Cited by 5,703Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsComputer Science and Engineering

GrabCut: Interactive foreground extraction using iterated graph cuts

Open access
Rother, Carsten, Kolmogorov, Vladimir, Blake, Andrew·2004·ACM Transactions on Graphics

Abstract

The problem of efficient, interactive foreground/background segmentation in still images is of great practical importance in image editing. Classical image segmentation tools use either texture (colour) information, e.g. Magic Wand, or edge (contrast) information, e.g. Intelligent Scissors. Recently, an approach based on optimization by graph-cut has been developed which successfully combines both types of information. In this paper we extend the graph-cut approach in three respects. First, we have developed a more powerful, iterative version of the optimisation. Secondly, the power of the iterative algorithm is used to simplify substantially the user interaction needed for a given quality of result. Thirdly, a robust algorithm for "border matting" has been developed to estimate simultaneously the alpha-matte around an object boundary and the colours of foreground pixels. We show that for moderately difficult examples the proposed method outperforms competitive tools.

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 · 10.1145/1015706.1015720

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • GrabCut works with a user-provided bounding box and requires fewer interactions than Graph Cuts, but its performance is limited by the representativity of the underpinning GMM.

    “GrabCut [9] works with a user-provided bounding box to start the segmentation and requires fewer interactions compared with Graph Cuts [8], but the performance is still limited by the representativity of the underpinning GMM.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rother, C., Kolmogorov, V., & Blake, A.
Affiliations
Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Graphics
Published
2004-08
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
309-314
ISSN
  • 0730-0301 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7368
OpenAlex
W2124351162
Cited by
5,703
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 83 · 2025: 180 · 2024: 205 · 2023: 256 · 2022: 248 · 2021: 346 · 2020: 326 · 2019: 333 · 2018: 351 · 2017: 379 · 2016: 407 · 2015: 416 · 2014: 391 · 2013: 401 · 2012: 302
FWCI
88.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM Transactions on Graphics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Computer Science and Engineering
Keywords
foreground-background segmentation, GrabCut, graph cuts, interactive segmentation, alpha matte estimation, image editing, iterative optimization, user interaction

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