Cited by 160Video Surveillance and Tracking MethodsAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Learning What to Learn for Video Object Segmentation

Open access
Bhat, Goutam, Lawin, Felix Järemo, Danelljan, Martin, Robinson, Andreas, Felsberg, Michael, Van Gool, Luc, Timofte, Radu·2020·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-58536-5_46

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adopting a memory architecture to store object information from past frames is indispensable for accurately tracking objects in video.

    “To address the above challenges, adopting a memory architecture to store the object information from past frames is indispensable for accurately tracking objects in video [5,7,10,29,40,52,56,57,64,66,68].”

    From SAM2LONG: Enhancing SAM 2 for Long Video Segmentation with a Training-Free Memory Tree (2025) · cites this paper as [5]

    Section 3.5 (p. 10) describes retaining samples from past frames to update the target model, and the ablative study (p. 26) reports that updating it improves segmentation performance. The paper does not establish that a memory architecture is indispensable for accurate tracking; it reports a performance benefit over using the first-frame model without updates. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]1. Behl, H.S., Najafi, M., Arnab, A., Torr, P.H.S.: Meta learning deep visual words for fast video object segmentation. In: NeurIPS 2019 Workshop on Machine Learning for Autonomous Driving (2018)
  2. [11]11. He, K., Gkioxari, G., Doll´ ar, P., Girshick, R.B.: Mask r-cnn. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) pp. 2980-2988 (2017)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhat, G., Lawin, F. J., Danelljan, M., Robinson, A., Felsberg, M., Van Gool, L., & Timofte, R.
Affiliations
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Bhat, Goutam
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2020
Pages
777-794
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W3013056670
Cited by
160
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 3
FWCI
8.25
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Nvidia
  • Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Video Surveillance and Tracking Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
video object segmentation, few-shot learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review