Papers › Learning Video Object Segmentation from Unlabeled Videos

Learning Video Object Segmentation from Unlabeled Videos

10 Mar 2020CVPR 2020 6arXiv:2003.05020archive 2025-07-28

Xiankai Lu, Wenguan Wang, Jianbing Shen, Yu-Wing Tai, David Crandall, Steven C. H. Hoi

We propose a new method for video object segmentation (VOS) that addresses object pattern learning from unlabeled videos, unlike most existing methods which rely heavily on extensive annotated data. We introduce a unified unsupervised/weakly supervised learning framework, called MuG, that comprehensively captures intrinsic properties of VOS at multiple granularities. Our approach can help advance understanding of visual patterns in VOS and significantly reduce annotation burden. With a carefully-designed architecture and strong representation learning ability, our learned model can be applied to diverse VOS settings, including object-level zero-shot VOS, instance-level zero-shot VOS, and one-shot VOS. Experiments demonstrate promising performance in these settings, as well as the potential of MuG in leveraging unlabeled data to further improve the segmentation accuracy.

PaperPDFConference PDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2003.05020")

Code

Syntology Ran 1 of 1 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract.

By repository: official repository: 1 sample from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

carrierlxk/MuG officialmentioned in paperpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

1 sample harvested; 1 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

1ran · honoured contract

Licence: 1 of the 1 sample is pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from carrierlxk/MuG. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

adjust_learning_rate carrierlxk/MuG/MuG_GOT_global_new_residual.py official repository ran · honoured contract no licence file found · pointer only · 86753726be289c26 · report

Tasks

ObjectRepresentation LearningSegmentationSemantic SegmentationSemi-Supervised Video Object SegmentationUnsupervised Video Object SegmentationVideo Object SegmentationVideo Semantic SegmentationWeakly-supervised Learning

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2016 MuG-W F-measure (Decay) 27.2 #75 of 78 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2016 MuG-W F-measure (Mean) 63.6 #75 of 78 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2016 MuG-W F-measure (Recall) 67.7 #75 of 78 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2016 MuG-W J&F 64.65 #75 of 78 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2016 MuG-W Jaccard (Decay) 26.4 #75 of 78 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2016 MuG-W Jaccard (Mean) 65.7 #75 of 78 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2016 MuG-W Jaccard (Recall) 77.7 #75 of 78 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (val) MuG-W F-measure (Decay) 37.4 #77 of 81 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (val) MuG-W F-measure (Mean) 58.0 #77 of 81 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (val) MuG-W F-measure (Recall) 62.2 #77 of 81 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (val) MuG-W J&F 56.05 #77 of 81 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (val) MuG-W Jaccard (Decay) 32.5 #77 of 81 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (val) MuG-W Jaccard (Mean) 54.1 #77 of 81 Archive leaderboard report
Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (val) MuG-W Jaccard (Recall) 60.5 #77 of 81 Archive leaderboard report
Unsupervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (test-dev) MuG-W F-measure (Decay) -1.7 #4 of 6 Archive leaderboard report
Unsupervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (test-dev) MuG-W F-measure (Mean) 44.5 #4 of 6 Archive leaderboard report
Unsupervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (test-dev) MuG-W F-measure (Recall) 46.6 #4 of 6 Archive leaderboard report
Unsupervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (test-dev) MuG-W J&F 41.7 #4 of 6 Archive leaderboard report
Unsupervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (test-dev) MuG-W Jaccard (Decay) -2.7 #4 of 6 Archive leaderboard report
Unsupervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (test-dev) MuG-W Jaccard (Mean) 38.9 #4 of 6 Archive leaderboard report
Unsupervised Video Object Segmentation DAVIS 2017 (test-dev) MuG-W Jaccard (Recall) 44.3 #4 of 6 Archive leaderboard report

Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections