Paper detail

Exposing Semantic Segmentation Failures via Maximum Discrepancy Competition

Semantic segmentation is an extensively studied task in computer vision, with numerous methods proposed every year. Thanks to the advent of deep learning in semantic segmentation, the performance on existing benchmarks is close to saturation. A natural question then arises: Does the superior performance on the closed (and frequently re-used) test sets transfer to the open visual world with unconstrained variations? In this paper, we take steps toward answering the question by exposing failures of existing semantic segmentation methods in the open visual world under the constraint of very limited human labeling effort. Inspired by previous research on model falsification, we start from an arbitrarily large image set, and automatically sample a small image set by MAximizing the Discrepancy (MAD) between two segmentation methods. The selected images have the greatest potential in falsifying either (or both) of the two methods. We also explicitly enforce several conditions to diversify the exposed failures, corresponding to different underlying root causes. A segmentation method, whose failures are more difficult to be exposed in the MAD competition, is considered better. We conduct a thorough MAD diagnosis of ten PASCAL VOC semantic segmentation algorithms. With detailed analysis of experimental results, we point out strengths and weaknesses of the competing algorithms, as well as potential research directions for further advancement in semantic segmentation. The codes are publicly available at \url{https://github.com/QTJiebin/MAD_Segmentation}.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.