Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Improving Text-based Person Search via Part-level Cross-modal Correspondence

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a shared-token encoder-decoder, extracting coarse and fine embeddings aligned across image and text without part-level supervision, plus a commonality-based margin ranking loss that adapts margins to how shared each…

desk verdict Solid empirical gains, but the paper's central story about the CMR loss doesn't survive a close look at the equation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00318 v1 pith:U6I23NG3 submitted 2024-12-31 cs.CV cs.LG

Jicheol Park , Boseung Jeong , Dongwon Kim , Suha Kwak This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords text-basedpersonsearchcross-modalretrievalmulti-headattentionsharedtokenscommonality-basedmarginrankinglossfine-grainedembeddingsre-identificationvision-languagealignment
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

Text-based person search asks a system to retrieve the image of a person from a free-form language description, and the difficulty is that images and text live in different modalities while the differences between people are subtle. This paper tries to close that gap with an encoder-decoder whose learnable tokens are shared by both modalities, so that the same token must attend to the same semantic content in an image and in a sentence; the resulting global, coarse, and fine embeddings are then compared at inference time. It also tries to solve the problem that similar body parts (a red shirt, black shoes) belong to different identities, so identity-level supervision would normally push them apart. The proposed commonality-based margin ranking (CMR) loss measures how commonly a part is shared via the normalized entropy of its identity-classification scores and shrinks the ranking margin for shared parts. On CUHK-PEDES, ICFG-PEDES, and RSTPReid, the paper reports top-1 accuracy of 65.64, 57.96, and 49.30 with a ResNet-50 backbone, and 67.77, 60.06, and 51.95 with ViT-B/16, surpassing previous published results on all three.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of a modality-sharing decoder and the commonality-based margin ranking loss. The decoder is a multi-head attention module in which learnable query tokens $D$ and all weights are shared between image and text, so the coarse embeddings $c_v^{(i)}$ and $c_t^{(i)}$ produced by the same token are aligned by construction, with no correspondence supervision. The CMR loss computes, for each fine embedding $f$, a commonality score $C(f) = -\sum_i p_i \log p_i / \log c$ from the identity-classification score distribution $p$ (Eq. 11), then uses the adaptive margin $\alpha (1 - C(f))$ in the triplet ranking loss (Eq. 12). This margin shrinks when the classification entropy is high, letting fine embeddings that represent widely shared body parts sit close together despite different person IDs; the paper also uses the averaged cross-attention weights from the decoder to mask out background before extracting image fine embeddings.

What would settle it

Annotate a held-out set of image parts for how often each visual part is shared across different identities, then compare those annotations with the entropy-based commonality scores the model assigns; if commonly shared parts can have low entropy (or rare parts high entropy), the margin schedule is not doing what the paper claims. A simpler check is to train the same model with a fixed small margin for all fine embeddings: if retrieval accuracy does not drop, the commonality term is not the active ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that part-level cross-modal correspondence can be learned without any part-level annotation, and that fine-grained identity distinctions can be learned from person-ID labels alone by being explicit about commonality. The model produces three levels of embeddings per modality: global vectors from max pooling, coarse vectors from a decoder with shared learnable tokens that must align to the same semantic content in image and text, and fine vectors from horizontal image strips and per-part text tokens. Losses include identity classification on all embeddings and hard-negative triplet ranking on global and coarse embeddings. For the fine embeddings, the CMR loss computes a commonality score from the entropy of each embedding's identity-classification probabilities and multiplies the triplet margin by one minus that score, so parts that are common across many identities are allowed to remain close. The authors report that the complete system outperforms all previous methods on three public benchmarks with two different image backbones, and their ablations attribute the gain to both the shared-token decoder and the CMR loss.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the normalized entropy of a part's identity-classification scores is a faithful measure of how commonly that body part is shared across people, so shrinking the margin for high-entropy parts is the right learning rule.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a ResNet-50 backbone the method reports top-1 accuracy of 65.64 on CUHK-PEDES, 57.96 on ICFG-PEDES, and 49.30 on RSTPReid; with ViT-B/16 it reports 67.77, 60.06, and 51.95.
  • Ablations on CUHK-PEDES show that adding coarse embeddings from the shared decoder lifts R@1 from 59.76 to 64.70, and adding the CMR loss to fine embeddings lifts it from 64.46 to 65.64.
  • Sharing the decoder and its tokens between modalities outperforms separate per-modality decoders on all three benchmarks while using fewer parameters.
  • Applying the CMR loss only to fine embeddings works better than applying it to both coarse and fine embeddings, consistent with fine embeddings containing more identity-shared content.
  • The ViT-B/16 variant surpasses a method that was pre-trained on roughly 4 million extra image-text pairs without using any such pairs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit is to replace the entropy proxy with a direct batch-level estimate of part co-occurrence across identities; if the two disagree, the margin schedule could be improved.
  • The same margin-scheduling idea could transfer to other fine-grained retrieval tasks with only instance-level labels, such as vehicle or product search, wherever parts are shared across instances.
  • Because the shared decoder aligns by token rather than by external part annotations, the architecture could be retrained on unconstrained, multi-person scenes if the horizontal-strip assumption is replaced by a learned decomposition; the paper itself notes this limitation.
  • The entropy-based commonality score is computed during training from the current classifier; at inference the model does not need it, so the training-time schedule could be made adaptive without changing the retrieval cost.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a text-based person search method built on an encoder-decoder architecture with shared tokens that extract coarse-to-fine embeddings from image and text modalities, together with a commonality-based margin ranking (CMR) loss for fine embeddings. The authors report state-of-the-art R@1 results on CUHK-PEDES, ICFG-PEDES, and RSTPReid with ResNet-50 and ViT-B/16 backbones, beating prior work without using extra image-text pre-training data in the ViT case. The central claims are that the shared-token decoder produces semantically aligned coarse embeddings without explicit alignment supervision, and that the CMR loss uses normalized entropy of identity-classification scores to estimate part commonality and adaptively reduce the ranking margin for shared body parts, thereby allowing semantically identical fine embeddings of different identities to be close in the embedding space.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would offer a simple and effective architecture for text-based person search, with the coarse-to-fine alignment mechanism being a plausible and clean contribution. The shared-token decoder is a well-motivated idea, and the ablation results support the contribution of coarse embeddings. The CMR loss, however, is the paper's main novelty for fine embeddings, and its described mechanism is not implemented by the given equation. The empirical gains from CMR are positive across all three datasets, but the explanation of why the loss helps is currently unsupported. The paper also ships a supplementary study of the number of coarse tokens, which is useful. The absence of error bars or multiple runs weakens the statistical basis of the reported state-of-the-art numbers, especially where the margins over the prior best are small.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (12)] The CMR loss does not implement the claimed mechanism. For a common part with C≈1, the margin α(1−C) approaches 0, but the loss still contains the term [s(f_v^k, f_t^h) − s(f_v^k, f_t^k)]_+, which is active whenever a hard negative (potentially the shared part of another person) is more similar to the anchor than the positive. In that regime the gradient is −∂s(pos)/∂f_v^k + ∂s(neg)/∂f_v^k, which repels the shared-part negative rather than drawing it close. Thus Eq. (12) is, at best, a confidence-weighted margin scheduler; it does not implement the paper's stated goal of enabling fine embeddings of semantically identical body parts to be close to each other. The authors should either modify the loss to explicitly encourage attraction among common parts or revise the description and figure to accurately characterize the mechanism.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (11)] The normalized entropy of identity classification scores is asserted to quantify the commonality of a body part, but no evidence is provided that high-entropy embeddings correspond to parts shared across identities rather than to hard samples, ambiguous inputs, or poorly calibrated predictions. The qualitative illustration in Fig. 2 is not sufficient. A concrete validation would be to analyze the correlation between the entropy measure and part-level sharedness annotations (if available) or to demonstrate that the embeddings with high C values indeed correspond to parts that appear across many identities in the training set. Without such support, the claim that CMR handles shared parts is unsupported, and the loss is indistinguishable from a general confidence-adaptive margin heuristic.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] The paper reports no error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple runs for any experiment. This is a concern for the central 'state-of-the-art' claim: several improvements are small (e.g., 57.96 vs. 57.62 R@1 on ICFG-PEDES in Table 1, and 65.64 vs. 64.70 in the ablation of Table 2). Without variance estimates, the reader cannot judge whether these differences are significant. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over at least three random seeds, or explicitly state that the results are from a single run and temper the claims accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3] The dataset name is misspelled as 'CHHK-PEDES'; it should be CUHK-PEDES.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains the typo 'Comanality'; it should be 'Commonality'.
  3. [Table 5] In Table 5, the row 'Ours RN50 LSTM 49.30' is inconsistent with Table 1, where the ResNet-50 variant uses BERT as the text backbone; this is likely a typo and should be corrected.
  4. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'ours outperforms IVT [36] by a large margin of 2.18%p, 4.02%p, and 5.25%p in terms of R@1 on CUHK-PEDES, ICFG-PEDES, and RSTPReid, respectively' should cite the exact table rows for clarity, since the reader must reconcile these numbers with Table 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported benchmark scores come from held-out test sets, the CMR loss is a training-time heuristic rather than a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, and the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing related-work reference.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain from the architecture (Sec. 3.1), through fine embedding extraction (Sec. 3.2), the CMR loss (Sec. 3.3), and inference (Sec. 3.4). The central claims are the state-of-the-art results in Table 1 and the effectiveness of the CMR loss in Tables 2-3. These are supported by held-out test-set evaluations, not by fitting a parameter to the test data and then reporting it as a prediction. The commonality score C in Eq. (11) is defined as normalized entropy of the identity-classifier output; this is a stated modeling choice, not a result derived from part-level ground truth. The adaptive margin alpha*(1-C) in Eq. (12) is a training-time modulator, and the paper's qualitative claim that it brings common parts closer is an interpretation, not a circular reduction. Even if that interpretation is questionable, the paper is not defining the output as the input: the loss is minimized on training data and the retrieval scores are measured on test queries. The only self-citation, ASMR [17], appears in the introduction's list of attribute-based person search approaches and is not load-bearing for the proposed method or its evaluation. No uniqueness theorem, fitted input, or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Thus, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the paper receives a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or ontological entities. The shared tokens and text tokens are architectural parameters, not posited external entities. The principal assumption burden is the entropy-commonality mapping and the emergent alignment claim.

free parameters (3)
  • margin alpha in ranking loss = not reported (constant hyperparameter)
    Margin for triplet ranking losses in Eqs. (9) and (12). It is scaled by commonality in CMR but alpha itself is a hyperparameter not reported in the paper.
  • number of coarse tokens D = 4
    Selected via validation ablation in the supplementary; D=2,4,6 tested with 4 giving the best results.
  • number of fine segments P = 4
    Number of horizontal image parts and text fine tokens, set to 4 following prior conventions and not ablated in the main text.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Entropy of identity classification scores reflects part commonality
    Introduced in Section 3.3, Eq. (11); the central mechanism of CMR has no theoretical derivation.
  • domain assumption Shared decoder tokens learn semantic correspondence across modalities under ID and ranking losses
    Section 3.1; the alignment is claimed to be emergent, but activation patterns are only qualitatively inspected.
  • domain assumption Horizontal division of images approximates human body parts and text fine tokens correspond one-to-one with these parts
    Section 3.2 and the limitations paragraph; fails for non-upright poses.
  • domain assumption Cross-attention average over shared tokens localizes foreground
    Eq. (5), validated only by qualitative Figure 4(a).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving Text-based Person Search via Part-level Cross-modal Correspondence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U6I23NG3

@misc{pith2026250100318,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving Text-based Person Search via Part-level Cross-modal Correspondence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U6I23NG3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00318}
}
read the original abstract

Text-based person search is the task of finding person images that are the most relevant to the natural language text description given as query. The main challenge of this task is a large gap between the target images and text queries, which makes it difficult to establish correspondence and distinguish subtle differences across people. To address this challenge, we introduce an efficient encoder-decoder model that extracts coarse-to-fine embedding vectors which are semantically aligned across the two modalities without supervision for the alignment. There is another challenge of learning to capture fine-grained information with only person IDs as supervision, where similar body parts of different individuals are considered different due to the lack of part-level supervision. To tackle this, we propose a novel ranking loss, dubbed commonality-based margin ranking loss, which quantifies the degree of commonality of each body part and reflects it during the learning of fine-grained body part details. As a consequence, it enables our method to achieve the best records on three public benchmarks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00318 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall pipeline of our method. Given an image and a text description of a person as input, the corresponding backbone models (ResNet50 and BERT) extract visual and textual features. Global embeddings of the image and the text description (gv and gt) are obtained by global max pooling over the visual and textual features. Coarse embeddings of the image and text modalities (cv and ct) are produced by an encoder-d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A conceptual illustration of the Comanality-based Margin Ranking (CMR) loss function in Eq. (12). The square and circle symbols denote the fine embeddings of image and text modalities, respectively. this ranking loss as commonality-based margin ranking (CMR) Loss. The commonality C of each fine embedding fm ∈ Fm is calculated by: C(\mathbf {f}_m) &= -\sum _{i=1}^{c}p_{i}\log (p_{i}) /\log (c), \label {eq:commonality… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results of our method on the CUHK-PEDES dataset. Query texts and the re￾trieval results of our method for successful cases are presented, while the failure case of our method presents a query text, its ground truth, and the top 3 retrieval results. The true and false matches are colored green and red, respectively. (a) Query: Young man with dark hair and glasses, dark and light patterned shirt, short sle… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of a cross-attention map of (a) visual and (b) textual features from the de￾coder. The superior performance of our method can be attributed to its modality-sharing decoder framework, which enables aligning coarse embeddings from different modal￾ities, and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Proc

    Aggarwal, S., Radhakrishnan, V .B., Chakraborty, A.: Text-based person search via attribute- aided matching. In: Proc. Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV) (2020) 4

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    In: Proc

    Cao, Y .T., Wang, J., Tao, D.: Symbiotic adversarial learning for attribute-based person search. In: Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020) 1

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    In: Proc

    Chen, H., Ding, G., Liu, X., Lin, Z., Liu, J., Han, J.: Imram: Iterative matching with recur- rent attention memory for cross-modal image-text retrieval. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2020) 3

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    In: Proc

    Chen, J., Hu, H., Wu, H., Jiang, Y ., Wang, C.: Learning the best pooling strategy for visual semantic embedding. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR) (2021) 3

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Neurocomputing 494 (2022) 4, 6, 9, 10

    Chen, Y ., Zhang, G., Lu, Y ., Wang, Z., Zheng, Y .: Tipcb: A simple but effective part-based convolutional baseline for text-based person search. Neurocomputing 494 (2022) 4, 6, 9, 10

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    In: Proc

    Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.J., Li, K., Fei-Fei, L.: ImageNet: a large-scale hierarchi- cal image database. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2009) 10

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    In: Annual Conference ofthe North American Chapter ofthe Association for Computational Linguistics (2019) 5, 10

    Devlin, J., Chang, M.W., Lee, K., Toutanova, K.: Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Annual Conference ofthe North American Chapter ofthe Association for Computational Linguistics (2019) 5, 10

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    In: Proc

    Diao, H., Zhang, Y ., Ma, L., Lu, H.: Similarity reasoning and filtration for image-text match- ing. In: Proc. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) (2021) 3

    work page 2021

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12666 (2021) 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12

    Ding, Z., Ding, C., Shao, Z., Tao, D.: Semantically self-aligned network for text-to-image part-aware person re-identification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12666 (2021) 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    In: Proc

    Dong, Q., Gong, S., Zhu, X.: Person search by text attribute query as zero-shot learning. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2019) 1

    2019

  3. [11]

    In: Proc

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., De- hghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., et al.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In: Proc. International Conference on Learning Repr...

    2021

  4. [12]

    In: Proc

    Faghri, F., Fleet, D.J., Kiros, J.R., Fidler, S.: Vse++: Improving visual-semantic embeddings with hard negatives. In: Proc. British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC) (2018) 3, 7

    2018

  5. [13]

    Advances in neural information processing systems (2013) 3

    Frome, A., Corrado, G.S., Shlens, J., Bengio, S., Dean, J., Ranzato, M., Mikolov, T.: De- vise: A deep visual-semantic embedding model. Advances in neural information processing systems (2013) 3

    2013

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03036 (2021) 1, 4, 5, 6, 9

    Gao, C., Cai, G., Jiang, X., Zheng, F., Zhang, J., Gong, Y ., Peng, P., Guo, X., Sun, X.: Contextual non-local alignment over full-scale representation for text-based person search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03036 (2021) 1, 4, 5, 6, 9

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    In: Proc

    Gray, D., Brennan, S., Tao, H.: Evaluating appearance models for recognition, reacquisition, and tracking. In: Proc. IEEE international workshop on performance evaluation for tracking and surveillance (PETS) (2007) 9

    2007

  8. [16]

    In: Proc

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (June 2016) 5, 10, 12

    2016

  9. [17]

    In: Proc

    Jeong, B., Park, J., Kwak, S.: Asmr: Learning attribute-based person search with adaptive semantic margin regularizer. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2021) 1 16 J. Park et al

    2021

  10. [18]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR) (2023) 14

    Jiang, D., Ye, M.: Cross-modal implicit relation reasoning and aligning for text-to-image person retrieval. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR) (2023) 14

    2023

  11. [19]

    In: Proc

    Jing, Y ., Si, C., Wang, J., Wang, W., Wang, L., Tan, T.: Pose-guided multi-granularity atten- tion network for text-based person search. In: Proc. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence (AAAI) (2020) 4, 9

    2020

  12. [20]

    In: Proc

    Kalayeh, M.M., Basaran, E., Gökmen, M., Kamasak, M.E., Shah, M.: Human semantic pars- ing for person re-identification. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (June 2018) 1

    2018

  13. [21]

    In: Proc

    Kingma, D.P., Ba, J.: Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In: Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2015) 10

    2015

  14. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.2539 (2014) 3

    Kiros, R., Salakhutdinov, R., Zemel, R.S.: Unifying visual-semantic embeddings with mul- timodal neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.2539 (2014) 3

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    In: Proc

    Lee, K.H., Chen, X., Hua, G., Hu, H., He, X.: Stacked cross attention for image-text match- ing. In: Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2018) 3, 9

    2018

  16. [24]

    In: Proc

    Li, K., Zhang, Y ., Li, K., Li, Y ., Fu, Y .: Visual semantic reasoning for image-text matching. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2019) 3

    2019

  17. [25]

    In: Proc

    Li, S., Cao, M., Zhang, M.: Learning semantic-aligned feature representation for text-based person search. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE (2022) 5, 9

    2022

  18. [26]

    In: Proc

    Li, S., Xiao, T., Li, H., Yang, W., Wang, X.: Identity-aware textual-visual matching with latent co-attention. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2017) 1

    2017

  19. [27]

    In: Proc

    Li, S., Xiao, T., Li, H., Zhou, B., Yue, D., Wang, X.: Person search with natural language de- scription. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2017) 1, 3, 9, 10, 12

    2017

  20. [28]

    In: Computer Vision–ACCV 2012: 11th Asian Conference on Computer Vision, Daejeon, Ko- rea, November 5-9, 2012, Revised Selected Papers, Part I 11

    Li, W., Zhao, R., Wang, X.: Human reidentification with transferred metric learning. In: Computer Vision–ACCV 2012: 11th Asian Conference on Computer Vision, Daejeon, Ko- rea, November 5-9, 2012, Revised Selected Papers, Part I 11. Springer (2013) 9

    2013

  21. [29]

    In: Proc

    Li, W., Zhao, R., Xiao, T., Wang, X.: Deepreid: Deep filter pairing neural network for person re-identification. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2014) 9

    2014

  22. [30]

    In: Proc

    M Feroz Ali, T., Chaudhuri, S.: Maximum margin metric learning over discriminative nullspace for person re-identification. In: Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (September 2018) 1

    2018

  23. [31]

    In: Proc

    Ma, Y ., Sun Xiaoshuai, Ji, J., Jiang, G., Zhuang, W., Ji, R.: Beat: Bi-directional one-to-many embedding alignment for text-based person retrieval. In: Proc. ACM Multimedia Conference (ACMMM) (2023) 4, 9, 10

    2023

  24. [32]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Pro- cessing 29, 5542–5556 (2020) 4, 6, 7

    Niu, K., Huang, Y ., Ouyang, W., Wang, L.: Improving description-based person re- identification by multi-granularity image-text alignments. IEEE Transactions on Image Pro- cessing 29, 5542–5556 (2020) 4, 6, 7

    2020

  25. [33]

    In: Proc

    Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al.: Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In: Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2021) 14

    2021

  26. [34]

    In: Proc

    Sarafianos, N., Xu, X., Kakadiaris, I.A.: Adversarial representation learning for text-to- image matching. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2019) 9

    2019

  27. [35]

    In: Proc

    Shao, Z., Zhang, X., Fang, M., Lin, Z., Wang, J., Ding, C.: Learning granularity-unified representations for text-to-image person re-identification. In: Proc. ACM Multimedia Con- ference (ACMMM) (2022) 4, 9, 10 Improving Text-based Person Search via Part-level Cross-modal Corr...

    2022

  28. [36]

    In: Proc

    Shu, X., Wen, W., Wu, H., Chen, K., Song, Y ., Qiao, R., Ren, B., Wang, X.: See finer, see more: Implicit modality alignment for text-based person retrieval. In: Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision Workshop on Real-World Surveillance, (ECCVW) (2022) 5, 9, 10

    2022

  29. [37]

    In: Proc

    Sun, Y ., Zheng, L., Yang, Y ., Tian, Q., Wang, S.: Beyond part models: Person retrieval with refined part pooling (and a strong convolutional baseline). In: Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2018) 1

    2018

  30. [38]

    In: Proc

    Suo, W., Sun, M., Niu, K., Gao, Y ., Wang, P., Zhang, Y ., Wu, Q.: A simple and robust cor- relation filtering method for text-based person search. In: Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2022) 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10

    2022

  31. [39]

    In: Proc

    Tu, R.C., Mao, X.L., Ji, W., Wei, W., Huang, H.: Data-aware proxy hashing for cross-modal retrieval. In: Proc. International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) (2021) 3

    2021

  32. [40]

    In: Proc

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, Ł., Polosukhin, I.: Attention is all you need. In: Proc. Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2017) 1, 5

    2017

  33. [41]

    In: Proc

    Wang, C., Zhang, Q., Huang, C., Liu, W., Wang, X.: Mancs: A multi-task attentional network with curriculum sampling for person re-identification. In: Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (September 2018) 1

    2018

  34. [42]

    In: Proc

    Wang, C., Luo, Z., Lin, Y ., Li, S.: Text-based person search via multi-granularity embedding learning. In: Proc. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) (2021) 4, 6, 7, 9

    2021

  35. [43]

    In: Proc

    Wang, Z., Fang, Z., Wang, J., Yang, Y .: Vitaa: Visual-textual attributes alignment in person search by natural language. In: Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020) 4, 9

    2020

  36. [44]

    In: Proc

    Wang, Z., Zhu, A., Xue, J., Wan, X., Liu, C., Wang, T., Li, Y .: Caibc: Capturing all-round information beyond color for text-based person retrieval. In: Proc. ACM Multimedia Con- ference (ACMMM) (2022) 9, 10

    2022

  37. [45]

    In: Proc

    Wei, L., Zhang, S., Gao, W., Tian, Q.: Person transfer gan to bridge domain gap for person re-identification. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2018) 10

    2018

  38. [46]

    In: Proc

    Wu, Y ., Yan, Z., Han, X., Li, G., Zou, C., Cui, S.: Lapscore: language-guided person search via color reasoning. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2021) 5, 9

    2021

  39. [47]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.01850 (2016) 9

    Xiao, T., Li, S., Wang, B., Lin, L., Wang, X.: End-to-end deep learning for person search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.01850 (2016) 9

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    In: Proc

    Yin, Z., Zheng, W.S., Wu, A., Yu, H.X., Wan, H., Guo, X., Huang, F., Lai, J.: Adversarial attribute-image person re-identification. In: Proc. International Joint Conferences on Artifi- cial Intelligence (IJCAI) (2018) 1

    2018

  41. [49]

    In: Proc

    Yu, T., Yang, Y ., Liu, L., Fei, H., Li, P.: Heterogeneous attention network for effective and efficient cross-modal retrieval. In: Proc. International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) (2021) 3

    2021

  42. [50]

    In: Proc

    Zeng, Z., Wang, S., Xu, N., Mao, W.: Pan: Prototype-based adaptive network for robust cross-modal retrieval. In: Proc. International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and De- velopment in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) (2021) 3

    2021

  43. [51]

    In: Proc

    Zhang, Y ., Lu, H.: Deep cross-modal projection learning for image-text matching. In: Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2018) 1, 3, 9

    2018

  44. [52]

    In: Proc

    Zheng, L., Shen, L., Tian, L., Wang, S., Wang, J., Tian, Q.: Scalable person re-identification: A benchmark. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2015) 9 18 J. Park et al

    2015

  45. [53]

    In: Proc

    Zhong, Z., Zheng, L., Zheng, Z., Li, S., Yang, Y .: Camera style adaptation for person re-identification. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (June 2018) 1

    2018

  46. [54]

    In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    Zhu, A., Wang, Z., Li, Y ., Wan, X., Jin, J., Wang, T., Hu, F., Hua, G.: Dssl: deep surroundings- person separation learning for text-based person retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. pp. 209–217 (2021) 3, 9, 10, 12 Improving Text-...

    2021

Pith tools

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