Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Surface-SOS: Self-Supervised Object Segmentation via Neural Surface Representation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Self-supervised object segmentation can be driven by two signed-distance neural surfaces, one for the foreground object and one for a completed background, producing finer masks than NeRF-based methods and refining any rough single-view…

desk verdict A useful SDF-based extension for multi-view segmentation, but the 'self-supervised' and 'always finer' claims need serious toning down. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09947 v1 pith:DY6ATRZK submitted 2025-01-17 cs.CV

Xiaoyun Zheng , Liwei Liao , Jianbo Jiao , Feng Gao , Ronggang Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords self-supervisedobjectsegmentationneuralsurfacerepresentationsigneddistancefunctionmulti-viewscenedecompositionvolumerenderingmulti-resolutionhashencodingalphamatterefinement
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

The paper tries to establish that object segmentation can be learned from multi-view images with no manual annotations at all, using 3D surface geometry as the driving signal. It proposes Surface-SOS, which splits a scene into a foreground surface and a completed background, each represented by its own signed distance function, and renders both through volume rendering. The method claims this yields finer, more view-consistent masks than NeRF-based self-supervised or supervised alternatives, and that feeding it a rough mask from a single-view segmenter improves that segmenter's output. If true, it would mean segmentation of objects like performers in stage shows could be done from casually captured multi-camera video without collecting labeled data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a pair of SDF-based neural scene fields joined by alpha blending: a Foreground Consistent Representation (FoCoR) module whose zero-level set is the object surface, and a Background Completion (BaCo) module that inpaints the background from other views after the foreground volume is cropped out. Multi-resolution hash encoding is used to query features fast, SDF-based volume rendering converts signed distance into per-ray opacity, and an Eikonal term plus a sparsity term keep the surface compact and hole-free. The optional coarse mask only seeds the alpha channel; the geometry loss does the real work.

What would settle it

Run the released code on a manually labeled unbounded 360-degree scene, such as the Tank and Temples Truck sequence: the paper itself predicts blurry masks and missed patches there. The decisive test is a scene with a single coherent foreground, moderate motion, and good poses where the object has strong color boundaries but no SDF-representable surface, like a translucent umbrella or a fur coat; if the output alpha matte stays sharp, the SDF assumption is not the limiting factor, and if it blurs or holes out, the central surface-consistency premise is the bottleneck.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Surface-SOS's central claim is that the right inductive bias for self-supervised object segmentation is 3D surface consistency, not pixel statistics or motion. Concretely, it models the scene as two complementary neural signed distance fields: FoCoR represents the foreground object's distance and radiance, BaCo represents the static background with the foreground volume cropped out, and $\alpha$-blended composition $\mathbf{c} = \alpha \mathbf{c}_F + (1-\alpha) \mathbf{c}_B$ renders the input views. Training with photometric, Eikonal, and sparsity losses—plus an optional coarse mask for initialization—makes the zero-level set of the foreground SDF lock onto the object, so the $\alpha$ matte comes from geometry rather than appearance. The paper reports that this always produces finer object masks than NeRF-based counterparts on LLFF, CO3D, BlendedMVS, TUM, and real video scenes, and that refining masks from Mask R-CNN, SAM, or RVM with this representation substantially improves those single-view baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the foreground object is one coherent signed-distance surface whose geometry lines up across views, and that the background is static or moves gently enough that other views can complete it, which the paper itself notes fails for unbounded scenes and extreme motion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-view unlabeled images become sufficient supervision for object segmentation, removing the need for annotated segmentation datasets in scenes captured by several cameras or a moving phone.
  • Rough single-view masks from existing segmenters are refined into sharper, more view-consistent mattes when used as initialization, so the method acts as a geometry-driven post-processor.
  • Because the foreground mask is extracted from a signed-distance surface rather than a density field, the resulting masks avoid the interior holes and near-camera floaters typical of NeRF-based segmentation.
  • The framework extends to modestly dynamic videos, such as casual handheld captures, but not to unbounded 360-degree scenes or extreme object motion, per the paper's own failure cases.
  • Self-supervised performance matches or beats a supervised NeRF semantic segmenter on the reported benchmarks, so annotation cost can be shifted from labels to camera poses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-SDF decomposition could be applied per object for scenes with multiple foreground instances, giving each object its own FoCoR-style surface and composing the alpha maps, an extension the paper does not explore.
  • If surface geometry is what drives mask quality, then scenes with weak texture or translucent objects will remain hard even with perfect poses, because the SDF cannot form a clean zero-level set; this is an implicit limit beyond the paper's stated unbounded-scene failure.
  • The method's success at refining masks suggests a bootstrapping protocol: take any single-image segmenter, generate coarse masks on a multi-view capture, run Surface-SOS, and use the refined masks as pseudo-labels for training the single-view network, a loop the paper does not test.
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 presents Surface-SOS, a framework for segmenting a foreground object from multi-view images by decomposing the scene into two complementary neural representations: a Foreground Consistent Representation (FoCoR) based on a signed distance function (SDF) and a Background Completion (BaCo) module. The two modules are trained end-to-end with photometric, Eikonal, sparsity, and optional mask losses, with multi-resolution hash encoding for efficiency. The authors claim that this is the first self-supervised approach using neural surface representation to break the dependence on large annotated data and strong constraints, that it always yields finer object masks than NeRF-based counterparts, and that it remarkably surpasses supervised single-view baselines. Experiments are reported on LLFF, CO3D, BlendedMVS, TUM, and custom video sequences, with qualitative and quantitative comparisons against SAM, DINO-CoSeg, Semantic-NeRF, NeRF-SOS, RFP, RVM, and LNA.

Significance. If the central claims were fully supported, the paper would be a meaningful step toward annotation-free object segmentation by exploiting multi-view geometric consistency. The technical core has merit: the two-module SDF-based decomposition is a sensible design, the use of multi-resolution hash encoding makes training practical, the sparsity loss is a reasonable regularization, and the mask-refinement use case in Table III is a clearly demonstrated contribution. Code is released, which is a strength. However, the evidence as presented does not support the headline claims of pure self-supervision and universal superiority over NeRF-based and supervised baselines; the main results rely on Mask R-CNN initialization, the mask-free ablation degrades sharply, and several quantitative comparisons in Table I go against the stated claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV-A, Table I, Table II, Eq. (12)] The 'self-supervised' claim is not supported because the main quantitative results are obtained with Mask R-CNN coarse masks as co-inputs and an explicit mask loss (Eq. 12). Mask R-CNN is trained on COCO with mask annotations, so it is a supervised prior. The mask-free ablation in Table II shows a large degradation: for Teddy, SAD rises from 8.685 to 14.188 and mIoU drops from 0.950 to 0.857, and for Cat, mIoU drops from 0.946 to 0.726. This contradicts the statement in Fig. 2 and Section III-D that the coarse mask is optional and merely expedites convergence.
  2. [Table I (BlendedMVS and LLFF rows)] The abstract's claim that Surface-SOS 'always yields finer object masks than its NeRF-based counterparts' is contradicted by Table I: on BlendedMVS, Semantic-NeRF achieves mIoU 0.935 and Acc. 0.955, while Surface-SOS achieves mIoU 0.931 and Acc. 0.941; on LLFF, the Acc. values tie at 0.918. With only 2-3 scenes per benchmark and no error bars or significance tests, the claimed universal superiority is not established.
  3. [IV-A and IV-C] The evaluation protocol is a concern because the authors manually labeled all views for LLFF, BlendedMVS, and TUM, and these same labels are used to train the supervised Semantic-NeRF baseline. CO3D labels are described as incomplete. With no inter-annotator agreement, no per-scene breakdown, and no error bars, the quantitative evidence does not support the strong comparative claims made in Section IV-C.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The word 'Biclcle' in the caption should be 'Bicycle'.
  2. [Section IV-D] The phrase 'coarse mutilated mask' appears to be a typo; it should likely read 'coarse initial mask' or 'coarse mask'.
  3. [Eq. (4) and Eq. (11)] Equation (4) writes 'BB_geo' for the background geometry feature, which appears to be a typo for 'FB_geo'; Eq. (11) should clarify the exponent, e.g., using exp(-tau * |sigma_F|)^2 with unambiguous parentheses.
  4. [Section IV-C] The sentence 'our method outperforms ... the supervised NeRF-based segmentation method (i.e., Semantic-NeRF [46])' cites the wrong reference: Semantic-NeRF is [21], not [46], and the claim is not true on BlendedMVS in Table I.
  5. [Table III and Conclusion] Table III reports improvements on only three scenes, so the conclusion's assertion of 'significantly improving the supervised 2D single-view object segmentation results' would benefit from a per-scene table and some measure of variability or significance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the segmentation output is optimized against input images, not fitted to the evaluation labels, and the optional coarse-mask input is ablated rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

None of the paper's load-bearing steps reduces to its own inputs. The segmentation output is the alpha value produced by the SDF-based volume rendering (Eqs. 2-5), optimized with photometric loss (Eq. 9), Eikonal regularization (Eq. 10), and sparsity loss (Eq. 11) against the input images; the evaluation masks are manually labeled by the authors and are never used to train Surface-SOS. The optional mask loss (Eq. 12) uses a coarse Mask R-CNN mask only in the initial training phase and is explicitly ablated: Table II shows the mask-free variant still produces reasonable decomposition, and Table III treats the coarse masks as inputs whose predictions are refined, not as fitted targets. The main quantitative tables use Mask R-CNN initialization, which means the 'self-supervised without annotations' framing is overstated as a supervision claim, but that is a correctness/scope issue, not a circularity issue: the final mask is not defined as the coarse mask nor forced to match ground truth. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears; references to NeuS, Instant-NGP, and sparsity losses are external prior work. The paper's own limitations (unbounded scenes, extreme motion) further show the method is falsifiable and not tautological.

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

The method depends on standard neural rendering assumptions (known poses, decomposable scene, coherent foreground surface) and several unspecified hyperparameters. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_e
    Weight for the Eikonal loss in Eq. (8); not specified in the paper.
  • lambda_s
    Weight for the sparsity loss in Eq. (8); not specified.
  • tau
    Hyperparameter re-scaling SDF values in the sparsity loss (Eq. 11); not specified.
  • b = trainable
    Inverse standard deviation in the SDF density function (Eq. 6); learned during training.
  • sample count n
    Number of points sampled per ray for volume rendering; not specified.
  • hash grid levels and resolutions = 16 levels, 16 to 2048
    Multi-resolution hash grid parameters; chosen by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The scene can be decoupled into a foreground object and a background, each represented by an SDF module.
    Central to the FoCoR and BaCo modules in Section III.C; if the scene is not decomposable this way, segmentation fails.
  • domain assumption The foreground object has a coherent, view-consistent surface; the background is static or has moderate motion.
    Needed for SDF consistency across views; acknowledged as a limitation in Section V.
  • domain assumption Camera poses are accurate and provided by COLMAP.
    The method relies on known poses; Section IV.A.
  • standard math The SDF density function from NeuS gives an unbiased surface.
    Adopted from NeuS [19]; used in Eq. (6) for volume rendering.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surface-SOS: Self-Supervised Object Segmentation via Neural Surface Representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DY6ATRZK

@misc{pith2026250109947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surface-SOS: Self-Supervised Object Segmentation via Neural Surface Representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DY6ATRZK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09947}
}
read the original abstract

Self-supervised Object Segmentation (SOS) aims to segment objects without any annotations. Under conditions of multi-camera inputs, the structural, textural and geometrical consistency among each view can be leveraged to achieve fine-grained object segmentation. To make better use of the above information, we propose Surface representation based Self-supervised Object Segmentation (Surface-SOS), a new framework to segment objects for each view by 3D surface representation from multi-view images of a scene. To model high-quality geometry surfaces for complex scenes, we design a novel scene representation scheme, which decomposes the scene into two complementary neural representation modules respectively with a Signed Distance Function (SDF). Moreover, Surface-SOS is able to refine single-view segmentation with multi-view unlabeled images, by introducing coarse segmentation masks as additional input. To the best of our knowledge, Surface-SOS is the first self-supervised approach that leverages neural surface representation to break the dependence on large amounts of annotated data and strong constraints. These constraints typically involve observing target objects against a static background or relying on temporal supervision in videos. Extensive experiments on standard benchmarks including LLFF, CO3D, BlendedMVS, TUM and several real-world scenes show that Surface-SOS always yields finer object masks than its NeRF-based counterparts and surpasses supervised single-view baselines remarkably. Code is available at: https://github.com/zhengxyun/Surface-SOS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09947 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We present Surface-SOS, in which multi-view geometric constraints [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Method overview. For the scene captured by N images {Ii}N i=1, we use COLMAP [30] and Mask-RCNN [7] to get sparse 3D points and coarse object masks as co-inputs, and predict a dense, geometrical consistent object map, as well as a textural, completed background for each image. Note that the coarse mask is optional and merely expedites the convergence of 3D surface representation. Moreover, by introducing coarse mask… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A visualization of the architecture of FoCoR and BaCo module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison on the forward-facing scenes Flower, Fortress, and horns from LLFF dataset [25]. In the third column, DINO-CoSeg [47] mistakenly matches several discrete patches, as DINO has higher activation on just a few tokens, which may lead to view-inconsistent and dis…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons on object-centric scenes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison on the object-centric scenes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison on the object-centric scenes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: More visualizations details of mask and RGB rendering results at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visual comparisons on the dynamic scenes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ablation Studies. Compare Surface-SOS to different design choices: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Failure cases. On the unbounded scene Truck from hand-held 360 capture Tank and Temples dataset [60], the generated results are blurry and lack fine details. On the custom stereo video Boy from [29], it mistakenly matches several discrete pixel patches. Though promisi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multi- view object segmentation in space and time,

    A. Djelouah, J.-S. Franco, E. Boyer, F. Le Clerc, and P. P ´erez, “Multi- view object segmentation in space and time,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , 2013, pp. 2640–2647

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Matnet: Motion- attentive transition network for zero-shot video object segmentation,

    T. Zhou, J. Li, S. Wang, R. Tao, and J. Shen, “Matnet: Motion- attentive transition network for zero-shot video object segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 29, pp. 8326–8338, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Editable free-viewpoint video using a layered neural representation,

    J. Zhang, X. Liu, X. Ye, F. Zhao, Y . Zhang, M. Wu, Y . Zhang, L. Xu, and J. Yu, “Editable free-viewpoint video using a layered neural representation,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1–18, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Control-nerf: Editable feature volumes for scene rendering and ma- nipulation,

    V . Lazova, V . Guzov, K. Olszewski, S. Tulyakov, and G. Pons-Moll, “Control-nerf: Editable feature volumes for scene rendering and ma- nipulation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 4340–4350

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Learning object-compositional neural radiance field for editable scene rendering,

    B. Yang, Y . Zhang, Y . Xu, Y . Li, H. Zhou, H. Bao, G. Zhang, and Z. Cui, “Learning object-compositional neural radiance field for editable scene rendering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 13 779–13 788

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    An overview of panoramic video projection schemes in the ieee 1857.9 standard for immersive visual content coding,

    Y . Cai, X. Li, Y . Wang, and R. Wang, “An overview of panoramic video projection schemes in the ieee 1857.9 standard for immersive visual content coding,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 6400–6413, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Mask r-cnn,

    K. He, G. Gkioxari, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Mask r-cnn,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2017, pp. 2961–2969

    2017

  8. [8]

    Coarse-to-fine semantic segmentation from image-level labels,

    L. Jing, Y . Chen, and Y . Tian, “Coarse-to-fine semantic segmentation from image-level labels,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 29, pp. 225–236, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Robust high-resolution video matting with temporal guidance,

    S. Lin, L. Yang, I. Saleemi, and S. Sengupta, “Robust high-resolution video matting with temporal guidance,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), January 2022, pp. 238–247

    2022

  2. [10]

    Omnimatte: Associating objects and their effects in video,

    E. Lu, F. Cole, T. Dekel, A. Zisserman, W. T. Freeman, and M. Ru- binstein, “Omnimatte: Associating objects and their effects in video,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2021, pp. 4507–4515

    2021

  3. [11]

    Layered neural rendering for retiming people in video,

    E. Lu, F. Cole, T. Dekel, W. Xie, A. Zisserman, D. Salesin, W. T. Freeman, and M. Rubinstein, “Layered neural rendering for retiming people in video,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07833 , 2020

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Towards linear-time incremental structure from motion,

    C. Wu, “Towards linear-time incremental structure from motion,” in 2013 International Conference on 3D Vision-3DV 2013 . IEEE, 2013, pp. 127–134

    2013

  5. [13]

    Joint multi-layer segmentation and reconstruction for free-viewpoint video applications,

    J.-Y . Guillemaut and A. Hilton, “Joint multi-layer segmentation and reconstruction for free-viewpoint video applications,” International jour- nal of computer vision , vol. 93, pp. 73–100, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    A system for the notation of proxemic behavior,

    E. T. Hall, “A system for the notation of proxemic behavior,” American anthropologist, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 1003–1026, 1963

    1963

  7. [15]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Neural sparse voxel fields,

    L. Liu, J. Gu, K. Zaw Lin, T.-S. Chua, and C. Theobalt, “Neural sparse voxel fields,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, pp. 15 651–15 663, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,

    T. M ¨uller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller, “Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Sdfdiff: Differentiable rendering of signed distance fields for 3d shape optimization,

    Y . Jiang, D. Ji, Z. Han, and M. Zwicker, “Sdfdiff: Differentiable rendering of signed distance fields for 3d shape optimization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020, pp. 1251–1261

    2020

  11. [19]

    Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction,

    P. Wang, L. Liu, Y . Liu, C. Theobalt, T. Komura, and W. Wang, “Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction,” NeurIPS, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Neus2: Fast learning of neural implicit surfaces for multi-view reconstruction,

    Y . Wang, Q. Han, M. Habermann, K. Daniilidis, C. Theobalt, and L. Liu, “Neus2: Fast learning of neural implicit surfaces for multi-view reconstruction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05231 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    In-place scene labelling and understanding with implicit scene representation,

    S. Zhi, T. Laidlow, S. Leutenegger, and A. J. Davison, “In-place scene labelling and understanding with implicit scene representation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 15 838–15 847

    2021

  14. [22]

    Fast learn- ing radiance fields by shooting much fewer rays,

    W. Zhang, R. Xing, Y . Zeng, Y .-S. Liu, K. Shi, and Z. Han, “Fast learn- ing radiance fields by shooting much fewer rays,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 32, pp. 2703–2718, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Floaters No More: Radiance Field Gradient Scaling for Improved Near-Camera Training,

    J. Philip and V . Deschaintre, “Floaters No More: Radiance Field Gradient Scaling for Improved Near-Camera Training,” in Eurographics Symposium on Rendering . The Eurographics Association, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    V olume rendering of neural implicit surfaces,

    L. Yariv, J. Gu, Y . Kasten, and Y . Lipman, “V olume rendering of neural implicit surfaces,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 34, pp. 4805–4815, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, R. Ortiz-Cayon, N. K. Kalantari, R. Ra- mamoorthi, R. Ng, and A. Kar, “Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1–14, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Blendedmvs: A large-scale dataset for generalized multi-view stereo networks,

    Y . Yao, Z. Luo, S. Li, J. Zhang, Y . Ren, L. Zhou, T. Fang, and L. Quan, “Blendedmvs: A large-scale dataset for generalized multi-view stereo networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2020, pp. 1790–1799

    2020

  19. [27]

    Common objects in 3d: Large-scale learning and evaluation of real-life 3d category reconstruction,

    J. Reizenstein, R. Shapovalov, P. Henzler, L. Sbordone, P. Labatut, and D. Novotny, “Common objects in 3d: Large-scale learning and evaluation of real-life 3d category reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 10 901–10 911

    2021

  20. [28]

    A benchmark for the evaluation of rgb-d slam systems,

    J. Sturm, N. Engelhard, F. Endres, W. Burgard, and D. Cremers, “A benchmark for the evaluation of rgb-d slam systems,” in 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, 2012, pp. 573–580

    2012

  21. [29]

    Consistent video depth estimation,

    X. Luo, J.-B. Huang, R. Szeliski, K. Matzen, and J. Kopf, “Consistent video depth estimation,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 71–1, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Structure-from-motion revisited,

    J. L. Schonberger and J.-M. Frahm, “Structure-from-motion revisited,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 4104–4113

    2016

  23. [31]

    Pointrend: Image segmen- tation as rendering,

    A. Kirillov, Y . Wu, K. He, and R. Girshick, “Pointrend: Image segmen- tation as rendering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 9799–9808

    2020

  24. [32]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, P. Doll´ar, and R. Girshick, “Segment anything,” arXiv:2304.02643, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Motion guided attention for video salient object detection,

    H. Li, G. Chen, G. Li, and Y . Yu, “Motion guided attention for video salient object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2019, pp. 7274–7283

    2019

  26. [34]

    Cmsalgan: Rgb-d salient object detection with cross-view generative adversarial networks,

    B. Jiang, Z. Zhou, X. Wang, J. Tang, and B. Luo, “Cmsalgan: Rgb-d salient object detection with cross-view generative adversarial networks,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 23, pp. 1343–1353, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Target-aware object discovery and association for unsupervised video multi-object segmentation,

    T. Zhou, J. Li, X. Li, and L. Shao, “Target-aware object discovery and association for unsupervised video multi-object segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021, pp. 6985–6994. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 1...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Un- supervised online video object segmentation with motion property understanding,

    T. Zhuo, Z. Cheng, P. Zhang, Y . Wong, and M. Kankanhalli, “Un- supervised online video object segmentation with motion property understanding,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 29, pp. 237–249, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Compositing digital images,

    T. Porter and T. Duff, “Compositing digital images,” in Proceedings of the 11th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 1984, pp. 253–259

    1984

  30. [38]

    A hierarchical image matting model for blood vessel segmentation in fundus images,

    Z. Fan, J. Lu, C. Wei, H. Huang, X. Cai, and X. Chen, “A hierarchical image matting model for blood vessel segmentation in fundus images,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2367–2377, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    User-guided deep human image matting using arbitrary trimaps,

    X. Fang, S.-H. Zhang, T. Chen, X. Wu, A. Shamir, and S.-M. Hu, “User-guided deep human image matting using arbitrary trimaps,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 31, pp. 2040–2052, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Poisson matting,

    J. Sun, J. Jia, C.-K. Tang, and H.-Y . Shum, “Poisson matting,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2004 Papers, 2004, pp. 315–321

    2004

  33. [41]

    Real-time high-resolution background matting,

    S. Lin, A. Ryabtsev, S. Sengupta, B. L. Curless, S. M. Seitz, and I. Kemelmacher-Shlizerman, “Real-time high-resolution background matting,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2021, pp. 8762–8771

    2021

  34. [42]

    Layered neural atlases for consistent video editing,

    Y . Kasten, D. Ofri, O. Wang, and T. Dekel, “Layered neural atlases for consistent video editing,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1–12, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Cyclesegnet: Object co- segmentation with cycle refinement and region correspondence,

    C. Zhang, G. Li, G. Lin, Q. Wu, and R. Yao, “Cyclesegnet: Object co- segmentation with cycle refinement and region correspondence,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 30, pp. 5652–5664, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Deep-dense conditional random fields for object co-segmentation,

    Z. Yuan, T. Lu, and Y . Wu, “Deep-dense conditional random fields for object co-segmentation,” in Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ser. IJCAI’17. AAAI Press, 2017, p. 3371–3377

    2017

  37. [45]

    Deep object co-segmentation,

    W. Li, O. Hosseini Jafari, and C. Rother, “Deep object co-segmentation,” in Computer Vision–ACCV 2018: 14th Asian Conference on Computer Vision, Perth, Australia, December 2–6, 2018, Revised Selected Papers, Part III 14. Springer, 2019, pp. 638–653

    2018

  38. [46]

    Semantic aware attention based deep object co-segmentation,

    H. Chen, Y . Huang, and H. Nakayama, “Semantic aware attention based deep object co-segmentation,” in Computer Vision–ACCV 2018: 14th Asian Conference on Computer Vision, Perth, Australia, December 2–6, 2018, Revised Selected Papers, Part IV 14 . Springer, 2019, pp. 435– 450

    2018

  39. [47]

    Deep vit features as dense visual descriptors,

    S. Amir, Y . Gandelsman, S. Bagon, and T. Dekel, “Deep vit features as dense visual descriptors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05814 , vol. 2, no. 3, p. 4, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    3-d model-based segmentation of videoconference image sequences,

    I. Kompatsiaris, D. Tzovaras, and M. G. Strintzis, “3-d model-based segmentation of videoconference image sequences,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 547– 561, 1998

    1998

  41. [49]

    Background estimation and removal based on range and color,

    G. Gordon, T. Darrell, M. Harville, and J. Woodfill, “Background estimation and removal based on range and color,” in Proceedings. 1999 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (Cat. No PR00149) , vol. 2, 1999, pp. 459–464 V ol. 2

    1999

  42. [50]

    Silhouette extraction from multiple images of an unknown background,

    Z. Gang and Q. Long, “Silhouette extraction from multiple images of an unknown background,” in Proceedings of the Asian Conference of Computer Vision, Citeseer . Citeseer, 2004

    2004

  43. [51]

    Silhouette segmentation in multiple views,

    W. Lee, W. Woo, and E. Boyer, “Silhouette segmentation in multiple views,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 1429–1441, 2010

    2010

  44. [52]

    Nerf- sos: Any-view self-supervised object segmentation on complex scenes,

    Z. Fan, P. Wang, Y . Jiang, X. Gong, D. Xu, and Z. Wang, “Nerf- sos: Any-view self-supervised object segmentation on complex scenes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.08776 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Unsupervised multi- view object segmentation using radiance field propagation,

    X. Liu, J. Chen, H. Yu, Y .-W. Tai, and C.-K. Tang, “Unsupervised multi- view object segmentation using radiance field propagation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 17 730–17 743, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields,

    J. T. Barron, B. Mildenhall, D. Verbin, P. P. Srinivasan, and P. Hedman, “Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 5470–5479

    2022

  47. [55]

    Occupancy networks: Learning 3d reconstruction in function space,

    L. Mescheder, M. Oechsle, M. Niemeyer, S. Nowozin, and A. Geiger, “Occupancy networks: Learning 3d reconstruction in function space,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 4460–4470

    2019

  48. [56]

    Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape rep- resentation,

    J. J. Park, P. Florence, J. Straub, R. Newcombe, and S. Lovegrove, “Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape rep- resentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 165–174

    2019

  49. [57]

    Implicit geometric regularization for learning shapes,

    A. Gropp, L. Yariv, N. Haim, M. Atzmon, and Y . Lipman, “Implicit geometric regularization for learning shapes,” inProceedings of Machine Learning and Systems 2020 , 2020, pp. 3569–3579

    2020

  50. [58]

    Sparseneus: Fast generalizable neural surface reconstruction from sparse views,

    X. Long, C. Lin, P. Wang, T. Komura, and W. Wang, “Sparseneus: Fast generalizable neural surface reconstruction from sparse views,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 210– 227

    2022

  51. [59]

    Information-theoretic segmentation by inpainting error maximization,

    P. Savarese, S. S. Kim, M. Maire, G. Shakhnarovich, and D. McAllester, “Information-theoretic segmentation by inpainting error maximization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 4029–4039

    2021

  52. [60]

    Free view synthesis,

    G. Riegler and V . Koltun, “Free view synthesis,” in Computer Vision– ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XIX 16 . Springer, 2020, pp. 623–640. Xiaoyun Zheng received the M.S. degree in Me- chanical Engineering from Tongji Un...

    2020

Pith tools

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