Procedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2017 2017
DOI: 10.5244/c.31.20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Discovering Class-Specific Pixels for Weakly-Supervised Semantic Segmentation

Abstract: We propose an approach to discover class-specific pixels for the weakly-supervised semantic segmentation task. We show that properly combining saliency and attention maps allows us to obtain reliable cues capable of significantly boosting the performance. First, we propose a simple yet powerful hierarchical approach to discover the classagnostic salient regions, obtained using a salient object detector, which otherwise would be ignored. Second, we use fully convolutional attention maps to reliably localize the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
101
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 131 publications
(104 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
101
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Weakly supervised segmentation: We compared our method with other recently introduced weakly supervised semantic segmentation methods with various levels of supervision. [24] 10K 52.8 53.7 TPL ICCV '17 [14] 10K 53.1 53.8 AE_PSL CVPR '17 [31] 10K 55.0 55.7 DCSP BMVC '17 [2] 10K 58.6 59.2 MEFF CVPR '18 [8] 10K -55.6 GAIN CVPR '18 [19] 10K 55.3 56.8 MCOF CVPR '18 [30] 10K 56.2 57.6 AffinityNet CVPR '18 [1] 10K 58.4 60.5 DSRG CVPR '18 [12] 10K 59.0 60.4 MDC CVPR '18 [33] 10K 60.4 60.8 FickleNet (Ours) 10K 61.2 61.9 we do not need additional training steps or additional networks, in contrast to many other recent techniques, such as AffinityNet [1], which requires an additional network for learning semantic affinities, or AE-PSL [31] and MDC [33], which require several training steps. Table 2 shows result on PASCAL VOC 2012 images with a ResNet-based segmentation network.…”
Section: Comparison To the State Of The Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Weakly supervised segmentation: We compared our method with other recently introduced weakly supervised semantic segmentation methods with various levels of supervision. [24] 10K 52.8 53.7 TPL ICCV '17 [14] 10K 53.1 53.8 AE_PSL CVPR '17 [31] 10K 55.0 55.7 DCSP BMVC '17 [2] 10K 58.6 59.2 MEFF CVPR '18 [8] 10K -55.6 GAIN CVPR '18 [19] 10K 55.3 56.8 MCOF CVPR '18 [30] 10K 56.2 57.6 AffinityNet CVPR '18 [1] 10K 58.4 60.5 DSRG CVPR '18 [12] 10K 59.0 60.4 MDC CVPR '18 [33] 10K 60.4 60.8 FickleNet (Ours) 10K 61.2 61.9 we do not need additional training steps or additional networks, in contrast to many other recent techniques, such as AffinityNet [1], which requires an additional network for learning semantic affinities, or AE-PSL [31] and MDC [33], which require several training steps. Table 2 shows result on PASCAL VOC 2012 images with a ResNet-based segmentation network.…”
Section: Comparison To the State Of The Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A group of approaches take the class activation maps (CAMs) [11] generated from classification networks as initial seeds. Since CAMs only focus on small discriminative regions which are too sparse to effectively supervise a segmentation model, various techniques such as adversarial erasing [12], [17], [21], [18] and region growing [13], [22] have been developed to expand sparse object seeds. Another research line introduces dilated convolutions of different rates [14], [16], [15], [23] to enlarge receptive fields in classification networks and aggregate multiple attention maps to achieve dense localization cues.…”
Section: A Weakly-supervised Semantic Segmentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• In contrast to existing WSSS methods [18], [19], [20] that directly combine class-agnostic saliency maps with class-specific attention maps in user-defined ways, our approach fuses these two cues adaptively via the learning of the proposed self-attention network.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our method achieves mIoU values of 63.9 [45] 49.8 51.2 TransferNet CVPR '16 [11] 52.1 51.2 AISI ECCV '18 [16] 61.3 62. [33] 52.8 53.7 TPL ICCV '17 [22] 53.1 53.8 AE_PSL CVPR '17 [44] 55.0 55.7 DCSP BMVC '17 [2] 58.6 59.2 MEFF CVPR '18 [9] -55.6 GAIN CVPR '18 [26] 55.3 56.8 MCOF CVPR '18 [43] 56.2 57.6 AffinityNet CVPR '18 [1] 58.4 60.5 DSRG CVPR '18 [17] 59.0 60.4 MDC CVPR '18 [46] 60.4 60.8 SeeNet NIPS '18 [15] 61.1 60.7 FickleNet CVPR '19 [24] 61.2 61.9 Ours 63.9 65.0 and 65.0 for PASCAL VOC 2012 validation and test images respectively, which is 94.4% of that of DeepLab [3], trained with fully annotated data, which achieved an mIoU of 67.6 on validation images. Our method is 3.1% better on test images than the best method which uses only image-level annotations for supervision.…”
Section: Results On Image Segmentationmentioning
confidence: 99%