]

    Wang, W.; Dai, J.; Chen, Z.; Huang, Z.; Li, Z.; Zhu, X.; Hu, X.; Lu, T.; Lu, L.; Li, H.; et al. 2023. Internimage: Exploring large-scale vision foundation models with deformable convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Weng, Y.; Han, M.; He, H.; Li, M.; Yao, L.; Chang, X.; and Zhuang, B. 2023. Mask Propagation for Efficient Video Semantic Segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18954

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Weng, Y.; Han, M.; He, H.; Li, M.; Yao, L.; Chang, X.; and Zhuang, B. 2024. Mask propagation for efficient video semantic segmentation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  33. [41]

    E.; and Huang, G

    Xia, Z.; Pan, X.; Song, S.; Li, L. E.; and Huang, G. 2022. Vision transformer with deformable attention. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4794--4803

    2022

  34. [42]

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

    2018

  35. [43]

    M.; and Luo, P

    Xie, E.; Wang, W.; Yu, Z.; Anandkumar, A.; Alvarez, J. M.; and Luo, P. 2021. SegFormer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 12077--12090

    2021

  36. [44]

    Xu, Y.-S.; Fu, T.-J.; Yang, H.-K.; and Lee, C.-Y. 2018. Dynamic video segmentation network. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 6556--6565

    2018

  37. [45]

    Yi, S.; Liu, X.; Li, J.; and Chen, L. 2023. UAVformer: a composite transformer network for urban scene segmentation of UAV images. Pattern Recognition, 133: 109019

    2023

  38. [46]

    Yu, F.; and Koltun, V. 2015. Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.07122

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Yuan, Y.; Chen, X.; and Wang, J. 2020. Object-contextual representations for semantic segmentation. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part VI 16, 173--190. Springer

    2020

  40. [48]

    Zhang, Y.; Borse, S.; Cai, H.; Wang, Y.; Bi, N.; Jiang, X.; and Porikli, F. 2022. Perceptual consistency in video segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2564--2573

    2022

  41. [49]

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

    2017

  42. [50]

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

    2017

  43. [51]

    Zheng, Y.; Yang, H.; and Huang, D. 2024. Deep Common Feature Mining for Efficient Video Semantic Segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02689

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zhou, B.; Zhao, H.; Puig, X.; Xiao, T.; Fidler, S.; Barriuso, A.; and Torralba, A. 2019. Semantic understanding of scenes through the ade20k dataset. International Journal of Computer Vision, 127: 302--321

    2019

  45. [53]

    Zhu, X.; Xiong, Y.; Dai, J.; Yuan, L.; and Wei, Y. 2017. Deep feature flow for video recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2349--2358

    2017

  46. [54]

    A.; Shih, K

    Zhu, Y.; Sapra, K.; Reda, F. A.; Shih, K. J.; Newsam, S.; Tao, A.; and Catanzaro, B. 2019. Improving semantic segmentation via video propagation and label relaxation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 8856--8865

    2019

  47. [55]

    Zhuang, J.; Wang, Z.; and Gao, Y. 2022. Semi-supervised video semantic segmentation with inter-frame feature reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3263--3271

    2022

  48. [56]

    Zhuang, J.; Wang, Z.; and Li, J. 2023. Video Semantic Segmentation with Inter-Frame Feature Fusion and Inner-Frame Feature Refinement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.03832

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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