2020
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58558-7_20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Collaborative Video Object Segmentation by Foreground-Background Integration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
192
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 167 publications
(195 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
192
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since the propagation is conducted in a short-time interval, the methods often exploit the temporal smoothness constraint but are not robust to occlusion. The matching-based methods [41,13,52,43,14,50] predict a foreground mask in the current frame based on matching with previously predicted or given mask. Recently, STM [33] introduced a memorybased method for offline-learning VOS and demonstrated a significantly improved performance while achieving a fast run-time.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Since the propagation is conducted in a short-time interval, the methods often exploit the temporal smoothness constraint but are not robust to occlusion. The matching-based methods [41,13,52,43,14,50] predict a foreground mask in the current frame based on matching with previously predicted or given mask. Recently, STM [33] introduced a memorybased method for offline-learning VOS and demonstrated a significantly improved performance while achieving a fast run-time.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Temporal smoothness is one of the strong constraints that we can assume for the VOS task. Previous VOS methods without memory often applied a local matching [43,50] or local refinement [34,16,32,49,13,53] between two adjacent frames for temporal smoothness. However, in the memory-based method [33], the non-local matching completely ignores the constraint and it raises the risk of false matches (e.g., when multiple similar instances exist, see Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, we can place papers D and E in context to the stateoftheart, figure 6.1 shows the improvement over time, of mean J and F score improvement. The methods were evaluated on the DAVIS 2017 validation split, and includes both the methods mentioned before, i.e OSVOS [6], RGMP [26], STM [27] and LWL [2], as well as the more recent method CFBI [41]. Both STM and CFBI were considered stateoftheart at the time of writing.…”
Section: Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Target classification in the test frame is then performed by applying the correlation filters. The feature matching approach in [52,112] was further extended in [121], by including background features and target attention modulation vectors into the target model. Finally, the STM approach [86] performs feature matching within a space-time memory network.…”
Section: Background and Previous Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Intuitively, the parameters θ and ϕ are learned for target agnostic segmentation and generic VOS properties, while τ encodes the target-specific appearance. If we compare this framework to the feature matching approaches in [121,52,112,86], the target state τ corresponds to the feature embedding generated from the previous frames and masks. Contrary to these approaches, our target model T τ is composed by a parametric operator, designed to predict a target score representation s = T τ (x) given the image features x = F (I) from the backbone network.…”
Section: Vos With Optimization-based Target Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%