TETRIS: Towards Exploring the Robustness of Interactive Segmentation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Interactive segmentation methods rely on user inputs to iteratively update the selection mask. A click specifying the object of interest is arguably the most simple and intuitive interaction type, and thereby the most common choice for interactive segmentation. However, user clicking patterns in the interactive segmentation context remain unexplored. Accordingly, interactive segmentation evaluation strategies rely more on intuition and common sense rather than empirical studies (e.g., assuming that users tend to click in the center of the area with the largest error). In this work, we conduct a real user study to investigate real user clicking patterns. This study reveals that the intuitive assumption made in the common evaluation strategy may not hold. As a result, interactive segmentation models may show high scores in the standard benchmarks, but it does not imply that they would perform well in a real world scenario. To assess the applicability of interactive segmentation methods, we propose a novel evaluation strategy providing a more comprehensive analysis of a model's performance. To this end, we propose a methodology for finding extreme user inputs by a direct optimization in a white-box adversarial attack on the interactive segmentation model. Based on the performance with such adversarial user inputs, we assess the robustness of interactive segmentation models w.r.t click positions. Besides, we introduce a novel benchmark for measuring the robustness of interactive segmentation, and report the results of an extensive evaluation of dozens of models.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Feb 2024.
Builds on
25 of 50 references.
References · 25
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
- 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,441
- 2023Segment Anythingcited by 8,158
- 2016DeepLab: Semantic Image Segmentation with Deep Convolutional Nets, Atrous Convolution, and Fully Connected CRFscited by 3,239
- 2017One pixel attack for fooling deep neural networkscited by 579
- 2017Decision-Based Adversarial Attacks: Reliable Attacks Against Black-Box Machine Learning Modelscited by 459
- 2023Faster Segment Anything: Towards Lightweight SAM for Mobile Applicationscited by 345
- 2021Boundary IoU: Improving Object-Centric Image Segmentation Evaluationcited by 186
- 2021Reviving Iterative Training with Mask Guidance for Interactive Segmentationcited by 162
- 2016Deep Interactive Object Selectioncited by 160
- 2017Deep Image Mattingcited by 150
13 more
- 2020f-BRS: Rethinking Backpropagating Refinement for Interactive Segmentationcited by 117
- 2020CascadePSP: Toward Class-Agnostic and Very High-Resolution Segmentation via Global and Local Refinementcited by 113
- 2019Benchmarking the Robustness of Semantic Segmentation Modelscited by 111
- 2022SimpleClick: Interactive Image Segmentation with Simple Vision Transformerscited by 109
- 2020Bridging Composite and Real: Towards End-to-end Deep Image Mattingcited by 89
- 2017Extreme clicking for efficient object annotationcited by 80
- 2021Deep Automatic Natural Image Mattingcited by 59
- 2022MatteFormer: Transformer-Based Image Matting via Prior-Tokenscited by 48
- 2023Robustness of SAM: Segment Anything Under Corruptions and Beyondcited by 30
- 2023An Empirical Study on the Robustness of the Segment Anything Model (SAM)cited by 23
- 2020Meticulous Object Segmentationcited by 8
- 2023BadSAM: Exploring Security Vulnerabilities of SAM via Backdoor Attackscited by 7
- 2021Deep Image Matting with Flexible Guidance Inputcited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
2 papers.