Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Industrial Synthetic Segment Pre-training

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 100,000-image synthetic dataset of hollow masks outperforms COCO, ImageNet-21k, and fine-tuned SAM as pre-training for industrial instance segmentation.

desk verdict A credible extension of FDSL to instance segmentation with a genuinely new hollow-mask recipe, but the headline margin is overstated and the recipe is tuned on its own test benchmarks. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13099 v2 pith:X2OP7T7I submitted 2025-05-19 cs.CV

Shinichi Mae , Ryousuke Yamada , Hirokatsu Kataoka This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords instancesegmentationsyntheticpre-trainingformula-drivensupervisedlearninghollowmasksindustrialdatasetsocclusionmodelingdomaingapdataefficiency
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

InsCore pre-training uses 100,000 formula-generated images, each filled with hollow contour masks, and no real photographs or manual annotations. The paper claims this is enough to beat established real-image pre-training on industrial instance segmentation: averaged over five datasets in medical, biomedical, remote sensing, manufacturing, and logistics, InsCore reaches 75.0 mIoU versus 68.8 for fine-tuned SAM, and 46.0 mAP versus 45.6 for COCO. If true, the practical consequence is that a license-free, commercially usable vision foundation model for industry can be built from a single mathematical formula rather than from large scraped image collections. The underlying idea is that what transfers to industrial data is not appearance but the structure of occlusion: dense, hierarchical, precisely labeled masks.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the hollow instance mask $S_k = R_{\text{out},k} \setminus R_{\text{in},k}$, the region between the outer and inner contours of a formula-generated shape. The shape itself begins as a regular $n_k$-gon and is expanded radially through successive polygons with Perlin-noise perturbations, producing diverse non-rigid contours; instances are sorted back-to-front, and later instances occlude earlier ones, so only visible pixels receive labels. This single construction packages the paper's three industrial priors—complex occlusion, dense hierarchical masks, and shape diversity—into a fully supervised pixel-level task, making the synthetic dataset a drop-in replacement for real-image pre-training.

What would settle it

Pre-train Mask R-CNN with a Swin-B backbone on the exact InsCore recipe (100k images, occlusion rate 100, zero mask offset, 512px), freeze it, fine-tune on a sixth industrial dataset from a domain not in the paper's ablation, and compare against COCO and ImageNet-21k initializations; if the InsCore-initialized model does not match or beat those baselines on average, the domain-agnostic claim is refuted and the reported gains are benchmark-specific.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the hollow mask, defined as the ring between the outermost and innermost of a stack of recursively generated nested polygons, is a sufficient pre-training signal for industrial instance segmentation. Each hollow shape is an instance; shapes are pasted back-to-front and an instance's visible region is its ring minus the outer bounds of every later-drawn shape, so the ground-truth labels encode occlusion order exactly. Trained on these masks, Mask R-CNN with a Swin-B backbone outperforms the same architecture initialized on ImageNet-21k, COCO, and several synthetic datasets, and also beats fine-tuned SAM on four of five industrial benchmarks even though SAM had 110 times more pre-training images. On general COCO instance segmentation, InsCore pre-training surpasses both ImageNet-21k and SegRCDB. The authors interpret this as evidence that complex occlusion and precise mask boundaries, not real-image texture or semantics, carry the transferable representation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the specific InsCore recipe—hollow masks at 100k images, occlusion rate 100, and zero mask offset—transfers to industrial data beyond the five benchmarks on which those settings were tuned; if it does not, the claim that InsCore is a domain-agnostic foundation model collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Industrial model builders can pre-train on synthetic data without collecting, curating, or licensing real images, eliminating the ImageNet commercial-use restriction that motivated the work.
  • Because InsCore beats fine-tuned SAM using 1/110 of SA-1B's data, large web-scraped foundation models are not a prerequisite for strong industrial segmentation.
  • The same 100k-image pre-training helps on general COCO instance segmentation, beating ImageNet-21k and SegRCDB, so the benefit is not confined to industrial imagery.
  • Synthetic labels' exactness is a real advantage: offsetting masks by 30 pixels drops 7.9 mAP points on the manufacturing benchmark, showing that fuzzy annotations would erode the gain.
  • Data volume has diminishing returns: going from 100k to 400k images does not improve average performance, so InsCore's effectiveness is a matter of design, not scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the hollow-mask prior is the transferable signal, the same recipe should boost other dense prediction tasks, such as panoptic segmentation or video instance segmentation; the appendix's near-parity with ImageNet-1k on RTMDet detection already points that way.
  • A cleaner test of domain-agnosticism would freeze the generation hyperparameters and evaluate on an unseen sixth industrial domain, since the current settings were selected by ablating on the same five benchmarks.
  • The structure-not-texture interpretation can be tested by rendering the hollow masks with random interior textures; if downstream mAP stays flat, appearance truly is irrelevant.
  • A practical hybrid would be to use InsCore to initialize a promptable segmenter's decoder, coupling the synthetic occlusion prior with boundary refinement; the paper does not explore 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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper introduces InsCore, a fully synthetic pre-training dataset for industrial instance segmentation. InsCore images are generated by a formula-driven process: each image contains randomly placed hollow masks defined as the region between nested RCDB-style contour polygons, with back-to-front rendering producing complex occlusion hierarchies and 256 pseudo-class labels. No real images or manual annotations are used. The authors pre-train Mask R-CNN with a Swin-B backbone on 100k InsCore images and fine-tune on five industrial datasets (Endoscapes, LIVECell, SpaceNet2, Industrial-iSeg, LogiSeg). They report that InsCore pre-training outperforms COCO and ImageNet-21k pre-training by 0.4 mAP on average (Table 2), outperforms fine-tuned SAM by 6.2 mIoU points (Table 3), and improves COCO fine-tuning over ImageNet-21k (Table 4) and RTMDet detection over ImageNet-1k (Table 8). The paper claims these results position InsCore as a license-free, domain-agnostic foundation model for industrial segmentation.

Significance. If the results hold, the contribution is practically significant: InsCore is a scalable, license-free alternative to real-image pre-training for instance segmentation, with strong data efficiency (0.1M images vs 11M in SA-1B) and positive transfer across five industrial domains and on COCO. The method's reliance on a single generation formula and its delivery of precise pixel annotations with no human labor are genuine strengths. The experimental design covers a broad set of industrial domains, and the RTMDet experiments in the appendix extend the claim beyond Mask R-CNN. However, the current manuscript contains internal inconsistencies and lacks the controlled, statistically grounded evaluation needed to substantiate the central claims; these issues must be resolved before the paper's conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Tables 2, 5-7 (Sections 4.2-4.3)] The reported Endoscapes (ES) score for InsCore is inconsistent across tables: Table 2 gives 29.7 mAP, while the same setting (occlusion rate 100, pixel offset 0, 100k images) in Tables 5, 6, and 7 gives 37.1 mAP. If the 37.1 value were used, the InsCore average in Table 2 would be approximately 47.5 rather than 46.0, changing the comparison with COCO from +0.4 to +1.9 mAP points. This discrepancy directly affects the headline claim and must be resolved before the results can be interpreted.
  2. [Section 4.3, Tables 5-7] The generation hyperparameters (occlusion rate 100, mask offset 0, dataset size 100k) are selected by ablating on the same five industrial datasets that are later used to report the main comparisons in Tables 2 and 3. Since no held-out industrial dataset or nested validation is used, the reported averages are optimistically biased by selection on the evaluation data. The claim that InsCore is a 'domain-agnostic, general-purpose' pre-training method (Section 4.1 and the abstract) requires validation on at least one dataset not used in the ablations, or a nested validation protocol.
  3. [Section 4.2, Table 3] The comparison with SAM is confounded by architecture and prompting protocol: InsCore is evaluated with Mask R-CNN (Swin-B backbone) without prompts, whereas SAM is a ViT-B model that receives ground-truth bounding box prompts. The mIoU comparison therefore does not isolate the contribution of pre-training data. Additionally, zero-shot SAM outperforms fine-tuned SAM on three of the four datasets, which suggests the fine-tuned baseline is not a well-calibrated reference for this claim. A controlled comparison (for example, the same detector head with a SAM-initialized backbone, or a prompt-free SAM variant) is needed to support the claim that InsCore pre-training outperforms fine-tuned SAM.
  4. [Tables 2-7] All experiments report point estimates from a single run, with no error bars, multiple seeds, or statistical tests. Given that the average mAP advantage over COCO is only 0.4 points and that InsCore is lower than COCO on Endoscapes (29.7 vs 32.0) and LogiSeg (95.1 vs 95.4) in Table 2, the claimed superiority over COCO is not established with demonstrated significance. The authors should report variance across at least three seeds and provide confidence intervals or a paired test for the key comparisons.
  5. [Abstract and Figure 1] The abstract's 'average improvement of 6.2 points in instance segmentation performance' conflates two different metrics and baselines: the 6.2-point gain is mIoU over fine-tuned SAM (Table 3), while the gain over COCO in mAP is 0.4 points (Table 2). The '14.5% accuracy improvement' stated in Figure 1 also lacks a clear definition; 75.0 vs 68.8 mIoU is a relative improvement of about 9.0%, not 14.5%. The claims should be restated with the metric and baseline for each number.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (1)-(4)] The exact value ranges or distributions for the shape parameters r_k, lw_k, o_k, and lambda_k are not specified in the paper. Since the method is a data generation recipe, these details are necessary for reproducibility; the authors should report the exact sampling distributions used in the experiments.
  2. [Table 2, 'Com. Use' column] The table marks COCO as permitting commercial use, but COCO is composed of images from Flickr under varying licenses and is typically distributed for research purposes. The claim should be qualified or the table footnoted to clarify the license status.
  3. [Appendix A, Figure 3] The qualitative claim that InsCore shows 'the steepest and most stable convergence' is not quantified; for LIVECell the curves appear qualitatively similar across pre-training methods. A quantitative convergence metric (for example, loss at a fixed iteration or area under the curve) would strengthen the claim.
  4. [Section 4.2, Table 3] Table 3 averages over four datasets because SAM was not fine-tuned on LIVECell, while Table 2 averages over five datasets. The text should explicitly state that the mIoU averages are computed over different dataset subsets to avoid misleading comparisons.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: InsCore's benchmark gains are empirical and independent; self-citations are contextual, and the only concern is tuning hyperparameters on the same five test benchmarks, which is a generalization risk rather than a circularity.

full rationale

The paper does not derive a result from its inputs by construction. InsCore is generated from the explicit RCDB-style formulas (Eqs. 1-4) with hollow masks defined as Rout\Rin and visible-region masking in Eq. 5; these definitions do not reference the benchmark metrics. The headline comparisons (Tables 2-4) are direct measurements against external baselines (ImageNet-21k, COCO, Hypersim, Virtual KITTI, SAIL-VOS, SegRCDB, SAM) on five public datasets; none of those numbers is a renaming of a fitted parameter. The paper's self-citations to FDSL and SegRCDB provide provenance for the generator family, but the specific instance-level hollow-mask design and the evaluation are described and executed in this paper, so the central claim does not reduce to those citations. The closest thing to a circular concern is methodological rather than definitional: Section 4.3 selects occlusion rate, mask offset, and dataset size by ablating on exactly the same five datasets that appear in the reported Tables 2 and 3. That means the recipe is tuned to those benchmarks, so the paper's 'domain-agnostic, general-purpose' extrapolation is not fully supported; however, choosing hyperparameters by test performance is not an equation-level equivalence, and the reported per-dataset results remain valid empirical findings. Score is therefore low (2), reflecting minor self-citation and the benchmark-selection caveat, not circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

InsCore introduces no new physical or theoretical entity; it is a synthetic dataset. The load-bearing choices are hand-set generation hyperparameters and domain-transfer assumptions. The most consequential is that the dataset size and occlusion level were tuned on the same five benchmarks used for the headline results.

free parameters (6)
  • Number of pre-training images = 100k
    Selected by ablation on the five industrial benchmarks (Table 7); 100k outperforms 20k, 200k, and 400k.
  • Occlusion rate = 100
    Selected by ablation on ES, LC, SN2, IiSeg, and LS (Table 5); lower or higher rates degrade performance.
  • Mask precision offset = 0 pixels
    Baseline in Table 6; any offset of 10 to 30 pixels degrades performance, so zero offset is the chosen operating point.
  • Synthetic class count C = 256
    Uniformly sampled class labels; chosen by hand in Section 3.2 and not ablated.
  • Shape parameter distributions (r_k, lw_k, o_k, lambda_k) = not reported
    Required by the generation equations in Section 3.2 but the sampling distributions are not stated, so exact replication is impossible.
  • Instance and polygon ranges (Kmax, N, n) = Kmax=32, N up to 50, n up to 502
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.2 to vary density and shape; not ablated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Formula-driven contour features learned from RCDB and SegRCDB transfer to downstream visual recognition.
    The paper builds on FDSL results (citations 14, 17, 29) and does not re-derive transferability; Section 3.1 assumes it.
  • domain assumption Hollow overlapping masks reflect the occlusion structure of industrial data well enough to help fine-tuning.
    Core design claim in Section 3.1; supported only by ablations on the five target datasets, not by independent analysis.
  • domain assumption Mask R-CNN with Swin-B is a representative model for measuring pre-training quality in instance segmentation.
    Section 4.1 uses a single architecture; the appendix adds RTMDet for detection but not for segmentation.
  • domain assumption The five evaluation datasets are representative of the industrial domains claimed.
    Section 4.1 selects them to reflect occlusion, density, and shape diversity, but no external validation shows generalization to other industrial datasets.
  • domain assumption SAM fine-tuned with ground-truth box prompts is a fair comparison for pre-training effectiveness.
    Section 4.1 and Section 4.2; this couples architecture, backbone, and prompting protocol differences with the pre-training data variable, so the comparison is hard to interpret.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Industrial Synthetic Segment Pre-training." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X2OP7T7I

@misc{pith2026250513099,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Industrial Synthetic Segment Pre-training},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X2OP7T7I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13099}
}
read the original abstract

Pre-training on real-image datasets has been widely proven effective for improving instance segmentation. However, industrial applications face two key challenges: (1) legal and ethical restrictions, such as ImageNet's prohibition of commercial use, and (2) limited transferability due to the domain gap between web images and industrial imagery. Even recent vision foundation models, including the segment anything model (SAM), show notable performance degradation in industrial settings. These challenges raise critical questions: Can we build a vision foundation model for industrial applications without relying on real images or manual annotations? And can such models outperform even fine-tuned SAM on industrial datasets? To address these questions, we propose the Instance Core Segmentation Dataset (InsCore), a synthetic pre-training dataset based on formula-driven supervised learning (FDSL). InsCore generates fully annotated instance segmentation images that reflect key characteristics of industrial data, including complex occlusions, dense hierarchical masks, and diverse non-rigid shapes, distinct from typical web imagery. Unlike previous methods, InsCore requires neither real images nor human annotations. Experiments on five industrial datasets show that models pre-trained with InsCore outperform those trained on COCO and ImageNet-21k, as well as fine-tuned SAM, achieving an average improvement of 6.2 points in instance segmentation performance. This result is achieved using only 100k synthetic images, more than 100 times fewer than the 11 million images in SAM's SA-1B dataset, demonstrating the data efficiency of our approach. These findings position InsCore as a practical and license-free vision foundation model for industrial applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13099 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between InsCore and conventional synthetic segmentation pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fine-tuning loss curves on (a) Industrial-iSeg and (b) LIVECell datasets with dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Instance segmentation results on Endoscapes, SpaceNet2, LIVECell, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Synthseg: Segmentation of brain mri scans of any contrast and resolution without retraining

    Benjamin Billot, Douglas N Greve, Oula Puonti, Axel Thielscher, Koen Van Leemput, Bruce Fischl, Adrian V Dalca, Juan Eugenio Iglesias, et al. Synthseg: Segmentation of brain mri scans of any contrast and resolution without retraining. Medical image analysis, 86:102789, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Into the laion’s den: Investigating hate in multimodal datasets

    Abeba Birhane, Sanghyun Han, Vishnu Boddeti, Sasha Luccioni, et al. Into the laion’s den: Investigating hate in multimodal datasets. Advances in neural information processing systems , 36:21268–21284, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Yolact: Real-time instance seg- mentation

    Daniel Bolya, Chong Zhou, Fanyi Xiao, and Yong Jae Lee. Yolact: Real-time instance seg- mentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 9157–9166, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Hervé Jégou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 9650–9660, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    MMDetection: Open mmlab detection toolbox and benchmark

    Kai Chen, Jiaqi Wang, Jiangmiao Pang, Yuhang Cao, Yu Xiong, Xiaoxiao Li, Shuyang Sun, Wansen Feng, Ziwei Liu, Jiarui Xu, Zheng Zhang, Dazhi Cheng, Chenchen Zhu, Tianheng Cheng, Qijie Zhao, Buyu Li, Xin Lu, Rui Zhu, Yue Wu, Jifeng Dai, Jingdong Wang, Jianping Shi, Wanli Ouyang, Chen Change Loy, and Dahua Lin. MMDetection: Open mmlab detection toolbox and b...

    arXiv 1906

  6. [6]

    Learning semantic segmentation from synthetic data: A geometrically guided input-output adaptation approach

    Yuhua Chen, Wen Li, Xiaoran Chen, and Luc Van Gool. Learning semantic segmentation from synthetic data: A geometrically guided input-output adaptation approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1841–1850, 2019

    work page 2019

  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 , pages 1290–1299, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Imagenet: A large- scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large- scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009

    2009

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Decaf: A deep convolutional activation feature for generic visual recognition

    Jeff Donahue, Yangqing Jia, Oriol Vinyals, Judy Hoffman, Ning Zhang, Eric Tzeng, and Trevor Darrell. Decaf: A deep convolutional activation feature for generic visual recognition. In Inter- national conference on machine learning , pages 647–655. PMLR, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Livecell—a large-scale dataset for label-free live cell segmentation

    Christoffer Edlund, Timothy R Jackson, Nabeel Khalid, Nicola Bevan, Timothy Dale, Andreas Dengel, Sheraz Ahmed, Johan Trygg, and Rickard Sjögren. Livecell—a large-scale dataset for label-free live cell segmentation. Nature methods, 18(9):1038–1045, 2021. MAE, Y AMADA, KA TAOKA...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Mask r-cnn

    Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. Mask r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 2961–2969, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Computer-vision benchmark segment-anything model (sam) in medical images: Accuracy in 12 datasets

    Sheng He, Rina Bao, Jingpeng Li, Jeffrey Stout, Atle Bjornerud, P Ellen Grant, and Yangming Ou. Computer-vision benchmark segment-anything model (sam) in medical images: Accuracy in 12 datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09324, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Segment anything is not always perfect: An investigation of sam on different real-world applications, 2024

    Wei Ji, Jingjing Li, Qi Bi, Tingwei Liu, Wenbo Li, and Li Cheng. Segment anything is not always perfect: An investigation of sam on different real-world applications, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Pre-training without natural images

    Hirokatsu Kataoka, Kazushige Okayasu, Asato Matsumoto, Eisuke Yamagata, Ryosuke Yamada, Nakamasa Inoue, Akio Nakamura, and Yutaka Satoh. Pre-training without natural images. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision (ACCV) , November 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Pre-training without natural images

    Hirokatsu Kataoka, Kazushige Okayasu, Asato Matsumoto, Eisuke Yamagata, Ryosuke Yamada, Nakamasa Inoue, Akio Nakamura, and Yutaka Satoh. Pre-training without natural images. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision (ACCV) , 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Formula-driven supervised learning with recursive tiling patterns

    Hirokatsu Kataoka, Asato Matsumoto, Ryosuke Yamada, Yutaka Satoh, Eisuke Yamagata, and Nakamasa Inoue. Formula-driven supervised learning with recursive tiling patterns. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) Workshops , pages 4098–...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Replacing labeled real-image datasets with auto-generated contours

    Hirokatsu Kataoka, Ryo Hayamizu, Ryosuke Yamada, Kodai Nakashima, Sora Takashima, Xinyu Zhang, Edgar Josafat Martinez-Noriega, Nakamasa Inoue, and Rio Yokota. Replacing labeled real-image datasets with auto-generated contours. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Compu...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Segment anything

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 4015–4026, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Industrial-iseg dataset, August 2024

    Tom Li and Lawrence Wong. Industrial-iseg dataset, August 2024. URL https://www. industrial-iseg.com. Accessed: 2024-12-01

    2024

  12. [20]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings...

    2014

  13. [21]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 10012–10022, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Rtmdet: An empirical study of designing real-time object detectors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07784, 2022

    Chengqi Lyu, Wenwei Zhang, Haian Huang, Yue Zhou, Yudong Wang, Yanyi Liu, Shilong Zhang, and Kai Chen. Rtmdet: An empirical study of designing real-time object detectors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07784, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Efficient load interference detection with limited labeled data

    Shinichi Mae and Hirokatsu Kataoka. Efficient load interference detection with limited labeled data. In 2025 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII) , pages 1422–

    2025

  16. [24]

    lightning-sam

    Luca Medeiros. lightning-sam. https://github.com/luca-medeiros/ lightning-sam, 2023. Accessed: 2024-11-15. 12 MAE, Y AMADA, KA TAOKA: INSCORE

    2023

  17. [25]

    Adversarial learn- ing and self-teaching techniques for domain adaptation in semantic segmentation

    Umberto Michieli, Matteo Biasetton, Gianluca Agresti, and Pietro Zanuttigh. Adversarial learn- ing and self-teaching techniques for domain adaptation in semantic segmentation. IEEE Trans- actions on Intelligent V ehicles, 5(3):508–518, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Task2sim: Towards effective pre-training and transfer from synthetic data

    Samarth Mishra, Rameswar Panda, Cheng Perng Phoo, Chun-Fu Richard Chen, Leonid Kar- linsky, Kate Saenko, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Rogerio S Feris. Task2sim: Towards effective pre-training and transfer from synthetic data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer v...

    2022

  19. [27]

    The endoscapes dataset for surgical scene segmentation, object detection, and critical view of safety assessment: official splits and benchmark

    Aditya Murali, Deepak Alapatt, Pietro Mascagni, Armine Vardazaryan, Alain Garcia, Nariaki Okamoto, Guido Costamagna, Didier Mutter, Jacques Marescaux, Bernard Dallemagne, et al. The endoscapes dataset for surgical scene segmentation, object detection, and critical view of safe...

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The segment anything model (sam) for remote sensing applications: From zero to one shot

    Lucas Prado Osco, Qiusheng Wu, Eduardo Lopes de Lemos, Wesley Nunes Gonçalves, Ana Paula Marques Ramos, Jonathan Li, and José Marcato Junior. The segment anything model (sam) for remote sensing applications: From zero to one shot. International Journal of Applied Earth Observa...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Segrcdb: Semantic segmentation via formula-driven supervised learning

    Risa Shinoda, Ryo Hayamizu, Kodai Nakashima, Nakamasa Inoue, Rio Yokota, and Hirokatsu Kataoka. Segrcdb: Semantic segmentation via formula-driven supervised learning. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 20054– 20063, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Visual atoms: Pre-training vision transformers with sinusoidal waves

    Sora Takashima, Ryo Hayamizu, Nakamasa Inoue, Hirokatsu Kataoka, and Rio Yokota. Visual atoms: Pre-training vision transformers with sinusoidal waves. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 18579–18588, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Stablerep: Syn- thetic images from text-to-image models make strong visual representation learners.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    Yonglong Tian, Lijie Fan, Phillip Isola, Huiwen Chang, and Dilip Krishnan. Stablerep: Syn- thetic images from text-to-image models make strong visual representation learners.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Training deep networks with synthetic data: Bridging the reality gap by domain randomization

    Jonathan Tremblay, Aayush Prakash, David Acuna, Mark Brophy, Varun Jampani, Cem Anil, Thang To, Eric Cameracci, Shaad Boochoon, and Stan Birchfield. Training deep networks with synthetic data: Bridging the reality gap by domain randomization. In Proceedings of the IEEE confere...

    2018

  25. [33]

    Spacenet: A remote sensing dataset and challenge series

    Adam Van Etten, Dave Lindenbaum, and Todd M Bacastow. Spacenet: A remote sensing dataset and challenge series. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.01232, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Mv-fractaldb: formula-driven supervised learning for multi- view image recognition

    Ryosuke Yamada, Ryo Takahashi, Ryota Suzuki, Akio Nakamura, Yusuke Yoshiyasu, Ryusuke Sagawa, and Hirokatsu Kataoka. Mv-fractaldb: formula-driven supervised learning for multi- view image recognition. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems ...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Towards fairer datasets: Filtering and balancing the distribution of the people subtree in the imagenet hierarchy

    Kaiyu Yang, Klint Qinami, Li Fei-Fei, Jia Deng, and Olga Russakovsky. Towards fairer datasets: Filtering and balancing the distribution of the people subtree in the imagenet hierarchy. In Con- ference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2020. doi: 10.1145/3351095.3375709

    2020

  28. [36]

    Seggen: Supercharg- ing segmentation models with text2mask and mask2img synthesis

    Hanrong Ye, Jason Kuen, Qing Liu, Zhe Lin, Brian Price, and Dan Xu. Seggen: Supercharg- ing segmentation models with text2mask and mask2img synthesis. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 352–370. Springer, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Ts-sam: Fine-tuning segment-anything model for downstream tasks

    Yang Yu, Chen Xu, and Kai Wang. Ts-sam: Fine-tuning segment-anything model for downstream tasks. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2024. MAE, Y AMADA, KA TAOKA: INSCORE 13

    2024

  30. [38]

    Scene parsing through ade20k dataset

    Bolei Zhou, Hang Zhao, Xavier Puig, Sanja Fidler, Adela Barriuso, and Antonio Torralba. Scene parsing through ade20k dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 633–641, 2017. 14 MAE, Y AMADA, KA TAOKA: INSCORE Appendix A In...

    2017

Pith tools

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