Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 28 references

SLENet: A Guidance-Enhanced Network for Underwater Camouflaged Object Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper defines underwater camouflaged object detection, releases the DeepCamo benchmark, and claims SLENet beats ten state-of-the-art COD methods on it and three general benchmarks.

desk verdict DeepCamo is a genuinely useful new benchmark, but the paper's SOTA claim on it rests on an apples-to-oranges comparison and a false 'all metrics' statement. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03786 v2 pith:B3DDZX23 submitted 2025-09-04 cs.CV

Xinxin Huang , Han Sun , Ningzhong Liu , Huiyu Zhou , Yinan Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords underwatercamouflagedobjectdetectionDeepCamodatasetSAM2encodermulti-scalefeatureenhancementlocalizationguidancemarineecologymonitoring
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

Underwater camouflaged object detection—finding creatures that blend into the seafloor, reefs, or water column—has no dedicated testbed, and general camouflaged-object detectors stumble on small, multiple, blurred, or color-shifted marine subjects. This paper argues that the missing piece is a benchmark plus a network that couples global localization with fine detail. It introduces DeepCamo, 2,493 underwater images of 16 species with an 8:2 train/test split and a leakage-filtered full benchmark, and reports that ten established COD methods all lose 15% or more on key metrics when moved to this data. SLENet, built on a frozen SAM2 encoder with lightweight adapters, adds a Gamma-Asymmetric Enhancement module, a Localization Guidance Branch that produces a global localization map, and a Multi-Scale Supervised Decoder that uses that map to modulate features. On DeepCamo and three public COD benchmarks, the paper reports SLENet posts the best or second-best numbers on nearly every metric, with its largest gains on DeepCamo and COD10K.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a three-part guidance loop around a frozen SAM2 encoder. Gamma-Asymmetric Enhancement (GAE) is a cascaded module where each branch combines 1x1 convolutions, asymmetric convolutions, max-pooling, and rate-2 dilated convolutions; later branches receive earlier branches' outputs, letting the receptive field grow while high-resolution details are carried forward. The Localization Guidance Branch (LGB) fuses GAE-enhanced multi-scale features bottom-up into a low-resolution global localization map M. The Multi-Scale Supervised Decoder (MSSD) uses M to compute per-pixel scale and shift factors applied after batch normalization, then adds spatial attention and residual conn

What would settle it

Fine-tune each of the ten baselines on DeepCamo-train under the same schedule, image size, and loss setup, then re-run Table 2 on DeepCamo-Test; if one or more baselines match or exceed SLENet, the central performance claim collapses. Independently, verify that no DeepCamo-full image overlaps any COD10K training image, since the benchmark is explicitly defined by that exclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SLENet treats underwater camouflage as a failure of two abilities: preserving fine details across scales and knowing where the object is before refining its boundary. The network therefore freezes SAM2's Hiera-L encoder, inserts lightweight Adapters for parameter-efficient domain tuning, and feeds each of the four feature levels into a Gamma-Asymmetric Enhancement (GAE) module whose cascaded branches use asymmetric convolutions, max-pooling, and rate-2 dilated convolutions to widen receptive fields without discarding high-resolution cues. A Localization Guidance Branch (LGB) then fuses the enhanced features bottom-up into a coarse global localization map, which the Multi-Scale Supervised Dec

Load-bearing premise

The central performance claim assumes that comparing pretrained baselines against SLENet trained on DeepCamo-train is a fair protocol; if the baselines were fine-tuned on the same training split, the reported margins could shrink or reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DeepCamo can serve as a standard test for underwater camouflaged object detection, with the Table 1 numbers quantifying how far general COD models are from handling underwater scenes.
  • SLENet's recipe—frozen SAM2 encoder, lightweight adapters, a localization map, and a multi-scale decoder—can be applied to other fine-grained segmentation tasks where small, multiple, or boundary-complex objects are frequently missed.
  • The linear decay of localization-map supervision implies a training curriculum in which global location is learned early and fine details are refined later; this schedule could transfer to other guidance-based decoders.
  • If the reported margins survive a protocol in which baselines are fine-tuned on DeepCamo-train, SLENet would be a strong general-purpose COD method, not just an underwater specialist.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's headline margin on DeepCamo partly reflects an asymmetric comparison: baselines are evaluated with pretrained weights while SLENet is trained on DeepCamo-train. Fine-tuning the baselines on the same split is a direct, untested way to check whether the benchmark claim is robust.
  • DeepCamo's combination of camouflage difficulty with optical distortion could be reused to isolate the effect of image enhancement or restoration modules: the same detector can be run on raw and enhanced versions of the same images.
  • Because SLENet's largest gains are on DeepCamo and COD10K, the mechanism may be more about robust multi-scale decoding under degraded inputs than about underwater-specific priors; testing on artificially degraded general COD images would separate these factors.
  • The localization-map-with-decay design suggests that a standalone lightweight localization branch could be plugged into other frozen foundation-model encoders as a parameter-efficient way to improve small-object segmentation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript defines underwater camouflaged object detection (UCOD), introduces the DeepCamo dataset (2,493 images, 16 marine species), and proposes SLENet, which combines a frozen SAM2 Hiera-L encoder with adapters, a Gamma-Asymmetric Enhancement (GAE) module, a Localization Guidance Branch (LGB), and a Multi-Scale Supervised Decoder (MSSD). The loss is a weighted BCE+IoU together with a separately supervised localization map whose weight decays linearly. The paper benchmarks 10 COD methods on DeepCamo and three public COD datasets and claims that SLENet consistently outperforms all competitors on all metrics.

Significance. If the results are supported, DeepCamo fills an actual gap in camouflaged object detection, and SLENet offers a plausible strong baseline for the UCOD setting. The paper has concrete strengths: it introduces a new benchmark with explicit attention to multi-object scenes and underwater degradation, evaluates on four datasets, uses multiple standard metrics, and reports module-wise ablations including sensitivity to the loss weight μ. The main weakness is that the headline SOTA claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table 2 in several cells, and the DeepCamo comparison is not transparently head-to-head because baselines are evaluated with pretrained weights while SLENet is trained on DeepCamo-train. These issues are correctable but currently load-bearing for the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.2, Table 2] The sentence 'SLENet consistently outperforms all competing CNN-based and Transformer-based methods across all evaluation metrics' is contradicted by Table 2. On CAMO-Test, FSNet and SAM2-UNet achieve Fwβ=0.861 while SLENet achieves 0.860. On CHAMELEON, HitNet achieves Fwβ=0.903 while SLENet achieves 0.896. The claim should be restricted to 'most metrics' or supported with paired significance tests and error bars.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Sec. 5.1, Table 2] The DeepCamo comparison in Table 2 is not shown to be a like-for-like training comparison. Sec. 3.3 states that baselines are evaluated with 'publicly available pretrained weights' on DeepCamo-full; for Table 2's DeepCamo-Test column the paper does not state whether the same baselines were fine-tuned on DeepCamo-train, whereas SLENet is explicitly trained on DeepCamo-train for 100 epochs. If the baselines are zero-shot, the reported margins on DeepCamo-Test conflate domain-transfer with architectural superiority, and the SOTA claim on the new dataset is not established. The paper should either fine-tune all baselines on DeepCamo-train under comparable schedules or clearly mark the DeepCamo numbers as zero-shot transfer and rephrase the claims.
  3. [Sec. 3.2-3.3, Tables 1 and 2] The relationship between DeepCamo-full (1,907 images), DeepCamo-train (1,931), and DeepCamo-test (562) is unspecified, and this creates an apparent internal inconsistency. For the same baseline methods, Table 1 and Table 2 report very different numbers: SINet Sα=0.665 on DeepCamo-full versus 0.745 on DeepCamo-Test; SAM2-UNet Sα=0.741 versus 0.859. If both columns use pretrained weights, the DeepCamo-Test split appears substantially easier, which undermines the claim that the new benchmark is uniformly challenging. If fine-tuning was applied for Table 2, that protocol must be disclosed. The authors should clarify how DeepCamo-full relates to the train/test split and reconcile the two tables.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 5.2] The wording 'superior performance over SOTA methods' and 'consistently outperforms' should be softened to match the quantitative evidence, particularly after the Table 2 issues above are resolved.
  2. [Eq. (13), Sec. 4.5] The notation μ, epoch, and epochs is used without precise definition; state that μ is the initial localization-map loss weight and clarify the floor value 0.1 in the linear decay.
  3. [Sec. 4.5] The 'weighted BCE' loss is said to use weights based on pixel contrast, but no formula or precise weighting rule is given. Please provide the exact definition so the loss is reproducible.
  4. [Fig. 2, Fig. 3] The architecture figures are dense and some arrows are hard to read at normal print size; consider enlarging the figures or adding a table of module configurations.
  5. [Sec. 5.3, Table 3b] The text states that μ=0 leads to a 'significant performance drop', but the corresponding row is omitted from Table 3b. Since the table otherwise reports μ values, including μ=0 would make the claim checkable.
  6. [General] The paper does not state whether the DeepCamo dataset and code will be released. For a benchmark contribution, dataset accessibility is important and should be addressed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: SLENet's performance claims are empirical and benchmarked against independent external datasets; the flagged issues are evaluation-protocol and reporting concerns, not reductions of outputs to inputs.

full rationale

The paper proposes a new dataset and architecture and evaluates empirically. No claim is derived from its own output by definition. The localization map M is an independent supervision target (Eqs. 13–14) with its own BCE loss; it is not a restatement of the final decoder outputs. The hyperparameter μ is selected via an ablation study (Table 3b) and reported as the method's setting; this is conventional model selection, not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation is present: the references to adapter practice ([15,16]) and SPADE ([28]) are standard external work, and none of the paper's own modules or dataset construction is justified solely by a citation to the same authors. The benchmark asymmetry noted for Table 2 (baselines with pretrained weights rather than fine-tuned on DeepCamo-train) is a legitimate concern about comparability, but it is an evaluation-protocol issue, not a circular derivation. The statement 'SLENet consistently outperforms all competing CNN-based and Transformer-based methods across all evaluation metrics' is contradicted on CAMO-Test by Fwβ=0.860 vs 0.861 for FSNet/HitNet/SAM2-UNet; that is a factual overstatement, not circularity. The paper's omission of the μ=0 ablation row is a reporting gap; it does not make any result equivalent to its inputs. Since the main SOTA claims are backed by independent test sets (COD10K, CAMO, CHAMELEON) where the training protocol is standard, the circularity score is 0.

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

The central empirical claim rests on a new dataset and an architecture assembled from published components. The main unstated inputs are the validity of DeepCamo's annotations and the fairness of the comparison protocol. No new physical entities are introduced; the invented module names (GAE, LGB, MSSD) are software components, not entities with external falsifiable handles.

free parameters (4)
  • mu (initial weight of localization-map loss) = 0.6
    Chosen by ablation on DeepCamo-Test (Table 3b); the mu=0 condition is discussed in prose but omitted from the table.
  • learnable scaling factor gamma in GAE = learned
    Introduced in Eq. 4; its learned value is not reported, so its contribution cannot be independently assessed.
  • base learning rate = 5e-4
    Reported setup, standard AdamW cosine schedule; not justified by experiments.
  • input resolution = 352x352
    Fixed to 352x352; inherited from COD practice but not varied.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DeepCamo's annotations are accurate, and the filtering of ambiguous labels yields camouflage-only ground truth that is unbiased.
    Sec 3.1 states 'provides purified camouflage-only annotations by filtering ambiguous labels', but no annotator agreement, protocol details, or examples of filtered labels are given.
  • domain assumption A frozen SAM2 Hiera-L encoder with inserted adapters captures enough UCOD-specific semantics to be the backbone of a state-of-the-art system.
    Sec 4.1 assumes this without an ablation comparing full fine-tuning versus frozen plus adapter.
  • domain assumption The published numbers for the ten baselines on CAMO, CHAMELEON, and COD10K are directly comparable to the authors' runs even where training protocols differ.
    Sec 5.2 mixes published results with the authors' own evaluation; no statement of which numbers are recomputed.
  • standard math The evaluation metrics (S-measure, E-measure, weighted F-measure, MAE) are accepted and sufficient for this task.
    Used throughout; no discussion of their limitations for small or multiple object scenarios.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SLENet: A Guidance-Enhanced Network for Underwater Camouflaged Object Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B3DDZX23

@misc{pith2026250903786,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SLENet: A Guidance-Enhanced Network for Underwater Camouflaged Object Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B3DDZX23}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03786}
}
read the original abstract

Underwater Camouflaged Object Detection (UCOD) aims to identify objects that blend seamlessly into underwater environments. This task is critically important to marine ecology. However, it remains largely underexplored and accurate identification is severely hindered by optical distortions, water turbidity, and the complex traits of marine organisms. To address these challenges, we introduce the UCOD task and present DeepCamo, a benchmark dataset designed for this domain. We also propose Semantic Localization and Enhancement Network (SLENet), a novel framework for UCOD. We first benchmark state-of-the-art COD models on DeepCamo to reveal key issues, upon which SLENet is built. In particular, we incorporate Gamma-Asymmetric Enhancement (GAE) module and a Localization Guidance Branch (LGB) to enhance multi-scale feature representation while generating a location map enriched with global semantic information. This map guides the Multi-Scale Supervised Decoder (MSSD) to produce more accurate predictions. Experiments on our DeepCamo dataset and three benchmark COD datasets confirm SLENet's superior performance over SOTA methods, and underscore its high generality for the broader COD task.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03786 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our dataset features challenging scenarios, including low-quality images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall architecture of SLENet is composed of four key components: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The architecture of Gamma-Asymmetric Enhancement (GAE) module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The architecture of Multi-Scale Supervised Decoder (MSSD). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons of the SLENet with several SOTA methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Fan, D.P., Ji, G.P., Sun, G., Cheng, M.M., Shen, J., Shao, L.: Camouflaged object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 2777–2787 (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Mei, H., Ji, G.P., Wei, Z., Yang, X., Wei, X., Fan, D.P.: Camouflaged object seg- mentation with distraction mining. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 8772–8781 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    Hu, X., Wang, S., Qin, X., Dai, H., Ren, W., Luo, D., Tai, Y., Shao, L.: High- resolution iterative feedback network for camouflaged object detection. In: Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 37, pp. 881–889 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    He, C., Li, K., Zhang, Y., Tang, L., Zhang, Y., Guo, Z., Li, X.: Camouflaged object detection with feature decomposition and edge reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 22046– 22055 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 32, 2267–2278 (2023)

    Song, Z., Kang, X., Wei, X., Liu, H., Dian, R., Li, S.: Fsnet: Focus scanning network for camouflaged object detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 32, 2267–2278 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Neural Computing and Applications 35(20), 15075–15093 (2023)

    Xiao, J., Chen, T., Hu, X., Zhang, G., Wang, S.: Boundary-guided context-aware network for camouflaged object detection. Neural Computing and Applications 35(20), 15075–15093 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence44(10), 6024–6042 (2021)

    Fan, D.P., Ji, G.P., Cheng, M.M., Shao, L.: Concealed object detection. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence44(10), 6024–6042 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08870 (2024)

    Xiong, X., Wu, Z., Tan, S., Li, W., Tang, F., Chen, Y., Li, S., Ma, J., Li, G.: Sam2-unet: Segment anything 2 makes strong encoder for natural and medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08870 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A.C., Lo, W.Y., et al.: Segment anything. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 4015–4026 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 (2024)

    Ravi, N., Gabeur, V., Hu, Y.T., Hu, R., Ryali, C., Ma, T., Khedr, H., R¨ adle, R., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., et al.: Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Computer vision and image understanding 184, 45–56 (2019)

    Le, T.N., Nguyen, T.V., Nie, Z., Tran, M.T., Sugimoto, A.: Anabranch network for camouflaged object segmentation. Computer vision and image understanding 184, 45–56 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Unpublished manuscript2(6), 7 (2018)

    Skurowski, P., Abdulameer, H., B laszczyk, J., Depta, T., Kornacki, A., Kozie l, P.: Animal camouflage analysis: Chameleon database. Unpublished manuscript2(6), 7 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020) 14 X

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., et al.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020) 14 X. Huang et al

    2010 arXiv

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition

    Huang, Z., Dai, H., Xiang, T.Z., Wang, S., Chen, H.X., Qin, J., Xiong, H.: Fea- ture shrinkage pyramid for camouflaged object detection with transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition. pp. 5557–5566 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Houlsby, N., Giurgiu, A., Jastrzebski, S., Morrone, B., De Laroussilhe, Q., Ges- mundo, A., Attariyan, M., Gelly, S.: Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 2790–2799. PMLR (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13425 (2023)

    Qiu, Z., Hu, Y., Li, H., Liu, J.: Learnable ophthalmology sam. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13425 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Hu, H., Bai, S., Li, A., Cui, J., Wang, L.: Dense relation distillation with context- aware aggregation for few-shot object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 10185–10194 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Liu, J.J., Hou, Q., Cheng, M.M., Feng, J., Jiang, J.: A simple pooling-based design for real-time salient object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 3917–3926 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence40(4), 834–848 (2017)

    Chen, L.C., Papandreou, G., Kokkinos, I., Murphy, K., Yuille, A.L.: Deeplab: Se- mantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence40(4), 834–848 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Wu, Z., Su, L., Huang, Q.: Cascaded partial decoder for fast and accurate salient object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 3907–3916 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    In: International Symposium on Benchmarking, Measuring and Optimization

    Li, L., Rigall, E., Dong, J., Chen, G.: Mas3k: An open dataset for marine ani- mal segmentation. In: International Symposium on Benchmarking, Measuring and Optimization. pp. 194–212. Springer (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering (2023)

    Fu, Z., Chen, R., Huang, Y., Cheng, E., Ding, X., Ma, K.K.: Masnet: A robust deep marine animal segmentation network. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.01155 (2020)

    Islam, M.J., Luo, P., Sattar, J.: Simultaneous enhancement and super- resolution of underwater imagery for improved visual perception. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.01155 (2020)

    2002 arXiv

  16. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on multimedia

    Zhang, M., Xu, S., Piao, Y., Shi, D., Lin, S., Lu, H.: Preynet: Preying on cam- ouflaged objects. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on multimedia. pp. 5323–5332 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 32, 3580–3591 (2023)

    Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., Hamidouche, W., Deforges, O.: Predictive uncertainty esti- mation for camouflaged object detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 32, 3580–3591 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Zhang, P., Yan, T., Liu, Y., Lu, H.: Fantastic animals and where to find them: Segment any marine animal with dual sam. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 2578–2587 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Information Fusion117, 102871 (2025)

    Wang, T., Yu, Z., Fang, J., Xie, J., Yang, F., Zhang, H., Zhang, L., Du, M., Li, L., Ning, X.: Multidimensional fusion of frequency and spatial domain information for enhanced camouflaged object detection. Information Fusion117, 102871 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Park, T., Liu, M.Y., Wang, T.C., Zhu, J.Y.: Semantic image synthesis with spatially-adaptive normalization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 2337–2346 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.