Cited by 423Visual Attention and Saliency DetectionAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsAdvanced Image Fusion Techniques

UC-Net: Uncertainty Inspired RGB-D Saliency Detection via Conditional Variational Autoencoders

Open access
Zhang, Jing, Fan, Deng-Ping, Dai, Yuchao, Anwar, Saeed, Saleh, Fatemeh Sadat, Zhang, Tong, Barnes, Nick·2020·2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

In this paper, we propose the first framework (UCNet) to employ uncertainty for RGB-D saliency detection by learning from the data labeling process. Existing RGB-D saliency detection methods treat the saliency detection task as a point estimation problem, and produce a single saliency map following a deterministic learning pipeline. Inspired by the saliency data labeling process, we propose probabilistic RGB-D saliency detection network via conditional variational autoencoders to model human annotation uncertainty and generate multiple saliency maps for each input image by sampling in the latent space. With the proposed saliency consensus process, we are able to generate an accurate saliency map based on these multiple predictions. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations on six challenging benchmark datasets against 18 competing algorithms demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in learning the distribution of saliency maps, leading to a new state-of-the-art in RGB-D saliency detection.

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 · 10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00861

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • In 2020, Wang et al. [649] used CNN with SCN: Self-Cure Network for facial expression on RAF-DB, FERPlus, AffectNet, and WebEmotion.

    “Wang al. [649] | et | 2020 | RAF-DB, FERPlus, AffectNet and WebE- motion | Facial expression | # RAF-DB: 30,000 different facial images, FERPlus: 28,709, 3,589 and 3,589 images for training , validation and test, respectively, AffectNet: 450,000 images, WebEmotion: 41,000 videos | N/A | CNN | SCN:”

    From A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges (2021) · cites this paper as [649]

    The Setup section (p. not available) describes experiments on six RGB-D saliency datasets, not the facial-expression datasets in the claim. Searches for Self-Cure Network, SCN, facial expression, and AffectNet found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed method or experiments. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Gabriel J. Brostow Clment Godard, Oisin Mac Aodha. Unsu- pervised Monocular Depth Estimation with Left-Right Con- sistency. In IEEE CVPR, pages 6602-6611, 2017.
  2. Deng-Ping Fan, Ge-Peng Ji, Guolei Sun, Ming-Ming Cheng, Jianbing Shen, and Ling Shao. Camouflaged Object Detec- tion. In IEEE CVPR, 2020.
  3. Deng-Ping Fan, Zheng Lin, Zhao Zhang, Menglong Zhu, and Ming-Ming Cheng. Rethinking RGB-D salient object detec- tion: Models, datasets, and large-scale benchmarks. IEEE TNNLS, 2020.
  4. Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-Encoding Vari- ational Bayes. In ICLR, 2013.
  5. Simon Kohl, Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Clemens Meyer, Jeffrey De Fauw, Joseph R. Ledsam, Klaus Maier-Hein, S. M. Ali Eslami, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, and Olaf Ron- neberger. A Probabilistic U-Net for Segmentation of Am- biguous Images. In NeurIPS, pages 6965-6975, 2018.
  6. Kihyuk Sohn, Honglak Lee, and Xinchen Yan. Learning Structured Output Representation using Deep Conditional Generative Models. In NeurIPS, pages 3483-3491, 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, J., Fan, D.-P., Dai, Y., Anwar, S., Saleh, F. S., Zhang, T., & Barnes, N.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • Nankai University (CN)
  • Northwestern Polytechnical University (CN)
Venue
2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2020-06
Pages
8579-8588
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3035633116
Cited by
423
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 88 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 35
FWCI
21.82
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61871325, 61420106007, 61671387)
  • Australian Centre for Robotic Vision (#CE140100016)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018AAA0102803)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Advanced Image Fusion Techniques
Keywords
uncertainty modeling, conditional variational autoencoder, latent space sampling

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