mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

SoftPQ: Robust Instance Segmentation Evaluation via Soft Matching and Tunable Thresholds

arXiv 2505.12155 ↗First posted 17 May 2025cs.CV cs.AI cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Segmentation evaluation metrics traditionally rely on binary decision logic: predictions are either correct or incorrect, based on rigid IoU thresholds. Detection--based metrics such as F1 and mAP determine correctness at the object level using fixed overlap cutoffs, while overlap--based metrics like Intersection over Union (IoU) and Dice operate at the pixel level, often overlooking instance--level structure. Panoptic Quality (PQ) attempts to unify detection and segmentation assessment, but it remains dependent on hard-threshold matching--treating predictions below the threshold as entirely incorrect. This binary framing obscures important distinctions between qualitatively different errors and fails to reward gradual model improvements. We propose SoftPQ, a flexible and interpretable instance segmentation metric that redefines evaluation as a graded continuum rather than a binary classification. SoftPQ introduces tunable upper and lower IoU thresholds to define a partial matching region and applies a sublinear penalty function to ambiguous or fragmented predictions. These extensions allow SoftPQ to exhibit smoother score behavior, greater robustness to structural segmentation errors, and more informative feedback for model development and evaluation. Through controlled perturbation experiments, we show that SoftPQ captures meaningful differences in segmentation quality that existing metrics overlook, making it a practical and principled alternative for both benchmarking and iterative model refinement.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 May 2025.

Builds on

8 of 14 references.

References · 8

  1. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
  2. 2018Panoptic Segmentationcited by 802
  3. 2022Metrics reloaded: Recommendations for image analysis validationcited by 195
  4. 2021Boundary IoU: Improving Object-Centric Image Segmentation Evaluationcited by 188
  5. 2023Revisiting Evaluation Metrics for Semantic Segmentation: Optimization and Evaluation of Fine-grained Intersection over Unioncited by 17
  6. 2023Boundary Difference Over Union Loss For Medical Image Segmentationcited by 13
  7. 2023SortedAP: Rethinking evaluation metrics for instance segmentationcited by 8
  8. 2022Beyond mAP: Towards better evaluation of instance segmentationcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.