Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 86 references

Segment Anyword: Mask Prompt Inversion for Open-Set Grounded Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A frozen diffusion model's cross-attention maps, aligned by per-image textual inversion and syntax-guided prompt binding, can segment open-set text references without training a mask decoder.

desk verdict Solid training-free segmentation pipeline with a genuinely new linguistic prompt-binding trick, but the headline SOTA claims are overstated: the gRefCOCO number is LoRA-only and the GranDf best is val-only. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17994 v1 pith:FET3DHOI submitted 2025-05-23 cs.CV

Zhihua Liu , Amrutha Saseendran , Lei Tong , Xilin He , Fariba Yousefi , Nikolay Burlutskiy , Dino Oglic , Tom Diethe
show 3 more authors
Philip Teare Huiyu Zhou Chen Jin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords open-setsegmentationgroundedtextualinversioncross-attentionmapsdiffusionmodelspromptregularizationreferringexpressiontraining-free
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

Segment Anyword tries to establish that open-set language-grounded segmentation can be done without training or fine-tuning a mask decoder: a frozen text-to-image diffusion model, driven by per-image textual embedding inversion, produces token-level cross-attention maps that locate every noun in a reference expression, and those maps are turned into point prompts for a frozen SAM. The paper adds a linguistic regularization step that clusters each noun with its adjective modifiers as positive prompts and binds mutually exclusive objects as negative prompts, which cleans the noisy attention maps. On GranDf, gRefCOCO, and Pascal Context 59 the method reports state-of-the-art results among training-free approaches and outperforms several fine-tuned multimodal segmentors. If true, open-set segmentation could be deployed as a test-time service built from off-the-shelf generative models rather than a retrained specialist.

What carries the argument

Mask prompt inversion: reconstructing the input image through a frozen denoising network while optimizing only the text embeddings of the segmented visual concepts, then reading token-level cross-attention maps as localization priors. The maps are averaged over all denoising timesteps, points are sampled from regions above a threshold, and those points are passed to a frozen SAM as positive or negative prompts. The linguistic regularization has two parts: positive adjective prompt clustering, which pulls the attention prompt of an adjective like 'blue' together with its head noun 'sweatshirt', and negative mutual-exclusive prompt binding, which uses points from other nouns as negative prompts to sharpen boundaries. This machinery turns a generative reconstruction objective into a discriminative mask generator without any weight updates in the diffusion model or SAM.

What would settle it

Run the method on a held-out set of reference expressions with perfectly accurate noun and adjective parses but images whose target objects are rare for the diffusion backbone; if the cross-attention maps for the correctly parsed nouns show no high-response region and the sampled SAM prompt misses the object, the localization-prior assumption is falsified. A cleaner controlled test is to compare the full version with a variant where adjectives are clustered randomly; if the random version matches the regular one, the dependency-based clustering claim is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the visual concepts named in a free-form text expression are already localizable inside a frozen text-to-image diffusion model: averaged cross-attention maps over denoising steps give per-token location priors, and only the textual embeddings of the target nouns and adjectives need to be updated at test time. The authors argue that a hard-thresholded attention mask is a poor final mask, so they sample points from its high-response regions and feed them to a frozen SAM, which supplies boundary precision without learning a mask head. The linguistic-guided regularization is what makes the prompts reliable: sentence dependency structure binds adjectives to their head nouns so attributes reinforce the object, and mutual exclusivity between noun phrases supplies negative points that push SAM off neighboring objects. With these components, the paper reports 52.5 mIoU on Pascal Context 59, 67.73 cIoU on gRefCOCO, and 67.4 mIoU on GranDf validation, and it shows the same recipe can prompt verbs such as 'pulling' and 'holding'.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes the language parser extracts every target noun and its adjective modifiers correctly, and that the frozen diffusion model's cross-attention map for each such noun has a high-response region on the object.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Open-set grounded segmentation can be assembled at test time from a frozen diffusion model, a frozen SAM, and a text parser, with fewer than 0.1M trainable parameters.
  • The same pipeline transfers to several task formats: open-vocabulary semantic segmentation on Pascal Context 59, multi-object referring segmentation on gRefCOCO, single-object referring segmentation on RefCOCO/+/g, and out-of-distribution medical images.
  • Predicate words such as 'pulling' and 'holding' can be prompted to expose object-object and human-object interaction regions, not just object nouns.
  • A small LoRA fine-tune of the text encoder cuts test-time optimization from 1,100 steps to 50, bringing per-image inference from roughly 470 seconds to 28 seconds with a small accuracy drop.
  • Replacing the language parser changes results substantially, from 68.2 mIoU with GPT-4o to 46.9 mIoU with SpaCy on RefCOCO, so parsing quality is a direct lever on performance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit: if 16x16 cross-attention resolution is the bottleneck behind tiny-object failures, then a higher-resolution diffusion backbone or attention upsampling before point sampling should recover small and thin structures; this is directly testable.
  • The paper positions segmentation as inverse generation, but it does not push the reverse direction: mask prompts could double as edit anchors for the same diffusion model, and generation failures could serve as a signal of segmentation failures.
  • Because parsing quality swings results from 68.2 to 46.9 mIoU, coupling the parser with a learned grounding signal instead of an off-the-shelf NLP library is a promising low-cost lever the paper does not explore.
  • Negative prompt binding is a general mechanism: any source of mutual exclusivity, such as background classes, occlusion order, or co-occurrence statistics, could be injected into promptable segmentors the same way.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. Segment Anyword is a test-time prompt-inversion framework for open-set language-grounded segmentation. Given an image and a referring sentence, the method optimizes a small per-image textual embedding for the target noun, adjective, and predicate tokens so that a frozen text-to-image diffusion model can reconstruct the input image; the averaged token-level cross-attention maps are then used as localization priors, from which point prompts are sampled and fed into a frozen SAM. Two linguistic regularizers are introduced: positive adjective prompt clustering based on dependency relations and negative mutual-exclusive prompt binding based on noun-phrase syntax. The paper evaluates on GranDf, gRefCOCO, RefCOCO/+/g, and Pascal Context 59, claims state-of-the-art results among training-free methods (and in some cases above fine-tuned MLLM segmentors), and includes ablations, predicate-segmentation demonstrations, and out-of-distribution medical examples.

Significance. If the claims are properly qualified, the contribution is significant: it shows that a frozen diffusion model's cross-attention can serve as a mask-prompt source for SAM without training a mask decoder, and the per-image embedding inversion is supervised only by image reconstruction, so the reported mIoU numbers are not circular with respect to ground-truth masks. The internal ablations in Table 6 are consistent and each proposed component (prompt learning, adjective clustering, negative binding, SAM post-processing) contributes a measurable gain, and the paper states that code and a project page will be released. The main reservations are not about the internal logic but about which variant produced the headline numbers: the gRefCOCO SOTA is obtained by the LoRA-adapted Segment Anyword_f rather than the training-free variant, and the GranDf SOTA is validation-only. These reporting gaps are fixable and should drive a major revision rather than a rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §3.1, Table 3] The abstract's headline gRefCOCO number (67.73 cIoU) is attributed to a 'training-free' pipeline, but Table 3 reports only a row labeled 'Segment Anywordf' with '#Images=500', and Section C.1 defines this variant as using a LoRA-fine-tuned BERT text encoder trained on 500 image-text pairs from the target dataset's training split before a shortened 50-step test-time optimization. No non-LoRA Segment Anyword result is reported on gRefCOCO (or on RefCOCO/+/g in Table 4), so the claim that a training-free pipeline outperforms fine-tuned SAM4MLLM on gRefCOCO is untested as stated. The revision should either add the zero-training variant on these benchmarks or explicitly reattribute the headline number to the LoRA-adapted variant throughout the abstract and main text.
  2. [Abstract, §3.1, Table 2] The abstract's 'state-of-the-art results of ... 67.4 mIoU on GranDf' is a validation-split number only. In Table 2, the corresponding test-split result for Segment Anyword is 63.4 mIoU, which is lower than fine-tuned GLaMM_f (65.6) and GLaMM (64.6). Thus the abstract's implication of beating fine-tuned methods on GranDf does not hold on the test split. The paper should report and discuss both splits and either quote the test number or explicitly say 'validation split' in the abstract.
  3. [§3, §C.1, Table 1] The method is repeatedly described as 'training-free' and Table 1 marks fine-tuning as not required, but Section 3 and Section C.1 describe a LoRA fine-tuning step on 500 image-text pairs from each target dataset's training split for the reference-segmentation experiments. Even if this step is lightweight and does not use mask labels, it is an adaptation to the target distribution and therefore conflicts with the 'training-free' and 'fine-tuning-free' terminology used in the abstract and Table 1. Please rename the variants (e.g., 'zero-training' vs 'LoRA-adapted'), state explicitly which rows in each table use which variant, and adjust the abstract and Table 1 accordingly.
  4. [§2.4, §C.1, Table 7, Figure 24] The positive/negative prompt regularizers in Section 2.4 are built entirely on the output of a dependency parser and POS tagger (noun-phrase roots and 'amod' relations), and Section C.1 states that Vicuna-7B (or GPT-4o/SpaCy) supplies this parse. The paper's own Table 7 shows the parser choice changes mIoU from 68.2 (GPT-4o) to 46.9 (SpaCy) on a 100-sample RefCOCO subset, and Figure 24 shows failures caused by a wrong localization prior. Because the claimed robustness to varied text expressions is the core motivation of Section 2.2, the main evaluation using a single parser configuration is not sufficient support; the paper should provide a systematic parser-error ablation on the main benchmarks or explicitly scope the robustness claims to the chosen parser.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammar slips, including 'largin margin', 'structual', 'texutal', 'demostrate', 'handing', 'resembing', 'showsing', and 'earlies attempts'; these should be corrected throughout.
  2. [Table 4] The 'Training-Free methods' heading in Table 4 includes Segment Anywordf, which is trained on 500 image-text pairs; the heading should be renamed to avoid conflating zero-training methods with the LoRA-adapted variant.
  3. [§C.1] The sentence 'Where the distance between the inverse and the denoising chains is minimized by the addition operator' is unclear and should be rewritten to describe the inversion procedure precisely.
  4. [Figure 24] The caption says failures occur for 'skis' and 'skateboard', but the figure's panels and annotations refer to 'skateboard', 'grass', and 'tree'; please align the caption with the displayed failure cases.
  5. [Table 6] The use of checkmarks as column entries is hard to read; please add a legend or use explicit component names so each configuration can be identified unambiguously.
  6. [§3.3] The claim that Segment Anyword is 'the first approach capable of handling both concrete and abstract visual concepts in open-set segmentation' is too strong given prior diffusion-attention works that localize relations and predicates; please soften or provide a more careful comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; one minor non-load-bearing self-citation to the authors' MCPL inversion backbone.

full rationale

The derivation chain is externally grounded: per-image textual embeddings V are optimized against the diffusion reconstruction loss of Eq. (2), the frozen denoiser's token-level cross-attention maps are averaged and thresholded, points are sampled and passed to frozen SAM, and the resulting masks are scored against external ground-truth masks. No reported number is produced by fitting to the evaluation labels, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The linguistic regularization is driven by an external syntactic parse (Vicuna/GPT-4o/SpaCy), not by the target masks. The optional LoRA fine-tuning of BERT on 500 image-text pairs defines Segment Anywordf, and the gRefCOCO SOTA in the abstract is reported for that variant (Table 3, row 14), so the abstract's 'training-free' wording is overstated; that is a reporting/terminology gap, not a circular reduction. The paper cites the authors' MCPL (Jin et al., 2024) for multi-concept textual inversion, but the same loss is written out explicitly in Eq. (2) and the final evaluation is independent, so the self-citation is minor and not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is merely renamed. Overall, the core claim has independent empirical content; circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard DDIM inversion, an inherited attention-as-localization assumption, a per-image optimized embedding V, a SAM post-processor, and a fragile LLM parse of the referring expression. No new physical or ontological entities are introduced. The main free parameters are heuristic constants (threshold 0.7, negative point count) and inherited optimization hyperparameters, several of which were tuned on the same validation splits used for the SOTA claims.

free parameters (9)
  • Cross-attention mask threshold = 0.7
    Applied to averaged attention maps in Section 2.3; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Textual embedding optimization steps = 1100 (main), 550/50 variants
    Ablation in Table 6 selects 1100 steps as best on GranDf validation; 50 steps are used with the LoRA variant.
  • Textual embedding learning rate = 0.005
    Reported in Section C.1 and inherited from the LDM/MCPL setup.
  • Attention temperature and scaling = tau=0.3, gamma=0.00075
    Reported in Section C.1 and inherited from the LDM/MCPL setup.
  • Negative background point count = 1-3 random points
    Section 2.4 chooses this heuristic; it is not ablated.
  • LoRA configuration for Segment Anywordf = r=16, 500 image-text pairs
    Section C.1; this variant produces the gRefCOCO SOTA numbers.
  • Cross-attention resolution = 16x16
    Section C.1; Section 3.4 acknowledges this as the cause of tiny-object failures.
  • SAM variant = ViT-H
    Section C.1; the post-processing model choice is not ablated.
  • Parser / POS-tagging tool = Vicuna-7B (GPT-4o or SpaCy alternatives)
    Section C.1 and Table 7; parser choice changes mIoU from 46.9 (SpaCy) to 68.2 (GPT-4o).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math DDIM inversion of the denoising process is reversible enough for faithful reconstruction
    Section 2.1, Eq. 1 explicitly presumes reversibility in the limit of small steps; this is a standard DDIM approximation from prior work.
  • domain assumption Token-level cross-attention maps of a frozen diffusion model localize visual concepts
    Sections 2.1 and 2.3 treat averaged attention as segmentation surrogates; this is inherited from DAAM, Prompt2Prompt, and MCPL rather than derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Optimizing V against image reconstruction aligns token embeddings with image content
    Section 2.3 and ablation Table 6 show empirical gains from 1100-step optimization, but there is no proof of convergence or a formal alignment guarantee.
  • ad hoc to paper Distinct noun-phrase entities are mutually exclusive at linguistic and visual levels
    Section 2.4 negative binding assumes 'identifiable entities are incompatible with each other'; this fails for contained or overlapping objects, e.g., a person inside a car in Figure 24.
  • domain assumption SAM returns the correct object mask from one positive point plus negative points
    Section 2.3 uses a frozen SAM as a post-processor, relying on SAM's promptable segmentation capability from prior work.
  • domain assumption The LLM parser correctly identifies root nouns and amod adjectives for every expression
    Section C.1 and Table 7 show parsing errors directly degrade masks; SpaCy misses adjectives like 'white', dropping mIoU from 68.2 to 46.9.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Segment Anyword: Mask Prompt Inversion for Open-Set Grounded Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FET3DHOI

@misc{pith2026250517994,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Segment Anyword: Mask Prompt Inversion for Open-Set Grounded Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FET3DHOI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17994}
}
read the original abstract

Open-set image segmentation poses a significant challenge because existing methods often demand extensive training or fine-tuning and generally struggle to segment unified objects consistently across diverse text reference expressions. Motivated by this, we propose Segment Anyword, a novel training-free visual concept prompt learning approach for open-set language grounded segmentation that relies on token-level cross-attention maps from a frozen diffusion model to produce segmentation surrogates or mask prompts, which are then refined into targeted object masks. Initial prompts typically lack coherence and consistency as the complexity of the image-text increases, resulting in suboptimal mask fragments. To tackle this issue, we further introduce a novel linguistic-guided visual prompt regularization that binds and clusters visual prompts based on sentence dependency and syntactic structural information, enabling the extraction of robust, noise-tolerant mask prompts, and significant improvements in segmentation accuracy. The proposed approach is effective, generalizes across different open-set segmentation tasks, and achieves state-of-the-art results of 52.5 (+6.8 relative) mIoU on Pascal Context 59, 67.73 (+25.73 relative) cIoU on gRefCOCO, and 67.4 (+1.1 relative to fine-tuned methods) mIoU on GranDf, which is the most complex open-set grounded segmentation task in the field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17994 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Key comparison of multi-modal open-set image seg￾mentation architectures. (a) CLIP based methods (Wang et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023c) (b) MLLM based methods (Rasheed et al., 2024; Lai et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024). (c) Previous prompt learning based methods (Chen et al., 2024; Lin et al., 2024) (d) Our Segment Anyword’s architecture, which possesses a simple design for effective arbitrary syntax level grounded … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We propose Segment Anyword for Open-Set Grounded Segmentation. Segment Anyword is multi-modal promptable image segmentor solely built on the semantic prior knowledge extracted from a frozen diffusion model. Segment Anyword demonstrate superior performance across multiple multi￾modal segmentation task, including 1) reference image segmenta￾tion (refCOCO, gRefCOCO), 2) complex grounding segmentation (GranDf) and 3) OO… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Motivational Study on the multi-object reference segmentation ReLA (Liu et al., 2023). We categorize data points into easy (green), medium (blue), and hard (red) samples to achieve accurate and stable segmentation, based on the retained IoU mean and standard deviation, which are calculated across the caption dimension. The IoU for each image-text pair, compared to the ground truth, is shown in brackets. Our study va… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pipeline overview. Segment Anyword leverage the inversed scalability of a frozen text-to-image denosing diffusion model ϵθ for training-free open-set language grounded segmentation. First, Segment Anyword regards the segmentation reference expression (top-left) as imag…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Linguistic guided visual prompt regularization. Ini￾tial visual prompts may lack detailed mask description in both coherence and consistency resulting in suboptimal mask fragments (bottom-left: <boy>, <donut>). Our linguistic guided visual prompt regularization is simp…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Predicate Mask Visualization. For predicate words with￾out explicit semantic meaning, Segment Anyword can be prompted to identify the predicate masks, such as (a) a relation between sub￾ject and object entities and (b) human-object interaction. mIoU on GranDf validatio…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Failure Case Visualization. Our method struggles with very tiny objects composed with thin structures, due to restricted cross-attention resolution. relationship from experimental observations or textbooks. 3.4. Failure Case Analysis Although Segment Anyword achieves p…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Motivational Study on the state-of-the-art parameter efficient fine-tuning model ETRIS (Xu et al., 2023c) for reference segmentation. 0 10 20 30 40 50 IoU Std 0 20 40 60 80 100 IoU Mean IoU Mean vs. IoU Std - Ours vs. ReLA - gRefCOCO_ext ReLA Ours (a) 0 10 20 30 40 50 …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Scatter plot of IoU mean versus IoU standard deviation per image sample on the gRefCOCO dataset against ReLA. (b) Scatter plot of IoU mean versus IoU standard deviation per image sample on the RefCOCO+ dataset against ETRIS. Yellow dots represent results from our …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Open-set Image Segmentation Comparison. From top to bottom, the sentence complexity decrease from free-form descriptive expression to key-word concatenation. Note that some sentence description in RefCOCO could be ambiguity, as the dataset designs for implicit reasoni…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Additional Suboptimal segmentation masks from plain Segment Anyword. We show that by reconstructing the input image, Segment Anyword can leverage the cross-attention map from frozen diffusion model as a localization prior to generate mask surrogates. However, a hard t…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Qualitative result comparison between Segment Anyword using ground truth text description and GLaMM generated text description. GranDf Val Segment Anywordf AP50 mIoU Recall w/ GT Text 30.2 65.9 42.4 w/ GLamm Text 27.1 62.5 37.7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Qualitative result comparison between Segment Anyword and Segment Anything Model with text description and prompt(LangSAM). GranDf Val mAP mIoU Segment Anyword 31.3 67.4 LangSAM 17.6 33.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Qualitative result comparison between Segment Anyword using different diffusion backbones (Stable Diffusion v1.4 and v1.5) and different inversion algorithms (DDIM inversion and null-text inversion). MCPL primarily serves as the inversion backbone in our method. Howev…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Stress Testing Results: We show qualitative results from stress testing study, where the test data involves novel visual concepts. We present a qualitative comparison of stress testing involving several novel concepts, such as building paint, kittytoi, and brown bull.…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Stress Testing Results: We show qualitative results from stress testing study, where the test data involves noisy test descriptions. We acknowledge that noisy inputs, including sentences with incorrect grammar, may be present from customized user input during test tim…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Additional qualitative open-set language grounded segmentation results (GranDf validation set). We show that Segment Anyword can achieve accurate open-set language grounded segmentation with well-localized mask prompt, even can generate fine-grained object part-aware …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Additional qualitative open-set language grounded segmentation results (GranDf validation set). We show that Segment Anyword can achieve accurate open-set language grounded segmentation with well-localized mask prompt, even with complex indoor placements “counter” and…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Additional qualitative reference image segmentation results (gRefCOCO validation set). We show that Segment Anyword can achieve accurate reference image segmentation with well-localized mask prompt. With updated textual embedding, it can further distinguish “slice” fr…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Additional qualitative reference image segmentation results (gRefCOCO validation set). 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Additional qualitative open-vocabulary semantic segmentation results (Pascal Context 59 validation set). By concate￾nating word label into sentences, we show that Segment Anyword can achieve accurate open-vocabulary image segmentation with well-localized mask prompt. …
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Exemplar qualitative OOD Medical Image segmentation results. We show that Segment Anyword has a potential prompt learning and segmentation capability for out-of-distribution medical image segmentation, such as “cavity”, “myocardium” and prostate “transation” zone. 34 …
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Additional qualitative failure case results. We acknowledge that Segment Anyword can still encounter failure segmentation, particularly when the target object is small and visual ambigious, such as “skis” and “skateboard”. This is mainly due to the cross-attention map…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., and Parikh, D

    Antol, S., Agrawal, A., Lu, J., Mitchell, M., Batra, D., Zitnick, C. L., and Parikh, D. Vqa: Visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pp.\ 2425--2433, 2015

    2015

  2. [2]

    Fast and inexpensive color image segmentation for interactive robots

    Bruce, J., Balch, T., and Veloso, M. Fast and inexpensive color image segmentation for interactive robots. In Proceedings. 2000 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2000)(Cat. No. 00CH37113), volume 3, pp.\ 2061--2066. IEEE, 2000

    2000

  3. [3]

    Burgert, R., Ranasinghe, K., Li, X., and Ryoo, M. S. Peekaboo: Text to image diffusion models are zero-shot segmentors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13224, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    J., Elliot, S., and Cakmak, M

    Butler, D. J., Elliot, S., and Cakmak, M. Interactive scene segmentation for efficient human-in-the-loop robot manipulation. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp.\ 2572--2579. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    F., and Chen, C.-S

    Chen, Y.-C., Li, W.-H., Sun, C., Wang, Y.-C. F., and Chen, C.-S. Sam4mllm: Enhance multi-modal large language model for referring expression segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 323--340, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    E., Stoica, I., and Xing, E

    Chiang, W.-L., Li, Z., Lin, Z., Sheng, Y., Wu, Z., Zhang, H., Zheng, L., Zhuang, S., Zhuang, Y., Gonzalez, J. E., Stoica, I., and Xing, E. P. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90\ URL https://lmsys.org/blog/2023-03-30-vicuna/

    2023

  7. [7]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding

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

    2016

  8. [8]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Devlin, J. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    arXiv 2018

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Vision-language transformer and query generation for referring segmentation

    Ding, H., Liu, C., Wang, S., and Jiang, X. Vision-language transformer and query generation for referring segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 16321--16330, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    G., R \"u ckl \'e , A., Lee, J.-U., Schulz, C., Mesgar, M., Swarnkar, K., Simpson, E., and Gurevych, I

    Eger, S., S ahin, G. G., R \"u ckl \'e , A., Lee, J.-U., Schulz, C., Mesgar, M., Swarnkar, K., Simpson, E., and Gurevych, I. Text processing like humans do: Visually attacking and shielding nlp systems. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the...

    2019

  3. [11]

    H., Chechik, G., and Cohen-Or, D

    Gal, R., Alaluf, Y., Atzmon, Y., Patashnik, O., Bermano, A. H., Chechik, G., and Cohen-Or, D. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset

    Geiger, A., Lenz, P., Stiller, C., and Urtasun, R. Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 32 0 (11): 0 1231--1237, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Mask r-cnn

    He, K., Gkioxari, G., Doll \'a r, P., and Girshick, R. Mask r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pp.\ 2961--2969, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross-attention control

    Hertz, A., Mokady, R., Tenenbaum, J., Aberman, K., Pritch, Y., and Cohen-or, D. Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross-attention control. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Ho, J., Jain, A., and Abbeel, P. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 0 6840--6851, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Jin, C., Tanno, R., Saseendran, A., Diethe, T., and Teare, P. A. An image is worth multiple words: Discovering object level concepts using multi-concept prompt learning. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Locate then segment: A strong pipeline for referring image segmentation

    Jing, Y., Kong, T., Wang, W., Wang, L., Li, L., and Tan, T. Locate then segment: A strong pipeline for referring image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 9858--9867, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Pnp inversion: Boosting diffusion-based editing with 3 lines of code

    Ju, X., Zeng, A., Bian, Y., Liu, S., and Xu, Q. Pnp inversion: Boosting diffusion-based editing with 3 lines of code. International Conference on Learning Representations ( ICLR ) , 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Diffusion models for open-vocabulary segmentation, 2024

    Karazija, L., Laina, I., Vedaldi, A., and Rupprecht, C. Diffusion models for open-vocabulary segmentation, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.09316

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Diffusion models for open-vocabulary segmentation

    Karazija, L., Laina, I., Vedaldi, A., and Rupprecht, C. Diffusion models for open-vocabulary segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 299--317. Springer, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Referitgame: Referring to objects in photographs of natural scenes

    Kazemzadeh, S., Ordonez, V., Matten, M., and Berg, T. Referitgame: Referring to objects in photographs of natural scenes. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pp.\ 787--798, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Kenton, J. D. M.-W. C. and Toutanova, L. K. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of naacL-HLT, volume 1, pp.\ 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    C., Lo, W.-Y., et al

    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

  16. [24]

    Lisa: Reasoning segmentation via large language model

    Lai, X., Tian, Z., Chen, Y., Li, Y., Yuan, Y., Liu, S., and Jia, J. Lisa: Reasoning segmentation via large language model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 9579--9589, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Cryptext: Database and interactive toolkit of human-written text perturbations in the wild

    Le, T., Ye, Y., Hu, Y., and Lee, D. Cryptext: Database and interactive toolkit of human-written text perturbations in the wild. In 2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp.\ 3639--3642. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Lin, T.-Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., Doll \'a r, P., and Zitnick, C. L. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 13, pp....

    2014

  19. [27]

    Training-free open-ended object detection and segmentation via attention as prompts

    Lin, Z., Wang, Y., and Tang, Z. Training-free open-ended object detection and segmentation via attention as prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05963, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    E., Setio, A

    Litjens, G., Kooi, T., Bejnordi, B. E., Setio, A. A. A., Ciompi, F., Ghafoorian, M., van der Laak, J. A., Van Ginneken, B., and S \'a nchez, C. I. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Medical image analysis, 42: 0 60--88, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Gres: Generalized referring expression segmentation

    Liu, C., Ding, H., and Jiang, X. Gres: Generalized referring expression segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 23592--23601, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Deep learning for generic object detection: A survey

    Liu, L., Ouyang, W., Wang, X., Fieguth, P., Chen, J., Liu, X., and Pietik \"a inen, M. Deep learning for generic object detection: A survey. International journal of computer vision, 128: 0 261--318, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach

    Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., and Stoyanov, V. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Long, J., Shelhamer, E., and Darrell, T. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 3431--3440, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    H., Holynski, A., and Darrell, T

    Luo, G., Dunlap, L., Park, D. H., Holynski, A., and Darrell, T. Diffusion hyperfeatures: Searching through time and space for semantic correspondence. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Segclip: Patch aggregation with learnable centers for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation

    Luo, H., Bao, J., Wu, Y., He, X., and Li, T. Segclip: Patch aggregation with learnable centers for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 23033--23044. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    L., and Murphy, K

    Mao, J., Huang, J., Toshev, A., Camburu, O., Yuille, A. L., and Murphy, K. Generation and comprehension of unambiguous object descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 11--20, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    C., and Mart \' nez, J

    Marcos-Manch \'o n, P., Alcover-Couso, R., SanMiguel, J. C., and Mart \' nez, J. M. Open-vocabulary attention maps with token optimization for semantic segmentation in diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ ...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Not all diffusion model activations have been evaluated as discriminative features, 2024

    Meng, B., Xu, Q., Wang, Z., Cao, X., and Huang, Q. Not all diffusion model activations have been evaluated as discriminative features, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03558

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    H., Jakab, A., Bauer, S., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Farahani, K., Kirby, J., Burren, Y., Porz, N., Slotboom, J., Wiest, R., et al

    Menze, B. H., Jakab, A., Bauer, S., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Farahani, K., Kirby, J., Burren, Y., Porz, N., Slotboom, J., Wiest, R., et al. The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats). IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 34 0 (10): 0 1993--2024, 2014

    1993

  31. [39]

    Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models

    Mokady, R., Hertz, A., Aberman, K., Pritch, Y., and Cohen-Or, D. Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 6038--6047, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    The role of context for object detection and semantic segmentation in the wild

    Mottaghi, R., Chen, X., Liu, X., Cho, N.-G., Lee, S.-W., Fidler, S., Urtasun, R., and Yuille, A. The role of context for object detection and semantic segmentation in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 891--898, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    H., and Lim, S.-N

    Mukhoti, J., Lin, T.-Y., Poursaeed, O., Wang, R., Shah, A., Torr, P. H., and Lim, S.-N. Open vocabulary semantic segmentation with patch aligned contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 19413--19423, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Namekata, K., Sabour, A., Fidler, S., and Kim, S. W. Emerdiff: Emerging pixel-level semantic knowledge in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11739, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Localizing object-level shape variations with text-to-image diffusion models

    Patashnik, O., Garibi, D., Azuri, I., Averbuch-Elor, H., and Cohen-Or, D. Localizing object-level shape variations with text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 23051--23061, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Kosmos-2: Grounding multimodal large language models to the world

    Peng, Z., Wang, W., Dong, L., Hao, Y., Huang, S., Ma, S., and Wei, F. Kosmos-2: Grounding multimodal large language models to the world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14824, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A., Wang, L., Cervantes, C

    Plummer, B. A., Wang, L., Cervantes, C. M., Caicedo, J. C., Hockenmaier, J., and Lazebnik, S. Flickr30k entities: Collecting region-to-phrase correspondences for richer image-to-sentence models. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pp.\ 2641-...

    2015

  38. [46]

    Improving language understanding by generative pre-training

    Radford, A. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al

    Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 8748--8763. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Zero-shot text-to-image generation

    Ramesh, A., Pavlov, M., Goh, G., Gray, S., Voss, C., Radford, A., Chen, M., and Sutskever, I. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 8821--8831. Pmlr, 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    Perceptual grouping in contrastive vision-language models

    Ranasinghe, K., McKinzie, B., Ravi, S., Yang, Y., Toshev, A., and Shlens, J. Perceptual grouping in contrastive vision-language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 5571--5584, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    M., Xing, E., Yang, M.-H., and Khan, F

    Rasheed, H., Maaz, M., Shaji, S., Shaker, A., Khan, S., Cholakkal, H., Anwer, R. M., Xing, E., Yang, M.-H., and Khan, F. S. Glamm: Pixel grounding large multimodal model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 13009--13018, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Hyper- SD : Trajectory segmented consistency model for efficient image synthesis

    Ren, Y., Xia, X., Lu, Y., Zhang, J., Wu, J., Xie, P., WANG, X., and Xiao, X. Hyper- SD : Trajectory segmented consistency model for efficient image synthesis. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., and Ommer, B. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 10684--10695, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., and Brox, T. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pp.\ 234--241. Springer, 2015

    2015

  46. [54]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation

    Ruiz, N., Li, Y., Jampani, V., Pritch, Y., Rubinstein, M., and Aberman, K. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 22500--22510, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Song, J., Meng, C., and Ermon, S. Denoising diffusion implicit models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  48. [56]

    Revisiting unreasonable effectiveness of data in deep learning era

    Sun, C., Shrivastava, A., Singh, S., and Gupta, A. Revisiting unreasonable effectiveness of data in deep learning era. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pp.\ 843--852, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    Clip as rnn: Segment countless visual concepts without training endeavor

    Sun, S., Li, R., Torr, P., Gu, X., and Li, S. Clip as rnn: Segment countless visual concepts without training endeavor. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 13171--13182, 2024

    2024

  50. [58]

    What the daam: Interpreting stable diffusion using cross attention

    Tang, R., Liu, L., Pandey, A., Jiang, Z., Yang, G., Kumar, K., Stenetorp, P., Lin, J., and T \"u re, F. What the daam: Interpreting stable diffusion using cross attention. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Lon...

    2023

  51. [59]

    A., Friedland, G., Elizalde, B., Ni, K., Poland, D., Borth, D., and Li, L.-J

    Thomee, B., Shamma, D. A., Friedland, G., Elizalde, B., Ni, K., Poland, D., Borth, D., and Li, L.-J. Yfcc100m: The new data in multimedia research. Communications of the ACM, 59 0 (2): 0 64--73, 2016

    2016

  52. [60]

    Diffuse, attend, and segment: Unsupervised zero-shot segmentation using stable diffusion

    Tian, J., Aggarwal, L., Colaco, A., Kira, Z., and Gonzalez-Franco, M. Diffuse, attend, and segment: Unsupervised zero-shot segmentation using stable diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12469, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Concept decomposition for visual exploration and inspiration

    Vinker, Y., Voynov, A., Cohen-Or, D., and Shamir, A. Concept decomposition for visual exploration and inspiration. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 42 0 (6): 0 1--13, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Cris: Clip-driven referring image segmentation

    Wang, Z., Lu, Y., Li, Q., Tao, X., Guo, Y., Gong, M., and Liu, T. Cris: Clip-driven referring image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 11686--11695, 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    Towards open vocabulary learning: A survey

    Wu, J., Li, X., Xu, S., Yuan, H., Ding, H., Yang, Y., Li, X., Zhang, J., Tong, Y., Jiang, X., et al. Towards open vocabulary learning: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    Gan inversion: A survey

    Xia, W., Zhang, Y., Yang, Y., Xue, J.-H., Zhou, B., and Yang, M.-H. Gan inversion: A survey. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 45 0 (3): 0 3121--3138, 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Gsva: Generalized segmentation via multimodal large language models

    Xia, Z., Han, D., Han, Y., Pan, X., Song, S., and Huang, G. Gsva: Generalized segmentation via multimodal large language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 3858--3869, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Groupvit: Semantic segmentation emerges from text supervision

    Xu, J., De Mello, S., Liu, S., Byeon, W., Breuel, T., Kautz, J., and Wang, X. Groupvit: Semantic segmentation emerges from text supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 18134--18144, 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    Learning open-vocabulary semantic segmentation models from natural language supervision

    Xu, J., Hou, J., Zhang, Y., Feng, R., Wang, Y., Qiao, Y., and Xie, W. Learning open-vocabulary semantic segmentation models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 2935--2944, 2023 a

    2023

  60. [68]

    Open-vocabulary panoptic segmentation with text-to-image diffusion models

    Xu, J., Liu, S., Vahdat, A., Byeon, W., Wang, X., and De Mello, S. Open-vocabulary panoptic segmentation with text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 2955--2966, 2023 b

    2023

  61. [69]

    Bridging vision and language encoders: Parameter-efficient tuning for referring image segmentation

    Xu, Z., Chen, Z., Zhang, Y., Song, Y., Wan, X., and Li, G. Bridging vision and language encoders: Parameter-efficient tuning for referring image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 17503--17512, 2023 c

    2023

  62. [70]

    Z., Guo, Z., Zhou, K., Zhang, W., and Liu, Z

    Yang, J., Ang, Y. Z., Guo, Z., Zhou, K., Zhang, W., and Liu, Z. Panoptic scene graph generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 178--196. Springer, 2022 a

    2022

  63. [71]

    Yang, Z., Wang, J., Tang, Y., Chen, K., Zhao, H., and Torr, P. H. Lavt: Language-aware vision transformer for referring image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 18155--18165, 2022 b

    2022

  64. [72]

    Yu, L., Lin, Z., Shen, X., Yang, J., Lu, X., Bansal, M., and Berg, T. L. Mattnet: Modular attention network for referring expression comprehension. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 1307--1315, 2018

    2018

  65. [73]

    H., and Son, J

    Yu, S., Seo, P. H., and Son, J. Zero-shot referring image segmentation with global-local context features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 19456--19465, 2023

    2023

  66. [74]

    C., and Yan, S

    Zhang, T., Li, X., Fei, H., Yuan, H., Wu, S., Ji, S., Loy, C. C., and Yan, S. Omg-llava: Bridging image-level, object-level, pixel-level reasoning and understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19389, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Psalm: Pixelwise segmentation with large multi-modal model

    Zhang, Z., Ma, Y., Zhang, E., and Bai, X. Psalm: Pixelwise segmentation with large multi-modal model. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 74--91. Springer, 2025

    2025

  68. [76]

    Unleashing text-to-image diffusion models for visual perception

    Zhao, W., Rao, Y., Liu, Z., Liu, B., Zhou, J., and Lu, J. Unleashing text-to-image diffusion models for visual perception. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 5729--5739, 2023 a

    2023

  69. [77]

    Bubogpt: Enabling visual grounding in multi-modal llms

    Zhao, Y., Lin, Z., Zhou, D., Huang, Z., Feng, J., and Kang, B. Bubogpt: Enabling visual grounding in multi-modal llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08581, 2023 b

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena

    Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., Lin, Z., Li, Z., Li, D., Xing, E., et al. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 0 46595--46623, 2023

    2023

  71. [79]

    C., and Dai, B

    Zhou, C., Loy, C. C., and Dai, B. Extract free dense labels from clip. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 696--712. Springer, 2022 a

    2022

  72. [80]

    C., and Dai, B

    Zhou, C., Loy, C. C., and Dai, B. Extract free dense labels from clip. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022 b

    2022

  73. [81]

    C., and Liu, Z

    Zhou, K., Yang, J., Loy, C. C., and Liu, Z. Conditional prompt learning for vision-language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 16816--16825, 2022 c

    2022

  74. [82]

    C., and Liu, Z

    Zhou, K., Yang, J., Loy, C. C., and Liu, Z. Learning to prompt for vision-language models. International Journal of Computer Vision, 130 0 (9): 0 2337--2348, 2022 d

    2022

  75. [83]

    Image segmentation in foundation model era: A survey

    Zhou, T., Zhang, F., Chang, B., Wang, W., Yuan, Y., Konukoglu, E., and Cremers, D. Image segmentation in foundation model era: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12957, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    and Chen, L

    Zhu, C. and Chen, L. A survey on open-vocabulary detection and segmentation: Past, present, and future. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  77. [85]

    a henb \

    Zhu, J.-Y., Kr \"a henb \"u hl, P., Shechtman, E., and Efros, A. A. Generative visual manipulation on the natural image manifold. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part V 14, pp.\ 597--613. Sp...

    2016

  78. [86]

    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 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.