EAGLE: Efficient Adaptive Geometry-based Learning in Cross-view Understanding

Unsupervised Domain Adaptation has been an efficient approach to transferring the semantic segmentation model across data distributions. Meanwhile, the recent Open-vocabulary Semantic Scene understanding based on large-scale vision language models is effective in open-set settings because it can learn diverse concepts and categories. However, these prior methods fail to generalize across different camera views due to the lack of cross-view geometric modeling. At present, there are limited studies analyzing cross-view learning. To address this problem, we introduce a novel Unsupervised Cross-view Adaptation Learning approach to modeling the geometric structural change across views in Semantic Scene Understanding. First, we introduce a novel Cross-view Geometric Constraint on Unpaired Data to model structural changes in images and segmentation masks across cameras. Second, we present a new Geodesic Flow-based Correlation Metric to efficiently measure the geometric structural changes across camera views. Third, we introduce a novel view-condition prompting mechanism to enhance the view-information modeling of the open-vocabulary segmentation network in cross-view adaptation learning. The experiments on different cross-view adaptation benchmarks have shown the effectiveness of our approach in cross-view modeling, demonstrating that we achieve State-of-the-Art (SOTA) performance compared to prior unsupervised domain adaptation and open-vocabulary semantic segmentation methods.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer 29y13/10 · confidence 5/52024-07-09

Summary

This paper proposes a domain adaptive semantic segmentation method under the cross-view (front view to top view) setting. It addresses this using vision-language models for additional supervision. It proposes a cross-view geometric constraint to model the structural changes and similarities between two vastly different viewpoint. The paper presents detailed quantitative results, with comparisons and ablations

Strengths

1. The paper addresses an important and practical problem. 2. The method proposed in the paper is well-tailored for the problem at hand, and appears to be solid. It seems intuitive and logical. 3. The quantitative results presented clearly show the efficacy of the method.

Weaknesses

My main problem with the paper is the lack of qualitative results. The main paper barely has any qualitative results. The supplementary video shows just one specific video. I am unable to judge the performance of the method without good qualitative analysis. As in all semantic segmentation papers, it would be good to see where prior work fails, and how each of the components presented in the method help the case. Essentially, it is important to provide qualitative results for the comparisons, the ablations, and as well as the method. Given that the performance improvement as depicted by the quantitative results is large, the qualitative improvements should be clearly visible too, and hence it is beneficial to add those results. Also, one main motivation for using a VLM is the open set setting (as described in the abstract). While described as a key point in the paper, none of the experimental benchmarks deal with that.

Questions

Since it is not possible to provide qualitative results in the rebuttal, and since it not possible to properly validate the effectiveness of the proposed semantic segmentation method without qualitative results, I am rejecting the paper at this stage.

Rating

3

Confidence

5

Soundness

2

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

Yes, in page 9

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Feedback to Reviewer Response

Dear Reviewer 29y1, As shown in the following table (the detailed comparison can be found in Table 4, page 8 in the paper), our EAGLE has outperformed CROVIA and ProDA. We believe the improvement compared to CROVIA is also illustrated in the visualization (as our comparison with ProDA) due to our reproduced results. **In our revised paper, we will add more qualitative comparisons between our method and CROVIA and release our implementation for research reproducibility (both quantitative and qualitative results).** | SYNTHIA to UAVID | Road | Building | Car | Tree | Person | mIoU | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | ProDA | 10.6 | 64.7 | 34.1 | 44.5 | 17.0 | 34.2 | | CROVIA | 10.6 | 65.7 | 51.7 | 55.6 | 17.0 | 40.0 | | **EAGLE** | **29.9** | **65.7** | **55.5** | **56.8** | **18.3** | **45.2** | If you have any other concerns, please do not hesitate to raise your questions. We are happy to address your questions. Thank you very much, Authors

Reviewer JhPV7/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-11

Summary

The paper introduces a novel method for Unsupervised Domain Adaption to adapt an open-vocabulary segmentation model across different views. To achieve this, the authors introduce a cross-view geometric constraint that captures structural changes between different views. Further, a Geodesic Flow-based Metric is introduced to measure the structural changes across scenes. They also adapt the prompting scheme to take into account the change in viewpoints.

Strengths

- The paper feature a good range of contributions, which are intuitive and interesting - The proposed task of unsupervised cross-view adaptation is novel and seems useful - The idea is well motivated - The paper is well written and clearly explains the proposed concepts - Table 2 nicely outlines the impact of the individual technical contributions

Weaknesses

- The layout of the paper seems a bit cramped. It would have been nice to have larger visualizations. Also, many of the tables, especially those in the ablations, seem super cramped and the reader has to zoom in significantly. I understand the authors wanted to put as much information as possible into the paper, but this led to a presentation that is not top notch. - Table 3 has no visual separation between the results for different classes, and overall mIoU. This visual separation (e.g. vertical line) would be nice to have.

Questions

Personally, I would appreciate if the authors could further improve the presentation of the paper. While the technical contributions are solid and the writing is nice, the visualizations and tables would benefit from being larger and better integrated with the text. For example, by moving Table 6 to the supplementary, the authors could free up space for the very relevant Table 5. I would appreciate an improved presentation, but also understand that this can be challenging with the given space constraints.

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

4

Presentation

3

Contribution

4

Limitations

The authors have sufficiently addressed the limitations of their approach.

Reviewer 8Etw6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

This work proposed a novel unsupervised adaptation method for modeling structural change across different views. Additionally, the paper introduced a new metric for cross-view changes and a new prompting mechanism for cross-view open vocabulary segmentation. Through extensive experiments, the paper shows SoTA performance compared to previous unsupervised methods in cross-view semantic scene understanding.

Strengths

1.The proposed method can be trained on unpaired data, enhancing its potential for practical applications. 2.The paper proposed a new cross-view change modeling method via geodesic flow path, which effectively models the cross-view segmentation correlation. 3.The newly introduced method demonstrated SoTA performance across various cross-view adaptation benchmarks. 4.The paper provides thorough mathematical derivations and theoretical analysis, along with well-designed experiments.

Weaknesses

1.The visualization results in this paper are limited. It is necessary to supplement more visualizations of segmentation results compared with the existing methods in the paper, which will help support the experimental conclusions. 2.Generalizing the experiments to include more UAD datasets, such as SynDrone[1], UDD[2], and ICG Drone[3], would enhance the robustness and credibility of the results. 3.The motivation behind the design of the adaptation loss should be explained more clearly. 4.The performance improvement in open-vocab segmentation is not very significant. [1] SynDrone – Multi-modal UAV Dataset for Urban Scenarios. [2] Large-scale structure from motion with semantic constraints of aerial images. [3] ICG Drone Dataset.

Questions

1.The performance of the building category in open-vocab segmentation on unseen classes is intriguing. 2.The notation "ν ∈ [0..1] → Π(ν)" in line 241 is misleading.

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors discussed the limitation of this paper in the appendix, including the choice of hyperparameters, lack of more diverse class labels and flaws in their original mathematical hypothesis.

Reviewer upJj6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-19

Summary

The paper tackles a problem called cross-view semantic segmentation by using unsupervised domain adaptation methods. The cross-view means from the front-view to top-down view, ie, from car to drone. It recognizes the limitations of existing unsupervised domain adaptation and open-vocabulary semantic segmentation methods in handling geometric variations across different camera views. The paper demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed approach through extensive experiments on cross-view adaptation benchmarks, achieving state-of-the-art performance compared to existing UDA methods.

Strengths

The authors propose a novel unsupervised cross-view adaptation approach. This approach includes a cross-view geometric constraint to model structural changes between images and segmentation masks, a geodesic flow-based correlation metric for efficient geometric comparison, and a view-condition prompting mechanism to enhance the capabilities. The proposed method has significant gains as compared to the initial method CROVIA for car-to-drone scene segmentation UDA. Although this is not a new setting, the improvement compared to the baseline is good. The experiments are conducted in three settings of the car-to-drone UDA, and it also includes ablation study to verify effect of different components.

Weaknesses

The comparison between the other view transformation methods and the proposed cross-view learning method is not included. Most of the UDA methods are tailored for the front-view street scenes, like AdvEnt, ProDA, SAC. More recent and advanced open-vocab semantic segmentation methods should be included in the experiment section. For example, x-decoder, cat-seg, clip-as-RNN, etc.

Questions

How is the difference of UDA settings between CROVIA and the proposed in this paper? In the introduction, the authors claim that “However, the open-vocab perception models remain unable to generalize across camera viewpoints.” It would be better to show the limitation or performance along with this observation. For example, the model with and without using a cross-view setting. From eq 3 to 5, for the purpose of geometric adaptation on unpaired data, the problem is that the matrices between source and target domain data are not available. How about using estimated camera matrices for the geometric correlation in eq 3 and 4? The cross-view learning framework is based on the geodesic flow. How about the comparison with other view transformation methods? For example, in the birds-eye-view semantic segmentation domain, there are different transformation methods, such as: [1] Pan, B., Sun, J., Leung, H. Y. T., Andonian, A., & Zhou, B. (2020). Cross-view semantic segmentation for sensing surroundings. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(3), 4867-4873. In Table 4, how about the comparison for BDD→ UAVID? Also, how about applying tye cross-view setting for other DA methods that are proposed for front-view? How about using the state-of-the-art open-vocab methods? For example, x-decoder, cat-seg, clip-as-RNN, to name a few. [2] Zou, X., Dou, Z. Y., Yang, J., Gan, Z., Li, L., Li, C., ... & Gao, J. (2023). Generalized decoding for pixel, image, and language. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 15116-15127). [3] Cho, S., Shin, H., Hong, S., Arnab, A., Seo, P. H., & Kim, S. (2024). Cat-seg: Cost aggregation for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 4113-4123). [4] Sun, S., Li, R., Torr, P., Gu, X., & Li, S. (2024). Clip as rnn: Segment countless visual concepts without training endeavor. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 13171-13182). [5] Wysoczańska, M., Siméoni, O., Ramamonjisoa, M., Bursuc, A., Trzciński, T., & Pérez, P. (2023). Clip-dinoiser: Teaching clip a few dino tricks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12359. In Table 4, what is the reason that the method with DAFormer outperforms the one with Mask2Former. It is also very interesting why applying a larger or advanced model cannot obtain improvements. In Remark 3, the grassmannn manifold is presented for the cross-view modeling method, how about the two subspaces of source and target domain? What is the difference of the feature distributions before and after domain adaptation, such as t-sne visualization? It would be suggested to showcase the training process and the computational complexity of the proposed methods individually, such as in the ablation study. Apart from performance, training and runtime are also important for UAVs application.

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The target domain is limited in only one dataset. There are different UVA datasets public available. But this is not a very large concern, because the experiments are conducted with three different source domains.

Reviewer 29y12024-08-09

Response to rebuttal

Thanks a lot for the detailed rebuttal, I really appreciate your time and efforts in this. I went through the other reviews, as well as the detailed responses. Thank you for the clarification on the open-set setting. Regarding qualitative results, is there any particular reason why comparisons are shown against PRODA (2021) and not CROVIA (2023)? I see in Table 4 that the improvement of the method in the paper over CROVIA is 5%, so it would be nice to see where exactly the improvement is coming from. I understand that the code of CROVIA is not open-source, but since the NeurIPS submission has additional results on CROVIA (over what is reported in the CROVIA paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.07199), I believe you have an implementation, it'll be nice to see those qualitative comparisons.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-09

Response to Reviewer's Feedback

Dear Reviewer 29y1, We are glad that our rebuttal has addressed your concerns related to open-set settings. For clarification of our visualization results, we prefer the ProDA method for comparison in our rebuttal since ProDA is officially published in CVPR 2021. Meanwhile, CROVIA is only available in a preprint in arXiv. We would like to thank you for your suggestions. We will add more qualitative comparisons between our method and CROVIA in our revised paper. For clarification of performance improvement compared to CROVIA, our EAGLE approach models the cross-view geometric structural changes via the geodesic flow path. Meanwhile, CROVIA measures the cross-view structural changes by measuring the distribution shift. Thus, our approach can efficiently measure structural changes across views via their manifold structure between two views, more intuitive compared to measuring the distribution shift used in CROVIA. For example, as shown in Figure 5 (page 9) in the CROVIA paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.07199), we have seen that the segmentation of the class “Person” is not as good as our EAGLE approach. Our quantitative performance in Table 4 also illustrates that our approach performs better than CROVIA. If you have any other concerns, please do not hesitate to raise your questions. We are happy to address your questions. Thank you very much, Authors

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Rebuttal Follow Up

Dear Reviewer 29y1, Thank you very much for your insightful feedback. The reviewer-author discussion deadline is nearing. We have not received your final response to our final rebuttal. Therefore, we are reaching out to you to ensure that our rebuttal effectively addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions, please let us know. We appreciate your invaluable input. Thank you very much, Authors

Reviewer 29y12024-08-13

Dear authors, Thank you for your responses. I believe it'll be great to see qualitative comparisons against CROVIA. I feel these comparisons will be significant in demonstrating the superiority of the method given the large quantitative improvements. It is unclear why these comparisons were omitted in the rebuttal pdf, especially considering that ProDA is a 2021 paper. Additionally, the NeurIPS submission provided further quantitative results on CROVIA (2023) beyond those in the original CROVIA paper, suggesting that an implementation was available. Thanks, Reviewer

Reviewer 8Etw2024-08-13

I appreciate the authors for providing clarifications and additional experimental results, which have addressed some of my concerns. I will keep my score.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Response to Reviewer Feedback

Dear Reviewer 8Etw, We would like to thank you for your invaluable feedback and positive rating. We are glad that our rebuttal has addressed your concerns. We are committed to revising our paper according to your recommendations to improve the quality of our paper. Thank you very much, Authors

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Rebuttal Follow Up

Dear Reviewer upJj, Thank you so much for your positive rating and insightful feedback! As the reviewer-author discussion is approaching the deadline, we are reaching out to you to ensure that our rebuttal effectively addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions, please let us know. We appreciate your invaluable input. Thank you very much, Authors

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC