GeoF: Geodesic Forests for Learning Coupled Predictors
Abstract
Conventional decision forest based methods for image labelling tasks like object segmentation make predictions for each variable (pixel) independently [3, 5, 8]. This prevents them from enforcing dependencies between variables and translates into locally inconsistent pixel labellings. Random field models, instead, encourage spatial consistency of labels at increased computational expense. This paper presents a new and efficient forest based model that achieves spatially consistent semantic image segmentation by encoding variable dependencies directly in the feature space the forests operate on. Such correlations are captured via new long-range, soft connectivity features, computed via generalized geodesic distance transforms. Our model can be thought of as a generalization of the successful Semantic Texton Forest, Auto-Context, and Entangled Forest models. A second contribution is to show the connection between the typical Conditional Random Field (CRF) energy and the forest training objective. This analysis yields a new objective for training decision forests that encourages more accurate structured prediction. Our GeoF model is validated quantitatively on the task of semantic image segmentation, on four challenging and very diverse image datasets. GeoF outperforms both state of-the-art forest models and the conventional pair wise CRF.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The geodesic distance transform encodes spatial regularization and contrast-sensitivity.
“the geodesic distance transform [35], [36], [41] encodes spatial regularization and contrast-sensitivity”
From DeepIGeoS: A Deep Interactive Geodesic Framework for Medical Image Segmentation (2019) · cites this paper as [41]
GeoF uses the geodesic distance to encode variable dependencies in the feature space and is combined with Random Forests for semantic segmentation, but it is not designed to deal with user interactions.
“GeoF [41] uses the geodesic distance to encode variable dependencies in the feature space and it is combined with Random Forests for semantic segmentation. However, it is not designed to deal with user interactions.”
From DeepIGeoS: A Deep Interactive Geodesic Framework for Medical Image Segmentation (2019) · cites this paper as [41]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 63
- Authors
- Kontschieder, P., Kohli, P., Shotton, J., & Criminisi, A.
- Affiliations
- Graz University of Technology (AT)
- Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Venue
- 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2013-06
- Pages
- 65-72
- ISSN
- 1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2104266970
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 8.51
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Remote-Sensing Image Classification
- Keywords
- semantic segmentation, decision forest, spatial consistency, conditional random fields, structured prediction
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