CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 7,517Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningMedical Image Segmentation Techniques

Rethinking Atrous Convolution for Semantic Image Segmentation

Open access
Chen, Liang-Chieh, Papandreou, George, Schroff, Florian, Adam, Hartwig·2017·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1706.05587arXiv 1706.05587
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this work, we revisit atrous convolution, a powerful tool to explicitly adjust filter's field-of-view as well as control the resolution of feature responses computed by Deep Convolutional Neural Networks, in the application of semantic image segmentation. To handle the problem of segmenting objects at multiple scales, we design modules which employ atrous convolution in cascade or in parallel to capture multi-scale context by adopting multiple atrous rates. Furthermore, we propose to augment our previously proposed Atrous Spatial Pyramid Pooling module, which probes convolutional features at multiple scales, with image-level features encoding global context and further boost performance. We also elaborate on implementation details and share our experience on training our system. The proposed `DeepLabv3' system significantly improves over our previous DeepLab versions without DenseCRF post-processing and attains comparable performance with other state-of-art models on the PASCAL VOC 2012 semantic image segmentation benchmark.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1706.05587

Cites

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?

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 2 · Cited by 7,517

Research works printed but not linked: 91

  1. [4][4] A. Brandt. Multi-level adaptive solutions to boundary-value problems. Mathematics of computation , 31(138):333-390, 1977. -
  2. [6][6] W. Byeon, T. M. Breuel, F. Raue, and M. Liwicki. Scene labeling with lstm recurrent neural networks. In CVPR , 2015. -
  3. [7][7] H. Caesar, J. Uijlings, and V. Ferrari. COCO-Stuff: Thing and stuff classes in context. arXiv:1612.03716 , 2016. - · arXiv
  4. [8][8] S. Chandra and I. Kokkinos. Fast, exact and multi-scale inference for semantic image segmentation with deep Gaussian CRFs. arXiv:1603.08358 , 2016. - · arXiv
  5. [9][9] L.-C. Chen, J. T. Barron, G. Papandreou, K. Murphy, and A. L. Yuille. Semantic image segmentation with task-specific edge detection using cnns and a discriminatively trained domain transform. In CVPR , 2016. -
  6. [10][10] L.-C. Chen, G. Papandreou, I. Kokkinos, K. Murphy, and A. L. Yuille. Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets and fully connected crfs. In ICLR , 2015. -
  7. [11][11] L.-C. Chen, G. Papandreou, I. Kokkinos, K. Murphy, and A. L. Yuille. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs. arXiv:1606.00915 , 2016. - · arXiv
  8. [12][12] L.-C. Chen, Y. Yang, J. Wang, W. Xu, and A. L. Yuille. Attention to scale: Scale-aware semantic image segmentation. In CVPR , 2016. -
  9. [13][13] F. Chollet. Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions. arXiv:1610.02357 , 2016. - · arXiv
  10. [14][14] M. Cordts, M. Omran, S. Ramos, T. Rehfeld, M. Enzweiler, R. Benenson, U. Franke, S. Roth, and B. Schiele. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In CVPR , 2016. -
  11. [15][15] J. Dai, K. He, and J. Sun. Convolutional feature masking for joint object and stuff segmentation. arXiv:1412.1283 , 2014. - · arXiv
  12. [16][16] J. Dai, K. He, and J. Sun. Boxsup: Exploiting bounding boxes to supervise convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In ICCV , 2015. -
  13. [17][17] J. Dai, Y. Li, K. He, and J. Sun. R-fcn: Object detection via region-based fully convolutional networks. arXiv:1605.06409 , 2016. - · arXiv
  14. [18][18] J. Dai, H. Qi, Y. Xiong, Y. Li, G. Zhang, H. Hu, and Y. Wei. Deformable convolutional networks. arXiv:1703.06211 , 2017. - · arXiv
  15. [19][19] D. Eigen and R. Fergus. Predicting depth, surface normals and semantic labels with a common multi-scale convolutional architecture. arXiv:1411.4734 , 2014. - · arXiv
  16. [20][20] M. Everingham, S. M. A. Eslami, L. V. Gool, C. K. I. Williams, J. Winn, and A. Zisserma. The pascal visual object classes challenge a retrospective. IJCV , 2014. -
  17. [21][21] H. Fan, X. Mei, D. Prokhorov, and H. Ling. Multi-level contextual rnns with attention model for scene labeling. arXiv:1607.02537 , 2016. - · arXiv
  18. [23][23] J. Fu, J. Liu, Y . Wang, and H. Lu. Stacked deconvolutional network for semantic segmentation. arXiv:1708.04943 , 2017. - · arXiv
  19. [24][24] R. Gadde, V. Jampani, and P. V. Gehler. Semantic video cnns through representation warping. In ICCV , 2017. -
  20. [25][25] G. Ghiasi and C. C. Fowlkes. Laplacian reconstruction and refinement for semantic segmentation. arXiv:1605.02264 , 2016. - · arXiv
  21. [27][27] S. Gould, R. Fulton, and D. Koller. Decomposing a scene into geometric and semantically consistent regions. In ICCV . IEEE, 2009. -
  22. [28][28] K. Grauman and T. Darrell. The pyramid match kernel: Discriminative classification with sets of image features. In ICCV , 2005. -
  23. [29][29] B. Hariharan, P. Arbel´ aez, L. Bourdev, S. Maji, and J. Malik. Semantic contours from inverse detectors. In ICCV , 2011. -
  24. [30][30] B. Hariharan, P. Arbel´ aez, R. Girshick, and J. Malik. Hypercolumns for object segmentation and fine-grained localization. In CVPR , 2015. -
  25. [31][31] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition. In ECCV , 2014. -
  26. [32][32] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. arXiv:1512.03385 , 2015. - · arXiv
  27. [33][33] X. He, R. S. Zemel, and M. Carreira-Perpindn. Multiscale conditional random fields for image labeling. In CVPR , 2004. -
  28. [34][34] G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. In NIPS , 2014. -
  29. [35][35] S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. Neural computation , 9(8):1735-1780, 1997. -
  30. [36][36] M. Holschneider, R. Kronland-Martinet, J. Morlet, and P. Tchamitchian. A real-time algorithm for signal analysis with the help of the wavelet transform. In Wavelets: TimeFrequency Methods and Phase Space , pages 289-297. 1989. -
  31. [37][37] J. Huang, V. Rathod, C. Sun, M. Zhu, A. Korattikara, A. Fathi, I. Fischer, Z. Wojna, Y . Song, S. Guadarrama, and K. Murphy. Speed/accuracy trade-offs for modern convolutional object detectors. In CVPR , 2017. -
  32. [38][38] S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. arXiv:1502.03167 , 2015. - · arXiv
  33. [39][39] M. A. Islam, M. Rochan, N. D. Bruce, and Y. Wang. Gated feedback refinement network for dense image labeling. In CVPR , 2017. -
  34. [40][40] S. D. Jain, B. Xiong, and K. Grauman. Fusionseg: Learning to combine motion and appearance for fully automatic segmention of generic objects in videos. In CVPR , 2017. -
  35. [41][41] V. Jampani, M. Kiefel, and P. V. Gehler. Learning sparse high dimensional filters: Image filtering, dense crfs and bilateral neural networks. In CVPR , 2016. -
  36. [42][42] X. Jin, X. Li, H. Xiao, X. Shen, Z. Lin, J. Yang, Y. Chen, J. Dong, L. Liu, Z. Jie, J. Feng, and S. Yan. Video scene parsing with predictive feature learning. In ICCV , 2017. -
  37. [43][43] P. Kohli, P. H. Torr, et al. Robust higher order potentials for enforcing label consistency. IJCV , 82(3):302-324, 2009. -
  38. [44][44] S. Kong and C. Fowlkes. Recurrent scene parsing with perspective understanding in the loop. arXiv:1705.07238 , 2017. - · arXiv
  39. [45][45] P. Kr¨ ahenb¨ uhl and V. Koltun. Efficient inference in fully connected crfs with gaussian edge potentials. In NIPS , 2011. -
  40. [46][46] I. Kreˇ so, S. ˇ Segvi´ c, and J. Krapac. Ladder-style densenets for semantic segmentation of large natural images. In ICCV CVRSUAD workshop , 2017. -
  41. [47][47] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In NIPS , 2012. -
  42. [48][48] L. Ladicky, C. Russell, P. Kohli, and P. H. Torr. Associative hierarchical crfs for object class image segmentation. In ICCV , 2009. -
  43. [49][49] S. Lazebnik, C. Schmid, and J. Ponce. Beyond bags of features: Spatial pyramid matching for recognizing natural scene categories. In CVPR , 2006. -
  44. [50][50] Y. LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard, W. Hubbard, and L. D. Jackel. Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition. Neural computation , 1(4):541-551, 1989. -
  45. [51][51] X. Li, Z. Jie, W. Wang, C. Liu, J. Yang, X. Shen, Z. Lin, Q. Chen, S. Yan, and J. Feng. Foveanet: Perspective-aware urban scene parsing. arXiv:1708.02421 , 2017. - · arXiv
  46. [52][52] X. Li, Z. Liu, P. Luo, C. C. Loy, and X. Tang. Not all pixels are equal: Difficulty-aware semantic segmentation via deep layer cascade. arXiv:1704.01344 , 2017. - · arXiv
  47. [53][53] X. Liang, X. Shen, D. Xiang, J. Feng, L. Lin, and S. Yan. Semantic object parsing with local-global long short-term memory. arXiv:1511.04510 , 2015. - · arXiv
  48. [54][54] G. Lin, A. Milan, C. Shen, and I. Reid. Refinenet: Multipath refinement networks with identity mappings for highresolution semantic segmentation. arXiv:1611.06612 , 2016. - · arXiv
  49. [55][55] G. Lin, C. Shen, I. Reid, et al. Efficient piecewise training of deep structured models for semantic segmentation. arXiv:1504.01013 , 2015. - · arXiv
  50. [56][56] T.-Y. Lin, P. Doll´ ar, R. Girshick, K. He, B. Hariharan, and S. Belongie. Feature pyramid networks for object detection. arXiv:1612.03144 , 2016. - · arXiv
  51. [57][57] T.-Y. Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Doll´ ar, and C. L. Zitnick. Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context. In ECCV , 2014. -
  52. [58][58] W. Liu, A. Rabinovich, and A. C. Berg. Parsenet: Looking wider to see better. arXiv:1506.04579 , 2015. - · arXiv
  53. [59][59] Z. Liu, X. Li, P. Luo, C. C. Loy, and X. Tang. Semantic image segmentation via deep parsing network. In ICCV , 2015. -
  54. [60][60] J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In CVPR , 2015. -
  55. [61][61] P. Luo, G. Wang, L. Lin, and X. Wang. Deep dual learning for semantic image segmentation. In ICCV , 2017. -
  56. [62][62] M. Mostajabi, P. Yadollahpour, and G. Shakhnarovich. Feedforward semantic segmentation with zoom-out features. In CVPR , 2015. -
  57. [63][63] R. Mottaghi, X. Chen, X. Liu, N.-G. Cho, S.-W. Lee, S. Fidler, R. Urtasun, and A. Yuille. The role of context for object detection and semantic segmentation in the wild. In CVPR , 2014. -
  58. [64][64] H. Noh, S. Hong, and B. Han. Learning deconvolution network for semantic segmentation. In ICCV , 2015. -
  59. [65][65] G. Papandreou, L.-C. Chen, K. Murphy, and A. L. Yuille. Weakly- and semi-supervised learning of a dcnn for semantic image segmentation. In ICCV , 2015. -
  60. [66][66] G. Papandreou, I. Kokkinos, and P.-A. Savalle. Modeling local and global deformations in deep learning: Epitomic convolution, multiple instance learning, and sliding window detection. In CVPR , 2015. -
  61. [67][67] G. Papandreou and P. Maragos. Multigrid geometric active contour models. TIP , 16(1):229-240, 2007. -
  62. [68][68] C. Peng, X. Zhang, G. Yu, G. Luo, and J. Sun. Large kernel matters-improve semantic segmentation by global convolutional network. arXiv:1703.02719 , 2017. - · arXiv
  63. [69][69] P. Pinheiro and R. Collobert. Recurrent convolutional neural networks for scene labeling. In ICML , 2014. -
  64. [70][70] T. Pohlen, A. Hermans, M. Mathias, and B. Leibe. Fullresolution residual networks for semantic segmentation in street scenes. arXiv:1611.08323 , 2016. - · arXiv
  65. [71][71] O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In MICCAI , 2015. -
  66. [72][72] O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. Bernstein, A. C. Berg, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge. IJCV , 2015. -
  67. [73][73] A. G. Schwing and R. Urtasun. Fully connected deep structured networks. arXiv:1503.02351 , 2015. - · arXiv
  68. [74][74] P. Sermanet, D. Eigen, X. Zhang, M. Mathieu, R. Fergus, and Y. LeCun. Overfeat: Integrated recognition, localization and 75. detection using convolutional networks. arXiv:1312.6229 , 2013. - · arXiv
  69. [75][75] F. Shen, R. Gan, S. Yan, and G. Zeng. Semantic segmentation via structured patch prediction, context crf and guidance crf. In CVPR , 2017. -
  70. [76][76] J. Shotton, J. Winn, C. Rother, and A. Criminisi. Textonboost for image understanding: Multi-class object recognition and segmentation by jointly modeling texture, layout, and context. IJCV , 2009. -
  71. [77][77] A. Shrivastava, R. Sukthankar, J. Malik, and A. Gupta. Beyond skip connections: Top-down modulation for object detection. arXiv:1612.06851 , 2016. - · arXiv
  72. [78][78] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In ICLR , 2015. -
  73. [79][79] C. Sun, A. Shrivastava, S. Singh, and A. Gupta. Revisiting unreasonable effectiveness of data in deep learning era. In ICCV , 2017. -
  74. [80][80] H. Sun, D. Xie, and S. Pu. Mixed context networks for semantic segmentation. arXiv:1610.05854 , 2016. - · arXiv
  75. [81][81] D. Terzopoulos. Image analysis using multigrid relaxation methods. TPAMI , (2):129-139, 1986. -
  76. [82][82] R. Vemulapalli, O. Tuzel, M.-Y. Liu, and R. Chellappa. Gaussian conditional random field network for semantic segmentation. In CVPR , 2016. -
  77. [83][83] G. Wang, P. Luo, L. Lin, and X. Wang. Learning object interactions and descriptions for semantic image segmentation. In CVPR , 2017. -
  78. [84][84] P. Wang, P. Chen, Y. Yuan, D. Liu, Z. Huang, X. Hou, and G. Cottrell. Understanding convolution for semantic segmentation. arXiv:1702.08502 , 2017. - · arXiv
  79. [85][85] Z. Wu, C. Shen, and A. van den Hengel. Bridging category-level and instance-level semantic image segmentation. arXiv:1605.06885 , 2016. - · arXiv
  80. [86][86] Z. Wu, C. Shen, and A. van den Hengel. Wider or deeper: Revisiting the resnet model for visual recognition. arXiv:1611.10080 , 2016. - · arXiv
  81. [87][87] F. Xia, P. Wang, L.-C. Chen, and A. L. Yuille. Zoom better to see clearer: Huamn part segmentation with auto zoom net. arXiv:1511.06881 , 2015. - · arXiv
  82. [88][88] Z. Yan, H. Zhang, Y. Jia, T. Breuel, and Y . Yu. Combining the best of convolutional layers and recurrent layers: A hybrid network for semantic segmentation. arXiv:1603.04871 , 2016. - · arXiv
  83. [89][89] J. Yao, S. Fidler, and R. Urtasun. Describing the scene as a whole: Joint object detection, scene classification and semantic segmentation. In CVPR , 2012. -
  84. [90][90] F. Yu and V. Koltun. Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions. In ICLR , 2016. -
  85. [91][91] S. Zagoruyko and N. Komodakis. Wide residual networks. arXiv:1605.07146 , 2016. - · arXiv
  86. [92][92] M. D. Zeiler, G. W. Taylor, and R. Fergus. Adaptive deconvolutional networks for mid and high level feature learning. In ICCV , 2011. -
  87. [93][93] R. Zhang, S. Tang, M. Lin, J. Li, and S. Yan. Global-residual and local-boundary refinement networks for rectifying scene parsing predictions. IJCAI , 2017. -
  88. [94][94] R. Zhang, S. Tang, Y. Zhang, J. Li, and S. Yan. Scale-adaptive convolutions for scene parsing. In ICCV , 2017. -
  89. [95][95] H. Zhao, J. Shi, X. Qi, X. Wang, and J. Jia. Pyramid scene parsing network. arXiv:1612.01105 , 2016. - · arXiv
  90. [96][96] S. Zheng, S. Jayasumana, B. Romera-Paredes, V. Vineet, Z. Su, D. Du, C. Huang, and P. Torr. Conditional random fields as recurrent neural networks. In ICCV , 2015. -
  91. [97][97] B. Zhou, H. Zhao, X. Puig, S. Fidler, A. Barriuso, and A. Torralba. Scene parsing through ade20k dataset. In CVPR , 2017. Table 13. Performance on Cityscapes test set. Coarse : Use train extra set (coarse annotations) as well. Only a few top models with known references are listed in this table. Figure 8. Visualization results on Cityscapes val set when training with only train fine set. <!-- image -->

Authors
Chen, L.-C., Papandreou, G., Schroff, F., & Adam, H.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1706.05587
arXiv
1706.05587
OpenAlex
W2630837129
Cited by
7,517
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 650 · 2024: 1263 · 2023: 1324 · 2022: 1100 · 2021: 1293 · 2020: 965 · 2019: 634 · 2018: 204 · 2017: 14
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • 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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
Keywords
dilated convolution, semantic segmentation, DeepLabV3+, atrous spatial pyramid pooling, multi-scale context, global context, multi-scale feature extraction

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