Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 59 references

3DResT: A Strong Baseline for Semi-Supervised 3D Referring Expression Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Semi-supervised 3DResT claims that 1% of labels can beat full supervision in 3D referring segmentation by recycling pseudo-labels.

desk verdict First semi-supervised 3D-RES baseline with two sensible but under-validated components; deserves peer review with ask for stronger evidence on pseudo-label quality. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12599 v1 pith:QO764TBS submitted 2025-04-17 cs.CV

Wenxin Chen , Mengxue Qu , Weitai Kang , Yan Yan , Yao Zhao , Yunchao Wei This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dreferringexpressionsegmentationsemi-supervisedlearningteacher-studentframeworkpseudo-labelpointcloudconsistency-basedsamplingdynamicweightingScanRefer
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

3D referring expression segmentation cuts out the object in a 3D point cloud that a sentence describes, and labeling such masks is expensive. This paper introduces 3DResT, the first semi-supervised teacher-student framework for this task, which keeps the cheap language descriptions and drops the masks for unlabeled scenes. Its central claim is that on the ScanRefer benchmark, training with only 1% of the labeled data reaches 25.41 mean IoU, beating the fully supervised baseline at 17.07 by 8.34 points. The paper argues that existing semi-supervised pipelines waste pseudo-labels: good ones are used only as weak auxiliary losses, and bad ones are discarded outright. 3DResT instead promotes teacher-student-agreed masks into the labeled set and keeps the rest with weights proportional to their agreement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the teacher-student agreement score $correl$, defined as the IoU between the student's mask prediction $Y_s^u$ and the teacher's pseudo-label $\hat{Y}_t^u$ (Eq. 6). It is used twice: TSCS selects pseudo-labels with $correl > 0.95$ and merges them into the labeled dataset, while QDW sets each unlabeled sample's loss weight to $\lambda_{\text{weight}}^{\text{unsup}} = \mathrm{IoU}(Y_s^u, \hat{Y}_t^u)$ (Eq. 7), so low-quality pseudo-labels keep contributing with reduced influence. Because the teacher's weights are the exponential moving average of the student's (Eq. 5), the two networks provide comparable predictions, and the agreement score serves as a stand-in for pseudo-label correctness.

What would settle it

Hold out the true masks for the unlabeled split and measure the correlation between Eq. (6)'s teacher-student IoU and the true IoU of the teacher pseudo-label; if that correlation is near zero or negative, the sampling and weighting cannot be the mechanism behind the reported 8.34-point gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that pseudo-labels themselves, not the amount of labeled data, are the bottleneck in semi-supervised 3D-RES. It proposes to treat a pseudo-label as trustworthy ground truth when the student's prediction and the teacher's pseudo-label agree above a high IoU threshold of 0.95, adding that sample to the labeled set via Teacher-Student Consistency-Based Sampling (TSCS). All other pseudo-labels are retained rather than filtered, with each unlabeled sample's loss weighted by the teacher-student IoU through Quality-Driven Dynamic Weighting (QDW). On ScanRefer, this combination yields 25.41 mIoU with 1% labeled data, an 8.34-point improvement over fully supervised training, and the gain grows as the labeled fraction shrinks.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that when the student and teacher produce nearly identical masks, the teacher's pseudo-label is accurate enough to be treated as ground truth, even though the teacher is just an averaged copy of the student and both could be confidently wrong together.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With 1% of ScanRefer labels, 3DResT reaches 25.41 mIoU versus 17.07 for full supervision, and the margin grows as the labeled fraction shrinks from 10% down to 1%.
  • Selecting pseudo-labels at the middle of teacher-student training works better than selecting them early or late, so the sampling period is a tunable lever for performance.
  • Ablations attribute most of the gain to TSCS: selecting high-agreement pseudo-labels adds 1.61 mIoU points at 1% labels, while QDW alone adds 0.15.
  • Keeping low-quality pseudo-labels with soft weights outperforms discarding them or weighting them by the model's own predicted confidence scores.
  • Unlabeled data for the framework need only language descriptions, not masks, so new unlabeled material can be collected from existing vision-language sources without annotation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same promote-and-softly-weight recipe could transfer to other language grounding tasks where each annotation supervises a single object, such as 2D referring segmentation or 3D referring comprehension.
  • Because the labeled set only grows, early promoted pseudo-labels could become stale as the teacher improves; a testable extension is to periodically re-score and evict previously promoted samples.
  • Substituting the teacher-student IoU weight in QDW with a calibrated confidence estimate would test whether agreement is really the right proxy, or whether the gain comes from sample reweighting in general.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 3DResT, which it presents as the first semi-supervised learning framework for 3D referring expression segmentation (3D-RES) on point clouds. The method adopts a teacher–student architecture where the teacher is an EMA of the student, generates pseudo-labels for unlabeled data, and supervises the student through a combined supervised and unsupervised loss. Two new components are proposed: Teacher-Student Consistency-Based Sampling (TSCS), which measures the IoU between the teacher pseudo-label and the student prediction and promotes pseudo-labels with IoU above a threshold (0.95) into the labeled set; and Quality-Driven Dynamic Weighting (QDW), which uses the same teacher–student IoU as a per-sample weight on the unsupervised loss so that low-quality pseudo-labels are down-weighted rather than discarded. Experiments on ScanRefer at 1%, 2%, 5%, and 10% labeled data show consistent mIoU improvements over a fully supervised baseline and over RefTeacher, a 2D referring-expression SSL method adapted to 3D. Ablations in Table II indicate that both TSCS and QDW contribute, with TSCS providing the larger gain.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable contribution: it opens a new task setting (semi-supervised 3D-RES) and reports large gains in low-label regimes (e.g., +8.34 mIoU at 1% labels, Table I), which is practically relevant given the high cost of instance-level 3D annotations. The method itself is simple and builds on established teacher–student ideas, making it a reasonable baseline for future work. The paper also includes ablations that show both proposed modules help, and Table IV provides some evidence of the sensitivity of TSCS to the sampling period. However, the central explanatory claim—that teacher–student agreement is a trustworthy proxy for pseudo-label correctness—is not directly validated, and several implementation details (notably the sampling period K) are unspecified. The empirical gains are consistently positive across label ratios, which partially mitigates the concern, but the lack of uncertainty estimates and the small margins in some comparisons (e.g., Table III) leave the strength of the claim somewhat fragile.

major comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 1, Section IV.A] The core mechanism is that teacher–student IoU, computed in Eq. (6) for TSCS and Eq. (7) for QDW, measures pseudo-label quality. Because the teacher is the EMA of the student (Eq. 5), the two models are strongly correlated, so high agreement can occur even when both are confidently wrong. The paper provides no direct evidence that this agreement correlates with ground-truth mask quality: there is no analysis of the precision of selected pseudo-labels, no comparison of TSCS selection against random selection or confidence-based selection of the same set size, and no study of whether QDW's per-sample weights track actual correctness. The ablation in Table II shows that the modules improve performance, but it does not show that the quality-selection mechanism is the reason. I ask the authors to add an experiment that measures the agreement between the teacher–student IoU and the IoU against ground truth at selection time, or to compare TSCS against a control that selects the same number of pseudo-labels randomly. Without such validation, the attribution of the gains to 'quality' is not supported.
  2. [Algorithm 1, Section IV.A] The paper does not specify the sampling period K used in the main experiments (Section IV.A lists alpha, s, and lambda_u but not K). Since Table IV shows that the choice of sampling period materially affects performance (1.61 mIoU difference between selecting at Mid vs. not selecting), omitting K prevents reproduction of the main results. Please state the default K and clarify whether sampling is a one-time event or periodic.
  3. [Tables I–IV, Section IV] The main results and ablations are presented without error bars or significance tests, even though some differences are small (e.g., Table III QDW vs. baseline, +0.15 mIoU overall). Reporting the mean and standard deviation over multiple seeds (e.g., 3 runs) for the key comparisons would make the claims more robust. Since the paper's headline claim is an '8.34-point improvement', establishing that this is not a single-run artifact is important.
  4. [Table III, Section IV-D] Table III's setup is ambiguous: the 'Baseline' row is not defined (does it include TSCS? does it include QDW?), and the 'predicted-weight' row is said to be RefTeacher in the text but the table does not say so. Since the comparison is meant to justify QDW over an alternative, the exact configuration of each row must be explicit.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (6)] The term 'correlation score' is used for what is simply the IoU between two binary masks; it is not a statistical correlation. Consider renaming it 'consistency score' or 'IoU score' for clarity.
  2. [Eqs. (7) and (11)] Eq. (7) defines a per-sample weight lambda_{unsup}^{weight}, but Eq. (11) writes the unsupervised loss as a single equation with lambda_{unsup}^{weight} multiplying the full BCE and Dice terms. Please clarify whether the weighting is applied per-sample and then averaged over the batch, and give the exact averaging formula.
  3. [Table IV] The caption of Table IV contains a typo: 'diffenet' should be 'different'. Also, the row labels 'Early', 'Mid', 'Late' should be defined in terms of epochs or iterations so that the reader can relate them to the unspecified K.
  4. [Section IV-A and Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 uses 'epoch = K' as the sampling condition, but the training loop is described in iterations. Please clarify the relationship between epochs and iterations, and specify how many epochs correspond to the burn-in stage (N1=2k steps) and the total training length.
  5. [Index Terms] The Index Terms line has a formatting issue: 'T erms' should be 'Terms'.
  6. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says 'The correl in TSCS is a metric...' but the figure itself uses 'correl' without a clear definition. After introducing Eq. (6), the figure could be updated to label the metric as 'IoU' for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central performance claims are empirical comparisons on held-out ScanRefer ground truth, and the teacher–student IoU proxy is a modeling assumption, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical rather than derived: the headline 8.34-point mIoU improvement over the fully supervised baseline is a measured result on the ScanRefer validation set (Table I), and the ablations (Tables II–IV) compare configurations against the same ground-truth metric. TSCS uses the teacher–student mask IoU (Eq. 6) as a sampling score, and QDW uses the same IoU (Eq. 7) as an unsupervised-loss weight; the teacher is an EMA of the student (Eq. 5), so the consistency score is self-referential in the sense that it measures agreement between two correlated predictors. However, this is a design assumption about how to rank pseudo-labels, not a claim that the outcome is derived from the input. The paper does not assert from first principles that teacher–student IoU equals ground-truth quality; it proposes a heuristic and validates it empirically. Concerns that the IoU proxy may select confidently wrong masks are correctness or robustness risks, not circularity. The self-citations ([53], [54], [59]) appear in application and related-work context and are not load-bearing for the main result. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

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

The central claim rests on the standard SSL assumption that pseudo-labels from an EMA teacher improve the student, plus the paper-specific premise that teacher-student agreement is a valid proxy for pseudo-label correctness. Four hyperparameters are hand-set with no sensitivity analysis, the sampling period K is left unspecified, and no independent signal validates the pseudo-label quality estimate; the method introduces no new physical or architectural entities.

free parameters (5)
  • TSCS filter threshold s = 0.95
    Sets the teacher-student IoU cutoff for promoting pseudo-labels to the labeled set; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Unsupervised loss weight lambda_u = 0.5
    Global weight balancing the unsupervised loss in Eq. (2); chosen by hand without sensitivity study.
  • EMA keeping rate alpha = 0.9996
    Controls teacher update in Eq. (5); a standard value but no ablation is provided.
  • TSCS sampling period K = Mid epoch, not numerically specified
    Algorithm 1 selects pseudo-labels every K epochs; Table IV chooses "Mid" of 30 epochs, but the actual K value is not reported.
  • Attention loss weight lambda_attn = not specified
    Appears in Eq. (11) but no value is given in Section IV-A.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Teacher-student consistency (IoU between teacher and student masks) is a reliable proxy for pseudo-label correctness.
    Used in TSCS (Eq. 6) and QDW (Eq. 7); not proven and known to fail under confirmation bias when the teacher is an EMA of the student.
  • domain assumption Unlabeled samples retain textual descriptions while only mask annotations are discarded.
    Stated in Section III-A; realistic for vision-language datasets but may not hold in fully unlabeled deployments.
  • domain assumption Teacher-student EMA training (Eq. 5) prevents teacher overfitting and yields stable pseudo-labels.
    Borrowed from prior SSL works [31, 33, 46] and adopted without new justification.
  • domain assumption ScanRefer is a representative benchmark for 3D-RES and 3D-STMN is a valid base model.
    Evaluation is on a single dataset and a single backbone; results may not transfer to other 3D-RES settings.
  • ad hoc to paper The IoU threshold of 0.95 and the choice of sampling period K generalize across label ratios.
    Hyperparameters are fixed without a sensitivity analysis, so their generalization is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3DResT: A Strong Baseline for Semi-Supervised 3D Referring Expression Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QO764TBS

@misc{pith2026250412599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3DResT: A Strong Baseline for Semi-Supervised 3D Referring Expression Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QO764TBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12599}
}
read the original abstract

3D Referring Expression Segmentation (3D-RES) typically requires extensive instance-level annotations, which are time-consuming and costly. Semi-supervised learning (SSL) mitigates this by using limited labeled data alongside abundant unlabeled data, improving performance while reducing annotation costs. SSL uses a teacher-student paradigm where teacher generates high-confidence-filtered pseudo-labels to guide student. However, in the context of 3D-RES, where each label corresponds to a single mask and labeled data is scarce, existing SSL methods treat high-quality pseudo-labels merely as auxiliary supervision, which limits the model's learning potential. The reliance on high-confidence thresholds for filtering often results in potentially valuable pseudo-labels being discarded, restricting the model's ability to leverage the abundant unlabeled data. Therefore, we identify two critical challenges in semi-supervised 3D-RES, namely, inefficient utilization of high-quality pseudo-labels and wastage of useful information from low-quality pseudo-labels. In this paper, we introduce the first semi-supervised learning framework for 3D-RES, presenting a robust baseline method named 3DResT. To address these challenges, we propose two novel designs called Teacher-Student Consistency-Based Sampling (TSCS) and Quality-Driven Dynamic Weighting (QDW). TSCS aids in the selection of high-quality pseudo-labels, integrating them into the labeled dataset to strengthen the labeled supervision signals. QDW preserves low-quality pseudo-labels by dynamically assigning them lower weights, allowing for the effective extraction of useful information rather than discarding them. Extensive experiments conducted on the widely used benchmark demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Notably, with only 1% labeled data, 3DResT achieves an mIoU improvement of 8.34 points compared to the fully supervised method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12599 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our proposed model can efficiently leverage the unlabeled data and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall semi-supervised 3D-RES framework, 3DResT, consists of two 3D-RES networks with identical configurations, referred to as the Teacher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualizations of 3DResT and fully supervised baselines. Subfigure (a) and (b) indicate that TSCS and QDW of 3DResT can obviously improve the quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparisons of Supervised method and 3DResT. The blue mask means the ground truth, the red mask means the prediction of supervised method and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Domain adaptive lidar point cloud segmentation with 3d spatial consistency,

    A. Xiao, D. Guan, X. Zhang, and S. Lu, “Domain adaptive lidar point cloud segmentation with 3d spatial consistency,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Region-enhanced feature learning for scene semantic segmentation,

    X. Kang, C. Wang, and X. Chen, “Region-enhanced feature learning for scene semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Lif-seg: Lidar and camera image fusion for 3d lidar semantic segmentation,

    L. Zhao, H. Zhou, X. Zhu, X. Song, H. Li, and W. Tao, “Lif-seg: Lidar and camera image fusion for 3d lidar semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 26, pp. 1158–1168, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Adaptive margin contrastive learning for ambiguity-aware 3d semantic segmentation,

    Y. Chen, Y. Duan, R. Zhang, and Y.-P. Tan, “Adaptive margin contrastive learning for ambiguity-aware 3d semantic segmentation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Lifting by gaussians: A simple, fast and flexible method for 3d instance segmentation,

    R. Chacko, N. Haeni, E. Khaliullin, L. Sun, and D. Lee, “Lifting by gaussians: A simple, fast and flexible method for 3d instance segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00173, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Efficient 3d semantic segmentation with superpoint transformer,

    D. Robert, H. Raguet, and L. Landrieu, “Efficient 3d semantic segmentation with superpoint transformer,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 17 195–17 204

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Large-scale point cloud semantic seg- mentation with superpoint graphs,

    L. Landrieu and M. Simonovsky, “Large-scale point cloud semantic seg- mentation with superpoint graphs,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 4558–4567

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Toward better boundary preserved supervoxel segmentation for 3d point clouds,

    Y. Lin, C. Wang, D. Zhai, W. Li, and J. Li, “Toward better boundary preserved supervoxel segmentation for 3d point clouds,”ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing , vol. 143, pp. 39–47, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Ipdn: Image-enhanced prompt decoding network for 3d referring expression segmentation,

    Q. Chen, C. Wu, J. Ji, Y. Ma, D. Yang, and X. Sun, “Ipdn: Image-enhanced prompt decoding network for 3d referring expression segmentation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04995, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Rg-san: Rule-guided spatial awareness network for end-to-end 9 3d referring expression segmentation,

    C. Wu, Q. Chen, J. Ji, H. Wang, Y. Ma, Y. Huang, G. Luo, H. Fei, X. Sun, and R. Ji, “Rg-san: Rule-guided spatial awareness network for end-to-end 9 3d referring expression segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02402 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    3d-gres: Generalized 3d referring expression segmentation,

    C. Wu, Y. Liu, J. Ji, Y. Ma, H. Wang, G. Luo, H. Ding, X. Sun, and R. Ji, “3d-gres: Generalized 3d referring expression segmentation,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2024, pp. 7852–7861

    2024

  4. [12]

    Refmask3d: Language-guided transformer for 3d referring segmentation,

    S. He and H. Ding, “Refmask3d: Language-guided transformer for 3d referring segmentation,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2024, pp. 8316–8325

    2024

  5. [13]

    Segpoint: Segment any point cloud via large language model,

    S. He, H. Ding, X. Jiang, and B. Wen, “Segpoint: Segment any point cloud via large language model,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2024, pp. 349–367

    2024

  6. [14]

    3d-stmn: Dependency-driven superpoint-text matching network for end-to-end 3d referring expression segmentation,

    C. Wu, Y. Ma, Q. Chen, H. Wang, G. Luo, J. Ji, and X. Sun, “3d-stmn: Dependency-driven superpoint-text matching network for end-to-end 3d referring expression segmentation,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 6, 2024, pp. 5940–5948

    2024

  7. [15]

    Text-guided graph neural networks for referring 3d instance segmentation,

    P.-H. Huang, H.-H. Lee, H.-T. Chen, and T.-L. Liu, “Text-guided graph neural networks for referring 3d instance segmentation,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 35, no. 2, 2021, pp. 1610–1618

    2021

  8. [16]

    Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes,

    A. Dai, A. X. Chang, M. Savva, M. Halber, T. Funkhouser, and M. Nießner, “Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 5828–5839

    2017

  9. [17]

    Referit3d: Neural listeners for fine-grained 3d object identification in real-world scenes,

    P. Achlioptas, A. Abdelreheem, F. Xia, M. Elhoseiny, and L. Guibas, “Referit3d: Neural listeners for fine-grained 3d object identification in real-world scenes,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 16 . S...

    2020

  10. [18]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,

    T.-Y. Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Doll´ar, and C. L. Zitnick, “Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 13 . Springer, 2...

    2014

  11. [19]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,

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

    2009

  12. [20]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding,

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

    2016

  13. [21]

    Scanrefer: 3d object localization in rgb-d scans using natural language,

    D. Z. Chen, A. X. Chang, and M. Nießner, “Scanrefer: 3d object localization in rgb-d scans using natural language,” inEuropean conference on computer vision . Springer, 2020, pp. 202–221

    2020

  14. [22]

    Learning with pseudo- ensembles,

    P. Bachman, O. Alsharif, and D. Precup, “Learning with pseudo- ensembles,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 27, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Remixmatch: Semi-supervised learning with distribution alignment and augmentation anchoring,

    D. Berthelot, N. Carlini, E. D. Cubuk, A. Kurakin, K. Sohn, H. Zhang, and C. Raffel, “Remixmatch: Semi-supervised learning with distribution alignment and augmentation anchoring,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.09785, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning,

    D. Berthelot, N. Carlini, I. Goodfellow, N. Papernot, A. Oliver, and C. A. Raffel, “Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence,

    K. Sohn, D. Berthelot, N. Carlini, Z. Zhang, H. Zhang, C. A. Raffel, E. D. Cubuk, A. Kurakin, and C.-L. Li, “Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 596–608, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Sspc-net: Semi-supervised semantic 3d point cloud segmentation network,

    M. Cheng, L. Hui, J. Xie, and J. Yang, “Sspc-net: Semi-supervised semantic 3d point cloud segmentation network,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 35, no. 2, 2021, pp. 1140– 1147

    2021

  19. [27]

    Sess: Self-ensembling semi- supervised 3d object detection,

    N. Zhao, T.-S. Chua, and G. H. Lee, “Sess: Self-ensembling semi- supervised 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2020, pp. 11 079– 11 087

    2020

  20. [28]

    Active teacher for semi-supervised object detection,

    P. Mi, J. Lin, Y. Zhou, Y. Shen, G. Luo, X. Sun, L. Cao, R. Fu, Q. Xu, and R. Ji, “Active teacher for semi-supervised object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 14 482–14 491

    2022

  21. [29]

    Beyond the label itself: Latent labels enhance semi-supervised point cloud panoptic segmentation,

    Y. Chen, X. Tan, Z. Zhang, Y. Qu, and Y. Xie, “Beyond the label itself: Latent labels enhance semi-supervised point cloud panoptic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 2, 2024, pp. 1245–1253

    2024

  22. [30]

    Lasermix for semi-supervised lidar semantic segmentation,

    L. Kong, J. Ren, L. Pan, and Z. Liu, “Lasermix for semi-supervised lidar semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 21 705–21 715

    2023

  23. [31]

    Hierarchical point-based active learning for semi-supervised point cloud semantic segmentation,

    Z. Xu, B. Yuan, S. Zhao, Q. Zhang, and X. Gao, “Hierarchical point-based active learning for semi-supervised point cloud semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 18 098–18 108

    2023

  24. [32]

    Guided point contrastive learning for semi-supervised point cloud semantic seg- mentation,

    L. Jiang, S. Shi, Z. Tian, X. Lai, S. Liu, C.-W. Fu, and J. Jia, “Guided point contrastive learning for semi-supervised point cloud semantic seg- mentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 6423–6432

    2021

  25. [33]

    Sdcl: Students discrepancy-informed correction learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    B. Song and Q. Wang, “Sdcl: Students discrepancy-informed correction learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Inter- vention. Springer, 2024, pp. 567–577

    2024

  26. [34]

    Data-uncertainty guided multi-phase learning for semi-supervised object detection,

    Z. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Guo, L. Fang, and S. Wang, “Data-uncertainty guided multi-phase learning for semi-supervised object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 4568–4577

    2021

  27. [35]

    Consistency-based active learning for object detection,

    W. Yu, S. Zhu, T. Yang, and C. Chen, “Consistency-based active learning for object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 3951–3960

    2022

  28. [36]

    Multiple instance active learning for object detection,

    T. Yuan, F. Wan, M. Fu, J. Liu, S. Xu, X. Ji, and Q. Ye, “Multiple instance active learning for object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 5330– 5339

    2021

  29. [37]

    Augrefer: Advancing 3d visual grounding via cross-modal augmentation and spatial relation-based referring,

    X. Wang, N. Zhao, Z. Han, D. Guo, and X. Yang, “Augrefer: Advancing 3d visual grounding via cross-modal augmentation and spatial relation-based referring,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09428, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Dense object grounding in 3d scenes,

    W. Huang, D. Liu, and W. Hu, “Dense object grounding in 3d scenes,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2023, pp. 5017–5026

    2023

  31. [39]

    3d-sps: Single-stage 3d visual grounding via referred point progressive selection,

    J. Luo, J. Fu, X. Kong, C. Gao, H. Ren, H. Shen, H. Xia, and S. Liu, “3d-sps: Single-stage 3d visual grounding via referred point progressive selection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 16 454–16 463

    2022

  32. [40]

    Multi3drefer: Grounding text description to multiple 3d objects,

    Y. Zhang, Z. Gong, and A. X. Chang, “Multi3drefer: Grounding text description to multiple 3d objects,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 15 225–15 236

    2023

  33. [41]

    Language conditioned spatial relation reasoning for 3d object grounding,

    S. Chen, P.-L. Guhur, M. Tapaswi, C. Schmid, and I. Laptev, “Language conditioned spatial relation reasoning for 3d object grounding,”Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 35, pp. 20 522–20 535, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Aware visual grounding in 3d scenes,

    X. Shi, Z. Wu, and S. Lee, “Aware visual grounding in 3d scenes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 14 056–14 065

    2024

  35. [43]

    X-refseg3d: Enhancing referring 3d instance segmentation via structured cross-modal graph neural networks,

    Z. Qian, Y. Ma, J. Ji, and X. Sun, “X-refseg3d: Enhancing referring 3d instance segmentation via structured cross-modal graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 5, 2024, pp. 4551–4559

    2024

  36. [44]

    Pseudo-ris: Distinctive pseudo-supervision generation for referring image segmentation,

    S. Yu, P. H. Seo, and J. Son, “Pseudo-ris: Distinctive pseudo-supervision generation for referring image segmentation,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 18–36

    2024

  37. [45]

    Sam as the guide: Mastering pseudo-label refinement in semi-supervised referring expression segmentation,

    D. Yang, J. Ji, Y. Ma, T. Guo, H. Wang, X. Sun, and R. Ji, “Sam as the guide: Mastering pseudo-label refinement in semi-supervised referring expression segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01451, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Refteacher: A strong baseline for semi-supervised referring expression comprehension,

    J. Sun, G. Luo, Y. Zhou, X. Sun, G. Jiang, Z. Wang, and R. Ji, “Refteacher: A strong baseline for semi-supervised referring expression comprehension,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 19 144–19 154

    2023

  39. [47]

    Generating visual spatial description via holistic 3d scene understanding,

    Y. Zhao, H. Fei, W. Ji, J. Wei, M. Zhang, M. Zhang, and T.-S. Chua, “Generating visual spatial description via holistic 3d scene understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11768, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation,

    F. Milletari, N. Navab, and S.-A. Ahmadi, “V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation,” in 2016 fourth international conference on 3D vision (3DV) . Ieee, 2016, pp. 565–571

    2016

  41. [49]

    Superpoint transformer for 3d scene instance segmentation,

    J. Sun, C. Qing, J. Tan, and X. Xu, “Superpoint transformer for 3d scene instance segmentation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 2, 2023, pp. 2393–2401

    2023

  42. [50]

    Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training,

    Q. Xie, Z. Dai, E. Hovy, T. Luong, and Q. Le, “Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 6256–6268, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learn- ing results,

    A. Tarvainen and H. Valpola, “Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learn- ing results,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  44. [52]

    Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization

    J. Duchi, E. Hazan, and Y. Singer, “Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization.” Journal of machine learning research, vol. 12, no. 7, 2011. 10

    2011

  45. [53]

    Intent3d: 3d object detection in rgb-d scans based on human intention,

    W. Kang, M. Qu, J. Kini, Y. Wei, M. Shah, and Y. Yan, “Intent3d: 3d object detection in rgb-d scans based on human intention,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18295, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Robin3d: Improving 3d large language model via robust instruction tuning,

    W. Kang, H. Huang, Y. Shang, M. Shah, and Y. Yan, “Robin3d: Improving 3d large language model via robust instruction tuning,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00255

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Virtual reality for health care: a survey,

    J. Moline, “Virtual reality for health care: a survey,” Virtual reality in neuro-psycho-physiology, pp. 3–34, 1997

    1997

  48. [56]

    Social virtual reality: ethical considerations and future directions for an emerging research space,

    D. Maloney, G. Freeman, and A. Robb, “Social virtual reality: ethical considerations and future directions for an emerging research space,” in 2021 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces abstracts and workshops (VRW) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 271–277

    2021

  49. [57]

    A review on human–ai interaction in machine learning and insights for medical applications,

    M. Maadi, H. Akbarzadeh Khorshidi, and U. Aickelin, “A review on human–ai interaction in machine learning and insights for medical applications,” International journal of environmental research and public health, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 2121, 2021

    2021

  50. [58]

    A systematic review of human–computer interaction and explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare with artificial intelligence techniques,

    M. Nazar, M. M. Alam, E. Yafi, and M. M. Su’ud, “A systematic review of human–computer interaction and explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare with artificial intelligence techniques,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 153 316–153 348, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Actress: Active retraining for semi- supervised visual grounding,

    W. Kang, M. Qu, Y. Wei, and Y. Yan, “Actress: Active retraining for semi- supervised visual grounding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03251, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.