Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 27 references

MESSI: A Multi-Elevation Semantic Segmentation Image Dataset of an Urban Environment

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new 2,525-image drone dataset maps how altitude changes semantic segmentation accuracy, with matched views of the same urban areas from 30 to 100 meters and vertical descents down to 10 meters.

desk verdict MESSI is a genuinely useful multi-elevation dataset for aerial segmentation, but the paper's headline altitude-effect experiment (Fig. 7) is confounded by the evaluation mask and needs to be redone or reframed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08589 v1 pith:6V4XKTIC submitted 2025-05-13 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGcs.RO

Barak Pinkovich , Boaz Matalon , Ehud Rivlin , Hector Rotstein This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LGcs.RO
keywords semanticsegmentationdroneimageryUAVdatasetmulti-elevationurbansceneunderstandingaltitudetransferaerialimagespixel-wiseannotation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper presents MESSI, a 2,525-image dataset in which the same urban areas are photographed from several altitudes and revisited during vertical descents, with pixel-level labels for 15 classes and per-image pose and camera intrinsics. The central claim is that this multi-elevation structure makes it possible, for the first time, to study systematically how altitude affects semantic-segmentation accuracy, rather than treating altitude as an incidental variation. The authors train several segmentation models on the dataset and report that SegFormer-B3 reaches 52.6 mean Intersection-over-Union on an out-of-distribution test set. They also present evidence that training at one altitude and testing at another degrades accuracy, with high-altitude training losing accuracy as the test images descend to low altitudes.

What carries the argument

The dataset structure itself is the load-bearing mechanism: horizontal trajectories at four fixed altitudes combine with vertical descent sequences over the same urban locations to create matched image sets in which scale and view angle vary while scene content stays roughly fixed. This is paired with per-image pose and camera intrinsics and an evaluation protocol that scores accuracy over the overlapping field of view shared by altitudes; that protocol is what turns the raw images into measurements of altitude transfer.

What would settle it

Compare per-altitude mIoU on fixed ground-projected footprints of equal real-world area, selecting the same physical region in each image rather than fixed pixel crops; if the accuracy gap between training and testing altitudes disappears or reverses under this metric, the altitude-transfer result is an evaluation artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MESSI is a benchmark of downward-looking drone photographs over dense urban neighborhoods, annotated pixel-wise with 15 classes. Its distinguishing design is that flight paths revisit the same ground areas at 30, 50, 70, and 100 meters, and add 15 vertical descents from 120 to 10 meters, so every region appears at several scales and viewpoints. Each image carries the drone's position and orientation and the camera's intrinsic parameters. The authors claim that because the altitude variation is built into the capture design, MESSI can train and evaluate semantic segmentation across elevations and can quantify how training altitude transfers to test altitude; they report a best out-of-distribution mIoU of 52.6 for SegFormer-B3 and evidence that extrapolating across altitude degrades accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that training altitude degrades performance at other altitudes rests on evaluating accuracy over the overlapping field of view, where higher-altitude scores are computed on smaller central crops; if that evaluation mask itself favors or penalizes certain altitudes, the observed transfer curve may be an artifact of the mask rather than a real altitude effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A segmentation network trained on MESSI's multiple altitudes should generalize better to unseen drone elevations than a network trained on a single altitude, because the training distribution covers the scale and viewpoint range of a 3D flight.
  • The altitude-transfer effect reported in the paper means deployers can expect accuracy to degrade when a model trained at high altitude is applied to low-altitude imagery, and the dataset provides a controlled way to measure the magnitude of that drop.
  • Because pose and intrinsics are included, MESSI also supports downstream tasks beyond segmentation, such as localization, navigation, and tracking.
  • The public test benchmark with undisclosed ground truth allows the community to compare segmentation architectures and class-weighting strategies on a common drone-imagery evaluation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the matched multi-scale views make MESSI a natural probe for separating scale effects from viewpoint effects in aerial recognition; cropping fixed ground footprints would factor out resolution and isolate view angle.
  • Beyond the paper, the reported altitude-transfer asymmetry suggests that altitude-aware augmentation, such as random zooming during training, may be more effective than training at a single altitude; this is a testable hypothesis the paper does not itself test.
  • Beyond the paper, the availability of pose and intrinsics could enable cross-altitude ground-truth propagation, where labels from a low-altitude pass are projected onto higher-altitude images to reduce annotation cost; the geometry needed is present in the dataset, but the paper does not attempt this.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents MESSI, a drone-captured urban aerial image dataset of 2,525 images at 5472x3684 resolution, with 15 semantic classes, per-image pose and intrinsics, horizontal multi-altitude trajectories, and vertical descent sequences. It describes the annotation workflow with double-independent quality control, class statistics, training/validation/test splits, and reports benchmarks for several segmentation models under three class-weighting schemes. The best result is SegFormer-B3 with Sqrt weighting reaching 52.6 mIoU on the out-of-distribution test set. The paper also presents an experiment (Fig. 7) on how training altitude affects accuracy on vertical descent sequences, claiming that training at higher altitudes degrades performance at lower altitudes.

Significance. MESSI fills a real gap in the aerial semantic segmentation literature: publicly available datasets generally lack systematic revisits of the same area at multiple altitudes together with per-image pose and intrinsic parameters. The annotation workflow, with nearly 100% rechecking in the final QC phase, is a methodological strength, and the decision to withhold test ground truth for an online benchmark follows good practice. The multi-architecture, multi-weighting baselines are useful for the community. If the Fig. 7 altitude-transfer claim is made rigorous, the dataset would enable a genuinely new class of experiments on altitude and scale robustness of segmentation models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Fig. 7] The altitude-transfer experiment is confounded by an altitude-dependent evaluation mask. The text states that accuracy was calculated on the overlapping field of view, with the full image scored at the lowest altitude and progressively smaller central crops at higher altitudes. This simultaneously varies the number of evaluated pixels, the class distribution, and the object scale relative to the network's receptive field, so the reported degradation with test altitude may be an artifact of the evaluation region rather than a property of the training altitude. The curves also appear to come from a single run with no error bars. To support the claim, the authors should evaluate on a common ground-area intersection across altitudes (or a fixed central crop) and report mean and standard deviation over multiple training runs.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 5] The text says that the Water category "was omitted from Table 5 and from the mIoU calculations," yet Table 5 includes a Water row and reports both "mIoU with water" and "mIoU without water." This internal contradiction affects the reported evaluation protocol and must be corrected, either by removing Water from the table and recomputing the mIoU values, or by revising the sentence to state that Water was included and that an additional mIoU without Water is also reported.
  3. [Section 4.1] The description of the Fig. 7 training conditions is incomplete. The authors do not specify the exact sets of training altitudes used for each curve, the number of images per training condition, or whether the "all altitudes" model includes all Ir Yamim horizontal images at each altitude as well as the Agamim paths. Without these details, the experiment cannot be reproduced or interpreted, even after fixing the evaluation-mask issue.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.2, Fig. 3 caption] The caption "per attitude interval" should read "per altitude interval."
  2. [Section 3, Table 2] The table header uses "Agamin" while the text and Figure 1 use "Agamim"; please standardize the spelling.
  3. [Section 4.2, results text] The abbreviation mAcc is used without being defined in Section 4.1; please define it as mean pixel accuracy alongside the mIoU definition.
  4. [Section A.3, Table 8] The table lists 16 entries including "void," but the paper refers to 15 classes; please add a note that void is an unlabeled catch-all class and not one of the 15 semantic classes.
  5. [Section 2, Table 1] The openDD row contains a stray fragment "Segmentation search sensor" that appears to be a formatting error; please clean up the table cell.
  6. [Section 3.1] The phrase "double-independent checking" is used once; please clarify in one sentence whether this means two annotators independently label each image or another protocol.
  7. [Appendix, Tables 10-14] The sample-image tables are hard to evaluate in the PDF because the images are small; consider providing higher-resolution crops or a zoomed inset for at least one row.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: MESSI is an empirical dataset paper; its benchmark numbers and altitude-statistics plots are derived from data and external tools, not from the paper's own assumptions.

full rationale

This paper is a dataset contribution with empirical benchmarks, not a derivation. The main claims are: (1) MESSI contains 2,525 images at multiple altitudes with annotations, pose, and intrinsics; (2) standard segmentation models can be trained and evaluated on it, with reported mIoU numbers; and (3) Fig. 7 illustrates altitude-dependent accuracy. None of these claims is obtained by fitting a parameter and then renaming the fit as a prediction. The model accuracies in Table 4 are computed by training on the stated splits and testing on the out-of-distribution Ir Yamim and Ha-Medinah Square sets, with standard metrics; there is no equation in the paper whose output is identical to an input by construction. The only self-citation, Pinkovich et al. (2022), is used as background motivation for the emergency-landing application and for the choice of BiSeNetV1 as one of several baselines; it is not invoked to define the dataset, set constants, prove uniqueness, or otherwise force any experimental result. The Fig. 7 protocol, in which accuracy is computed on the overlapping field of view shared by altitudes so that the lowest altitude uses the full image and higher altitudes use smaller central regions, raises a legitimate question about whether the reported degradation is attributable to the evaluation mask rather than to training altitude. That is a correctness/validity concern about an empirical comparison, not a circularity concern: the experiment does not reduce to its inputs by definition, and the paper does not claim to derive Fig. 7 from a first-principles model. The dataset itself is externally anchored (publicly released images, annotations, pose files, standard tooling), and the benchmark results are falsifiable against the released test benchmark. Under the rule that a self-contained empirical paper with no derivation-to-input reduction should receive 0-2, the appropriate score is 0, with the Fig. 7 confound noted as a non-circular scientific weakness.

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

The paper's central contribution is a collected and annotated dataset plus empirical benchmarks. It introduces no fitted parameters in the physics sense. The choices listed are hand-selected experimental settings and data-split decisions that shape the benchmark numbers; they are standard practice for dataset papers but should be stated as choices, not as derived results.

free parameters (3)
  • Training descent exclusion set = Scenarios 1, 35, 36
    Three vertical trajectories were excluded from training due to significant similarity with other scenarios (Sec. 3.2). This changes the training distribution and could affect reported performance; the similarity criterion is not quantified.
  • Altitude bins for statistics = (10,33], (33,60], (60,88], (88,125] m
    Hand-chosen intervals for class-vs-altitude analysis in Fig. 3; they do not affect the benchmark itself but shape the reported trends.
  • Subsampling ratio for descent training images = 1 of every 5 images
    Only one out of five descent images was used for training to limit training time (Sec. 3.2); this changes the effective training set and may affect reported accuracy.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pixel annotations produced with the V7 Darwin tool and double-independent checking are accurate and consistent.
    Sec. 3.1. The entire benchmark value rests on label correctness; no inter-annotator agreement metric is reported.
  • domain assumption The 15-class taxonomy is adequate for the emergency-landing application and for benchmarking semantic segmentation.
    Sec. A.3. Classes include a void category; buildings are annotated as whole objects, which the paper itself notes causes systematic misclassification (Sec. 4.2).
  • domain assumption Imagery from Netanya and Tel Aviv neighborhoods is representative of dense urban environments for drone perception.
    Sec. 3. The test set is out-of-distribution by geographic area; the implied generalization claim assumes these cities capture the visual richness of dense urban scenes.
  • domain assumption The MMsegmentation training protocol with Cityscapes pretraining is a competent evaluation of segmentation models on this dataset.
    Sec. 4.1. Standard practice, but model-specific quirks, such as Mask2Former inference on the full image versus tiles for other models, create an uneven comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MESSI: A Multi-Elevation Semantic Segmentation Image Dataset of an Urban Environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6V4XKTIC

@misc{pith2026250508589,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MESSI: A Multi-Elevation Semantic Segmentation Image Dataset of an Urban Environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6V4XKTIC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08589}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a Multi-Elevation Semantic Segmentation Image (MESSI) dataset comprising 2525 images taken by a drone flying over dense urban environments. MESSI is unique in two main features. First, it contains images from various altitudes, allowing us to investigate the effect of depth on semantic segmentation. Second, it includes images taken from several different urban regions (at different altitudes). This is important since the variety covers the visual richness captured by a drone's 3D flight, performing horizontal and vertical maneuvers. MESSI contains images annotated with location, orientation, and the camera's intrinsic parameters and can be used to train a deep neural network for semantic segmentation or other applications of interest (e.g., localization, navigation, and tracking). This paper describes the dataset and provides annotation details. It also explains how semantic segmentation was performed using several neural network models and shows several relevant statistics. MESSI will be published in the public domain to serve as an evaluation benchmark for semantic segmentation using images captured by a drone or similar vehicle flying over a dense urban environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08589 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Google Earth views. Left: "Ha-Medinah Square" trajectory (magenta). Middle: "Ir Yamim" [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Statistics of the various categories in the combined training and validation sets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Training and validation set pixel categories statistics per attitude interval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Class over altitude intervals spaghetti plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A visual example of Ha-Medinah Square test set (see Appendix Table 8 for color legend) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized confusion matrix on the test set for the SegFormer-B3 (All categories, Sqrt weighting) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Training altitude impact on semantic segmentation accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ballesteros, German Sanchez-Torres, and John W

    John R. Ballesteros, German Sanchez-Torres, and John W. Branch-Bedoya. Hagdavs: Height-augmented geo-located dataset for detection and semantic segmentation of vehicles in drone aerial orthomosaics. Data, 7 0 (4), 2022. ISSN 2306-5729. doi:10.3390/data7040050. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/7/4/50

    work page doi:10.3390/data7040050 2022

  2. [2]

    A critical evaluation of aerial datasets for semantic segmentation

    Bianca-Cerasela-Zelia Blaga and Sergiu Nedevschi. A critical evaluation of aerial datasets for semantic segmentation. In 2020 IEEE 16th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP), pp.\ 353--360, 2020. doi:10.1109/ICCP51029.2020.9266169

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    opendd: A large-scale roundabout drone dataset

    Antonia Breuer, Jan-Aike Termöhlen, Silviu Homoceanu, and Tim Fingscheidt. opendd: A large-scale roundabout drone dataset. In 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp.\ 1--6, 2020. doi:10.1109/ITSC45102.2020.9294301

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Vdd: Varied drone dataset for semantic segmentation

    Wenxiao Cai, Ke Jin, Jinyan Hou, Cong Guo, Letian Wu, and Wankou Yang. Vdd: Varied drone dataset for semantic segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13608, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Yukun Zhu, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pp.\ 801--818, 2018 a

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Large-scale structure from motion with semantic constraints of aerial images

    Yu Chen, Yao Wang, Peng Lu, Yisong Chen, and Guoping Wang. Large-scale structure from motion with semantic constraints of aerial images. In Pattern Recognition and Computer Vision: First Chinese Conference, PRCV 2018, Guangzhou, China, November 23-26, 2018, Proceedings, Part I 1, pp.\ 347--359. Springer, 2018 b

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation

    Bowen Cheng, Ishan Misra, Alexander G Schwing, Alexander Kirillov, and Rohit Girdhar. Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp.\ 1290--1299, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    MMSegmentation : Openmmlab semantic segmentation toolbox and benchmark

    MMSegmentation Contributors. MMSegmentation : Openmmlab semantic segmentation toolbox and benchmark. https://github.com/open-mmlab/mmsegmentation, 2020. Apache 2.0 License

    work page 2020

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding

    Marius Cordts, Mohamed Omran, Sebastian Ramos, Timo Rehfeld, Markus Enzweiler, Rodrigo Benenson, Uwe Franke, Stefan Roth, and Bernt Schiele. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern ...

    2016

  2. [10]

    S egmentation B enchmark, 2019

    DroneDeploy. S egmentation B enchmark, 2019. https://github.com/dronedeploy/dd-ml-segmentation-benchmark

    2019

  3. [11]

    Mid-air: A multi-modal dataset for extremely low altitude drone flights

    Michaël Fonder and Marc Van Droogenbroeck. Mid-air: A multi-modal dataset for extremely low altitude drone flights. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp.\ 553--562, 2019. doi:10.1109/CVPRW.2019.00081

    2019

  4. [12]

    Geiger, P

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, and R. Urtasun. Are we ready for Autonomous Driving? The KITTI Vision Benchmark Suite . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp.\ 3354--3361, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Performance analysis of semantic segmentation algorithms for finely annotated new uav aerial video dataset (manipaluavid)

    S Girisha, Manohara MM Pai, Ujjwal Verma, and Radhika M Pai. Performance analysis of semantic segmentation algorithms for finely annotated new uav aerial video dataset (manipaluavid). IEEE Access, 7: 0 136239--136253, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    xbd: A dataset for assessing building damage from satellite imagery

    Ritwik Gupta, Richard Hosfelt, Sandra Sajeev, Nirav Patel, Bryce Goodman, Jigar Doshi, Eric Heim, Howie Choset, and Matthew Gaston. xbd: A dataset for assessing building damage from satellite imagery. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.09296, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A comprehensive review for typical applications based upon unmanned aerial vehicle platform

    Yuqi Han, Huaping Liu, Yufeng Wang, and Chunlei Liu. A comprehensive review for typical applications based upon unmanned aerial vehicle platform. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 15: 0 9654--9666, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Kitti-360: A novel dataset and benchmarks for urban scene understanding in 2d and 3d

    Yiyi Liao, Jun Xie, and Andreas Geiger. Kitti-360: A novel dataset and benchmarks for urban scene understanding in 2d and 3d. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45 0 (3): 0 3292--3310, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Uavid: A semantic segmentation dataset for uav imagery

    Ye Lyu, George Vosselman, Gui-Song Xia, Alper Yilmaz, and Michael Ying Yang. Uavid: A semantic segmentation dataset for uav imagery. ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing, 165: 0 108--119, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Semantics through time: Semi-supervised segmentation of aerial videos with iterative label propagation

    Alina Marcu, Vlad Licaret, Dragos Costea, and Marius Leordeanu. Semantics through time: Semi-supervised segmentation of aerial videos with iterative label propagation. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs): Practical aspects, applications, open challenges, security issues, and future trends

    Syed Agha Hassnain Mohsan, Nawaf Qasem Hamood Othman, Yanlong Li, Mohammed H Alsharif, and Muhammad Asghar Khan. Unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs): Practical aspects, applications, open challenges, security issues, and future trends. Intelligent Service Robotics, 16 0 (1): 0 109...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Icg drone dataset

    Christian Mostegel, Michael Maurer, Nikolaus Heran, Jesus Pestana Puerta, and Friedrich Fraundorfer. Icg drone dataset. https://dronedataset.icg.tugraz.at, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Ensemble knowledge transfer for semantic segmentation

    Ishan Nigam, Chen Huang, and Deva Ramanan. Ensemble knowledge transfer for semantic segmentation. In 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pp.\ 1499--1508, 2018. doi:10.1109/WACV.2018.00168

    2018

  14. [22]

    Finding a landing site in an urban area: A multi-resolution probabilistic approach

    Barak Pinkovich, Boaz Matalon, Ehud Rivlin, and Hector Rotstein. Finding a landing site in an urban area: A multi-resolution probabilistic approach. Sensors, 22 0 (24): 0 9807, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    The multi-temporal urban development spacenet dataset

    Adam Van Etten, Daniel Hogan, Jesus Martinez Manso, Jacob Shermeyer, Nicholas Weir, and Ryan Lewis. The multi-temporal urban development spacenet dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp.\ 6398--6407, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Samrs: Scaling-up remote sensing segmentation dataset with segment anything model

    Di Wang, Jing Zhang, Bo Du, Minqiang Xu, Lin Liu, Dacheng Tao, and Liangpei Zhang. Samrs: Scaling-up remote sensing segmentation dataset with segment anything model. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine (eds.), Advances in Neural Information P...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Segformer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers

    Enze Xie, Wenhai Wang, Zhiding Yu, Anima Anandkumar, Jose M Alvarez, and Ping Luo. Segformer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 0 12077--12090, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Bisenet: Bilateral segmentation network for real-time semantic segmentation

    Changqian Yu, Jingbo Wang, Chao Peng, Changxin Gao, Gang Yu, and Nong Sang. Bisenet: Bilateral segmentation network for real-time semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pp.\ 325--341, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.