Papers › Rethinking Interactive Image Segmentation with Low Latency, High Quality, and Diverse Prompts

Rethinking Interactive Image Segmentation with Low Latency, High Quality, and Diverse Prompts

31 Mar 2024arXiv:2404.00741archive 2025-07-28

Qin Liu, Jaemin Cho, Mohit Bansal, Marc Niethammer

The goal of interactive image segmentation is to delineate specific regions within an image via visual or language prompts. Low-latency and high-quality interactive segmentation with diverse prompts remain challenging for existing specialist and generalist models. Specialist models, with their limited prompts and task-specific designs, experience high latency because the image must be recomputed every time the prompt is updated, due to the joint encoding of image and visual prompts. Generalist models, exemplified by the Segment Anything Model (SAM), have recently excelled in prompt diversity and efficiency, lifting image segmentation to the foundation model era. However, for high-quality segmentations, SAM still lags behind state-of-the-art specialist models despite SAM being trained with x100 more segmentation masks. In this work, we delve deep into the architectural differences between the two types of models. We observe that dense representation and fusion of visual prompts are the key design choices contributing to the high segmentation quality of specialist models. In light of this, we reintroduce this dense design into the generalist models, to facilitate the development of generalist models with high segmentation quality. To densely represent diverse visual prompts, we propose to use a dense map to capture five types: clicks, boxes, polygons, scribbles, and masks. Thus, we propose SegNext, a next-generation interactive segmentation approach offering low latency, high quality, and diverse prompt support. Our method outperforms current state-of-the-art methods on HQSeg-44K and DAVIS, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Code

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

3 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 3 samples are 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 uncbiag/segnext. “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.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

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