2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/cvpr.2016.460
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Joint Recovery of Dense Correspondence and Cosegmentation in Two Images

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
249
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 121 publications
(252 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
3
249
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, since limited training data is available for semantic correspondence, we propose a weakly-supervised feature learning scheme that leverages correspondence consistency between object locations provided in existing image datasets. Experimental results show that the FCSS descriptor outperforms conventional handcrafted descriptors and CNN-based descriptors on various benchmarks, including that of Taniai et al [45], Proposal Flow [18], the PASCAL dataset [6], and Caltech-101 [13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Furthermore, since limited training data is available for semantic correspondence, we propose a weakly-supervised feature learning scheme that leverages correspondence consistency between object locations provided in existing image datasets. Experimental results show that the FCSS descriptor outperforms conventional handcrafted descriptors and CNN-based descriptors on various benchmarks, including that of Taniai et al [45], Proposal Flow [18], the PASCAL dataset [6], and Caltech-101 [13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Avg. DFF [49] 0.495 0.304 0.224 0.341 DSP [24] 0.487 0.465 0.382 0.445 SIFT Flow [31] 0.632 0.509 0.360 0.500 Zhou et al [53] 0.721 0.514 0.436 0.556 Taniai et al [45] 0.830 0.595 0.483 0.636 Proposal Flow [18] 0.786 0.653 0.531 0.657 FCSS w/DSP [24] 0.527 0.580 0.439 0.515 FCSS w/SF [31] 0.830 0.656 0.494 0.660 FCSS w/PF [18] 0.839 0.635 0.582 0.685 Table 2. Matching accuracy compared to state-of-the-art correspondence techniques on the Taniai benchmark [45].…”
Section: Experimental Settingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations