TasksSotADatasetsPapersMethodsSubmitAbout
Papers With Code 2

A community resource for machine learning research: papers, code, benchmarks, and state-of-the-art results.

Explore

Notable BenchmarksAll SotADatasetsPapersMethods

Community

Submit ResultsAbout

Data sourced from the PWC Archive (CC-BY-SA 4.0). Built by the community, for the community.

Papers/Lucid Data Dreaming for Video Object Segmentation

Lucid Data Dreaming for Video Object Segmentation

Anna Khoreva, Rodrigo Benenson, Eddy Ilg, Thomas Brox, Bernt Schiele

2017-03-28Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationSegmentationSemantic SegmentationVideo Object SegmentationObject TrackingVideo Semantic SegmentationMultiple Object Tracking
PaperPDFCodeCodeCodeCode

Abstract

Convolutional networks reach top quality in pixel-level video object segmentation but require a large amount of training data (1k~100k) to deliver such results. We propose a new training strategy which achieves state-of-the-art results across three evaluation datasets while using 20x~1000x less annotated data than competing methods. Our approach is suitable for both single and multiple object segmentation. Instead of using large training sets hoping to generalize across domains, we generate in-domain training data using the provided annotation on the first frame of each video to synthesize ("lucid dream") plausible future video frames. In-domain per-video training data allows us to train high quality appearance- and motion-based models, as well as tune the post-processing stage. This approach allows to reach competitive results even when training from only a single annotated frame, without ImageNet pre-training. Our results indicate that using a larger training set is not automatically better, and that for the video object segmentation task a smaller training set that is closer to the target domain is more effective. This changes the mindset regarding how many training samples and general "objectness" knowledge are required for the video object segmentation task.

Results

TaskDatasetMetricValueModel
VideoDAVIS 2016F-measure (Decay)9.7Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2016F-measure (Mean)82Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2016F-measure (Recall)88.1Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2016J&F82.95Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2016Jaccard (Decay)9.1Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2016Jaccard (Mean)83.9Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2016Jaccard (Recall)95Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)F-measure (Decay)19.5Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)F-measure (Mean)69.9Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)F-measure (Recall)80.1Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)J&F66.6Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)Jaccard (Decay)19.5Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)Jaccard (Mean)63.4Lucid
VideoDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)Jaccard (Recall)74Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016F-measure (Decay)9.7Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016F-measure (Mean)82Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016F-measure (Recall)88.1Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016J&F82.95Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016Jaccard (Decay)9.1Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016Jaccard (Mean)83.9Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016Jaccard (Recall)95Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)F-measure (Decay)19.5Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)F-measure (Mean)69.9Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)F-measure (Recall)80.1Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)J&F66.6Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)Jaccard (Decay)19.5Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)Jaccard (Mean)63.4Lucid
Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)Jaccard (Recall)74Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016F-measure (Decay)9.7Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016F-measure (Mean)82Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016F-measure (Recall)88.1Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016J&F82.95Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016Jaccard (Decay)9.1Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016Jaccard (Mean)83.9Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2016Jaccard (Recall)95Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)F-measure (Decay)19.5Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)F-measure (Mean)69.9Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)F-measure (Recall)80.1Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)J&F66.6Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)Jaccard (Decay)19.5Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)Jaccard (Mean)63.4Lucid
Semi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationDAVIS 2017 (test-dev)Jaccard (Recall)74Lucid

Related Papers

SeC: Advancing Complex Video Object Segmentation via Progressive Concept Construction2025-07-21Deep Learning-Based Fetal Lung Segmentation from Diffusion-weighted MRI Images and Lung Maturity Evaluation for Fetal Growth Restriction2025-07-17DiffOSeg: Omni Medical Image Segmentation via Multi-Expert Collaboration Diffusion Model2025-07-17From Variability To Accuracy: Conditional Bernoulli Diffusion Models with Consensus-Driven Correction for Thin Structure Segmentation2025-07-17Unleashing Vision Foundation Models for Coronary Artery Segmentation: Parallel ViT-CNN Encoding and Variational Fusion2025-07-17SCORE: Scene Context Matters in Open-Vocabulary Remote Sensing Instance Segmentation2025-07-17Unified Medical Image Segmentation with State Space Modeling Snake2025-07-17A Privacy-Preserving Semantic-Segmentation Method Using Domain-Adaptation Technique2025-07-17