summaries: This paper discusses per-pixel classification and mask classification for semantic segmentation. It shows that mask classification is sufficiently general to solve semantic and instance segmentation in a unified manner. Thorough experiments are conducted on several benchmarks for both semantic and panoptic segmentation.  This paper focuses on the problem of semantic segmentation. Traditional semantic segmentation methods mainly adopt the FCN kind of structure and treat the task as per-pixel classification. While in this paper, the author reformulates the task into binary mask prediction and extra-label classification. The proposed method named MaskFormer could be utilized for both semantic segmentation and panoptic segmentation tasks, and the experimental evaluations on different datasets look promising. In this paper the authors present a technique to directly predict the mask and class label for semantic and panoptic segmentation. This is different from current state of the aret where per pixel labels are produced which are then process to obtain region masks and labels. The method consists of a backbone encoder which produces an image embedding, whic is fed into the backbon decoder to get pixel level embedding and to the transform decoder, the out of the transformer decode processed by an MLP provides the mask embedding. The mask embeddings and the pixel embeddings are used to get mask prdication. Whereas the class predictions are obtained throught the MLP output.  The method is tested on semantic segmentation datsets and produce comparable or better results on four datasets. This paper proposes a transformer-based model, called MaskFormer for semantic segmentation task. MaskFormer treats semantic segmentation as a mask classification problem, and predicts a set of binary masks with the corresponding class labels.  The proposed approach can be easily extended for panoptic segmentaion task. Experimental evaluations for semantic segmentation and panoptic segmentation tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed method.
abstractText: Modern approaches typically formulate semantic segmentation as a per-pixel classification task, while instance-level segmentation is handled with an alternative mask classification. Our key insight: mask classification is sufficiently general to solve both semanticand instance-level segmentation tasks in a unified manner using the exact same model, loss, and training procedure. Following this observation, we propose MaskFormer, a simple mask classification model which predicts a set of binary masks, each associated with a single global class label prediction. Overall, the proposed mask classification-based method simplifies the landscape of effective approaches to semantic and panoptic segmentation tasks and shows excellent empirical results. In particular, we observe that MaskFormer outperforms per-pixel classification baselines when the number of classes is large. Our mask classification-based method outperforms both current state-of-the-art semantic (55.6 mIoU on ADE20K) and panoptic segmentation (52.7 PQ on COCO) models.1
authors.name: Bowen Cheng
authors.name: Alexander G. Schwing
authors.name: Alexander Kirillov
references.authors: Pablo Arbeláez Jordi Pont-Tuset Jonathan T Barron Ferran Marques Jitendra Malik
references.title: Multiscale combinatorial grouping
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Holger Caesar Jasper Uijlings Vittorio Ferrari
references.title: COCO-Stuff: Thing and stuff classes in context
references.venue: In CVPR, 2018
references.authors: Joao Carreira Rui Caseiro Jorge Batista Cristian Sminchisescu
references.title: Semantic segmentation with second-order pooling
references.venue: In ECCV,
references.authors: Joao Carreira Cristian Sminchisescu
references.title: CPMC: Automatic object segmentation using constrained parametric min-cuts
references.authors: Liang-Chieh Chen George Papandreou Iasonas Kokkinos Kevin Murphy Alan L Yuille
references.title: DeepLab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected CRFs
references.venue: PAMI, 2018
references.authors: Liang-Chieh Chen George Papandreou Florian Schroff Hartwig Adam
references.title: Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation
references.authors: Liang-Chieh Chen Yukun Zhu George Papandreou Florian Schroff Hartwig Adam
references.title: Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation
references.venue: In ECCV, 2018
references.authors: Bowen Cheng Liang-Chieh Chen Yunchao Wei Yukun Zhu Zilong Huang Jinjun Xiong Thomas S Huang Wen-Mei Hwu Honghui Shi
references.title: SPGNet: Semantic prediction guidance for scene parsing
references.authors: Bowen Cheng Maxwell D Collins Yukun Zhu Ting Liu Thomas S Huang Hartwig Adam Liang- Chieh Chen
references.title: Panoptic-DeepLab: A simple, strong, and fast baseline for bottom-up panoptic segmentation
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Dorin Comaniciu Peter Meer
references.title: Robust Analysis of Feature Spaces: Color Image Segmentation
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Marius Cordts Mohamed Omran Sebastian Ramos Timo Rehfeld Markus Enzweiler Rodrigo Benenson Uwe Franke Stefan Roth Bernt Schiele
references.title: The Cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Jifeng Dai Kaiming He Jian Sun
references.title: Convolutional feature masking for joint object and stuff segmentation
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Alexey Dosovitskiy Lucas Beyer Alexander Kolesnikov Dirk Weissenborn Xiaohua Zhai Thomas Unterthiner Mostafa Dehghani Matthias Minderer Georg Heigold Sylvain Gelly
references.title: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale
references.venue: In ICLR,
references.authors: Mark Everingham SM Ali Eslami Luc Van Gool Christopher KI Williams John Winn Andrew Zisserman
references.title: The PASCAL visual object classes challenge: A retrospective
references.authors: Jun Fu Jing Liu Haijie Tian Yong Li Yongjun Bao Zhiwei Fang Hanqing Lu
references.title: Dual attention network for scene segmentation
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Bharath Hariharan Pablo Arbeláez Ross Girshick Jitendra Malik
references.title: Simultaneous detection and segmentation
references.venue: In ECCV,
references.authors: Kaiming He Georgia Gkioxari Piotr Dollár Ross Girshick
references.title: Mask R-CNN
references.venue: In ICCV, 2017
references.authors: Kaiming He Xiangyu Zhang Shaoqing Ren Jian Sun
references.title: Deep residual learning for image recognition
references.venue: In CVPR, 2016
references.authors: Zilong Huang Xinggang Wang Lichao Huang Chang Huang Yunchao Wei Wenyu Liu
references.title: CCNet: Criss-cross attention for semantic segmentation
references.venue: In ICCV,
references.authors: Scott Konishi Alan Yuille
references.title: Statistical Cues for Domain Specific Image Segmentation with Performance Analysis
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Tsung-Yi Lin Piotr Dollár Ross Girshick Kaiming He Bharath Hariharan Serge Belongie
references.title: Feature pyramid networks for object detection
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Tsung-Yi Lin Priya Goyal Ross Girshick Kaiming He Piotr Dollár
references.title: Focal loss for dense object detection
references.venue: In ICCV,
references.authors: Tsung-Yi Lin Michael Maire Serge Belongie James Hays Pietro Perona Deva Ramanan Piotr Dollár C Lawrence Zitnick
references.title: Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context
references.venue: In ECCV,
references.authors: Ze Liu Yutong Lin Yue Cao Han Hu Yixuan Wei Zheng Zhang Stephen Lin Baining Guo
references.title: Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows
references.authors: Jonathan Long Evan Shelhamer Trevor Darrell
references.title: Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Ilya Loshchilov Frank Hutter
references.title: Decoupled weight decay regularization
references.venue: In ICLR,
references.authors: Fausto Milletari Nassir Navab Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi
references.title: V-Net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation
references.venue: In 3DV,
references.authors: Gerhard Neuhold Tobias Ollmann Samuel Rota Bulò Peter Kontschieder
references.title: The mapillary vistas dataset for semantic understanding of street scenes
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Jianbo Shi Jitendra Malik
references.title: Normalized Cuts and Image Segmentation
references.authors: Zhi Tian Chunhua Shen Hao Chen
references.title: Conditional convolutions for instance segmentation
references.venue: In ECCV,
references.authors: Jasper RR Uijlings Koen EA Van De Sande Theo Gevers Arnold WM Smeulders
references.title: Selective search for object recognition
references.authors: Ashish Vaswani Noam Shazeer Niki Parmar Jakob Uszkoreit Llion Jones Aidan N Gomez Lukasz Kaiser Illia Polosukhin
references.title: Attention is all you need
references.venue: In NeurIPS, 2017
references.authors: Huiyu Wang Yukun Zhu Hartwig Adam Alan Yuille Liang-Chieh Chen
references.title: MaX-DeepLab: End-to-end panoptic segmentation with mask transformers
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Xiaolong Wang Ross Girshick Abhinav Gupta Kaiming He
references.title: Non-local neural networks
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Xinlong Wang Rufeng Zhang Tao Kong Lei Li Chunhua Shen
references.title: SOLOv2: Dynamic and fast instance segmentation
references.venue: NeurIPS,
references.authors: Yuxin Wu Alexander Kirillov Francisco Massa Wan-Yen Lo Ross Girshick
references.title: Detectron2. https: //github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2, 2019
references.authors: Tete Xiao Yingcheng Liu Bolei Zhou Yuning Jiang Jian Sun
references.title: Unified perceptual parsing for scene understanding
references.venue: In ECCV,
references.authors: Yuhui Yuan Xilin Chen Jingdong Wang
references.title: Object-contextual representations for semantic segmentation
references.venue: In ECCV,
references.authors: Yuhui Yuan Lang Huang Jianyuan Guo Chao Zhang Xilin Chen Jingdong Wang
references.title: OCNet: Object context for semantic segmentation
references.authors: Hengshuang Zhao Jianping Shi Xiaojuan Qi Xiaogang Wang Jiaya Jia
references.title: Pyramid scene parsing network
references.venue: In CVPR, 2017
references.authors: Sixiao Zheng Jiachen Lu Hengshuang Zhao Xiatian Zhu Zekun Luo Yabiao Wang Yanwei Fu Jianfeng Feng Tao Xiang Philip HS Torr
references.title: Rethinking semantic segmentation from a sequence-to-sequence perspective with transformers
references.venue: In CVPR,
references.authors: Bolei Zhou Hang Zhao Xavier Puig Sanja Fidler Adela Barriuso Antonio Torralba
references.title: Scene parsing challenge 2016
references.venue: http://sceneparsing.csail.mit.edu/index_challenge.html,
references.authors: Bolei Zhou Hang Zhao Xavier Puig Sanja Fidler Adela Barriuso Antonio Torralba
references.title: Scene parsing through ADE20K dataset
references.venue: In CVPR, 2017
sections.heading: 1 Introduction
sections.text: The goal of semantic segmentation is to partition an image into regions with different semantic categories. Starting from Fully Convolutional Networks (FCNs) work of Long et al. [28], most deep learning-based semantic segmentation approaches formulate semantic segmentation as per-pixel classification (Figure 1 left), applying a classification loss to each output pixel [8, 46]. Per-pixel predictions in this formulation naturally partition an image into regions of different classes.
  Mask classification is an alternative paradigm that disentangles the image partitioning and classification aspects of segmentation. Instead of classifying each pixel, mask classification-based methods predict a set of binary masks, each associated with a single class prediction (Figure 1 right). The more flexible mask classification dominates the field of instance-level segmentation. Both Mask R-CNN [19] and DETR [3] yield a single class prediction per segment for instance and panoptic segmentation. In contrast, per-pixel classification assumes a static number of outputs and cannot return a variable number of predicted regions/segments, which is required for instance-level tasks.
  Our key observation: mask classification is sufficiently general to solve both semantic- and instancelevel segmentation tasks. In fact, before FCN [28], the best performing semantic segmentation methods like O2P [4] and SDS [18] used a mask classification formulation. Given this perspective, a natural question emerges: can a single mask classification model simplify the landscape of effective approaches to semantic- and instance-level segmentation tasks? And can such a mask classification model outperform existing per-pixel classification methods for semantic segmentation?
  To address both questions we propose a simple MaskFormer approach that seamlessly converts any existing per-pixel classification model into a mask classification. Using the set prediction mechanism proposed in DETR [3], MaskFormer employs a Transformer decoder [37] to compute a set of pairs,
  ∗Work partly done during an internship at Facebook AI Research. 1Project page: https://bowenc0221.github.io/maskformer
  35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2021).
  each consisting of a class prediction and a mask embedding vector. The mask embedding vector is used to get the binary mask prediction via a dot product with the per-pixel embedding obtained from an underlying fully-convolutional network. The new model solves both semantic- and instance-level segmentation tasks in a unified manner: no changes to the model, losses, and training procedure are required. Specifically, for semantic and panoptic segmentation tasks alike, MaskFormer is supervised with the same per-pixel binary mask loss and a single classification loss per mask. Finally, we design a simple inference strategy to blend MaskFormer outputs into a task-dependent prediction format.
  We evaluate MaskFormer on five semantic segmentation datasets with various numbers of categories: Cityscapes [13] (19 classes), Mapillary Vistas [31] (65 classes), ADE20K [49] (150 classes), COCOStuff-10K [2] (171 classes), and ADE20K-Full [49] (847 classes). While MaskFormer performs on par with per-pixel classification models for Cityscapes, which has a few diverse classes, the new model demonstrates superior performance for datasets with larger vocabulary. We hypothesize that a single class prediction per mask models fine-grained recognition better than per-pixel class predictions. MaskFormer achieves the new state-of-the-art on ADE20K (55.6 mIoU) with Swin-Transformer [27] backbone, outperforming a per-pixel classification model [27] with the same backbone by 2.1 mIoU, while being more efficient (10% reduction in parameters and 40% reduction in FLOPs).
  Finally, we study MaskFormer’s ability to solve instance-level tasks using two panoptic segmentation datasets: COCO [26, 22] and ADE20K [49]. MaskFormer outperforms a more complex DETR model [3] with the same backbone and the same post-processing. Moreover, MaskFormer achieves the new state-of-the-art on COCO (52.7 PQ), outperforming prior state-of-the-art [38] by 1.6 PQ. Our experiments highlight MaskFormer’s ability to unify instance- and semantic-level segmentation.
sections.heading: 2 Related Works
sections.text: Both per-pixel classification and mask classification have been extensively studied for semantic segmentation. In early work, Konishi and Yuille [23] apply per-pixel Bayesian classifiers based on local image statistics. Then, inspired by early works on non-semantic groupings [11, 33], mask classification-based methods became popular demonstrating the best performance in PASCAL VOC challenges [16]. Methods like O2P [4] and CFM [14] have achieved state-of-the-art results by classifying mask proposals [5, 36, 1]. In 2015, FCN [28] extended the idea of per-pixel classification to deep nets, significantly outperforming all prior methods on mIoU (a per-pixel evaluation metric which particularly suits the per-pixel classification formulation of segmentation).
  Per-pixel classification became the dominant way for deep-net-based semantic segmentation since the seminal work of Fully Convolutional Networks (FCNs) [28]. Modern semantic segmentation models focus on aggregating long-range context in the final feature map: ASPP [6, 7] uses atrous convolutions with different atrous rates; PPM [46] uses pooling operators with different kernel sizes; DANet [17], OCNet [45], and CCNet [21] use different variants of non-local blocks [39]. Recently, SETR [47] and Segmenter [34] replace traditional convolutional backbones with Vision Transformers (ViT) [15] that capture long-range context starting from the very first layer. However, these concurrent Transformer-based [37] semantic segmentation approaches still use a per-pixel classification
  formulation. Note, that our MaskFormer module can convert any per-pixel classification model to the mask classification setting, allowing seamless adoption of advances in per-pixel classification.
  Mask classification is commonly used for instance-level segmentation tasks [18, 22]. These tasks require a dynamic number of predictions, making application of per-pixel classification challenging as it assumes a static number of outputs. Omnipresent Mask R-CNN [19] uses a global classifier to classify mask proposals for instance segmentation. DETR [3] further incorporates a Transformer [37] design to handle thing and stuff segmentation simultaneously for panoptic segmentation [22]. However, these mask classification methods require predictions of bounding boxes, which may limit their usage in semantic segmentation. The recently proposed Max-DeepLab [38] removes the dependence on box predictions for panoptic segmentation with conditional convolutions [35, 40]. However, in addition to the main mask classification losses it requires multiple auxiliary losses (i.e., instance discrimination loss, mask-ID cross entropy loss, and the standard per-pixel classification loss).
sections.heading: 3 From Per-Pixel to Mask Classification
sections.text: In this section, we first describe how semantic segmentation can be formulated as either a per-pixel classification or a mask classification problem. Then, we introduce our instantiation of the mask classification model with the help of a Transformer decoder [37]. Finally, we describe simple inference strategies to transform mask classification outputs into task-dependent prediction formats.
sections.heading: 3.1 Per-pixel classification formulation
sections.text: For per-pixel classification, a segmentation model aims to predict the probability distribution over all possibleK categories for every pixel of anH×W image: y = {pi|pi ∈ ∆K}H·Wi=1 . Here ∆K is theKdimensional probability simplex. Training a per-pixel classification model is straight-forward: given ground truth category labels ygt = {ygti |y gt i ∈ {1, . . . ,K}}H·Wi=1 for every pixel, a per-pixel cross-
  entropy (negative log-likelihood) loss is usually applied, i.e., Lpixel-cls(y, ygt) = ∑H·W i=1 − log pi(y gt i ).
sections.heading: 3.2 Mask classification formulation
sections.text: Mask classification splits the segmentation task into 1) partitioning/grouping the image intoN regions (N does not need to equal K), represented with binary masks {mi|mi ∈ [0, 1]H×W }Ni=1; and 2) associating each region as a whole with some distribution over K categories. To jointly group and classify a segment, i.e., to perform mask classification, we define the desired output z as a set of N probability-mask pairs, i.e., z = {(pi,mi)}Ni=1. In contrast to per-pixel class probability prediction, for mask classification the probability distribution pi ∈ ∆K+1 contains an auxiliary “no object” label (∅) in addition to the K category labels. The ∅ label is predicted for masks that do not correspond to any of the K categories. Note, mask classification allows multiple mask predictions with the same associated class, making it applicable to both semantic- and instance-level segmentation tasks.
  To train a mask classification model, a matching σ between the set of predictions z and the set of N gt ground truth segments zgt = {(cgti ,m gt i )|c gt i ∈ {1, . . . ,K},m gt i ∈ {0, 1}H×W }N gt i=1 is required. 2 Here cgti is the ground truth class of the i th ground truth segment. Since the size of prediction set |z| = N and ground truth set |zgt| = N gt generally differ, we assume N ≥ N gt and pad the set of ground truth labels with “no object” tokens ∅ to allow one-to-one matching. For semantic segmentation, a trivial fixed matching is possible if the number of predictionsN matches the number of category labels K. In this case, the ith prediction is matched to a ground truth region with class label i and to ∅ if a region with class label i is not present in the ground truth. In our experiments, we found that a bipartite matching-based assignment demonstrates better results than the fixed matching. Unlike DETR [3] that uses bounding boxes to compute the assignment costs between prediction zi and ground truth z gt j for the matching problem, we directly use class and mask predictions, i.e., −pi(cgtj ) + Lmask(mi,m gt j ), where Lmask is a binary mask loss.
  To train model parameters, given a matching, the main mask classification loss Lmask-cls is composed of a cross-entropy classification loss and a binary mask loss Lmask for each predicted segment:
  Lmask-cls(z, zgt) = ∑N
  j=1
  [ − log pσ(j)(cgtj ) + 1cgtj 6=∅Lmask(mσ(j),m gt j ) ] . (1)
  2Different mask classification methods utilize various matching rules. For instance, Mask R-CNN [19] uses a heuristic procedure based on anchor boxes and DETR [3] optimizes a bipartite matching between z and zgt.
  Note, that most existing mask classification models use auxiliary losses (e.g., a bounding box loss [19, 3] or an instance discrimination loss [38]) in addition to Lmask-cls. In the next section we present a simple mask classification model that allows end-to-end training with Lmask-cls alone.
sections.heading: 3.3 MaskFormer
sections.text: We now introduce MaskFormer, the new mask classification model, which computes N probabilitymask pairs z = {(pi,mi)}Ni=1. The model contains three modules (see Fig. 2): 1) a pixel-level module that extracts per-pixel embeddings used to generate binary mask predictions; 2) a transformer module, where a stack of Transformer decoder layers [37] computes N per-segment embeddings; and 3) a segmentation module, which generates predictions {(pi,mi)}Ni=1 from these embeddings. During inference, discussed in Sec. 3.4, pi and mi are assembled into the final prediction.
  Pixel-level module takes an image of size H ×W as input. A backbone generates a (typically) low-resolution image feature map F ∈ RCF×HS ×WS , where CF is the number of channels and S is the stride of the feature map (CF depends on the specific backbone and we use S = 32 in this work). Then, a pixel decoder gradually upsamples the features to generate per-pixel embeddings Epixel ∈ RCE×H×W , where CE is the embedding dimension. Note, that any per-pixel classificationbased segmentation model fits the pixel-level module design including recent Transformer-based models [34, 47, 27]. MaskFormer seamlessly converts such a model to mask classification.
  Transformer module uses the standard Transformer decoder [37] to compute from image features F and N learnable positional embeddings (i.e., queries) its output, i.e., N per-segment embeddings Q ∈ RCQ×N of dimension CQ that encode global information about each segment MaskFormer predicts. Similarly to [3], the decoder yields all predictions in parallel.
  Segmentation module applies a linear classifier, followed by a softmax activation, on top of the per-segment embeddings Q to yield class probability predictions {pi ∈ ∆K+1}Ni=1 for each segment. Note, that the classifier predicts an additional “no object” category (∅) in case the embedding does not correspond to any region. For mask prediction, a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) with 2 hidden layers converts the per-segment embeddingsQ to N mask embeddings Emask ∈ RCE×N of dimension CE . Finally, we obtain each binary mask prediction mi ∈ [0, 1]H×W via a dot product between the ith mask embedding and per-pixel embeddings Epixel computed by the pixel-level module. The dot product is followed by a sigmoid activation, i.e., mi[h,w] = sigmoid(Emask[:, i]T · Epixel[:, h, w]). Note, we empirically find it is beneficial to not enforce mask predictions to be mutually exclusive to each other by using a softmax activation. During training, the Lmask-cls loss combines a cross entropy classification loss and a binary mask loss Lmask for each predicted segment. For simplicity we use the same Lmask as DETR [3], i.e., a linear combination of a focal loss [25] and a dice loss [30] multiplied by hyper-parameters λfocal and λdice respectively.
sections.heading: 3.4 Mask-classification inference
sections.text: First, we present a simple general inference procedure that converts mask classification outputs {(pi,mi)}Ni=1 to either panoptic or semantic segmentation output formats. Then, we describe a semantic inference procedure specifically designed for semantic segmentation. We note, that the specific choice of inference strategy largely depends on the evaluation metric rather than the task.
  General inference partitions an image into segments by assigning each pixel [h,w] to one of the N predicted probability-mask pairs via arg maxi:ci 6=∅ pi(ci) ·mi[h,w]. Here ci is the most likely class label ci = arg maxc∈{1,...,K,∅} pi(c) for each probability-mask pair i. Intuitively, this procedure assigns a pixel at location [h,w] to probability-mask pair i only if both the most likely class probability pi(ci) and the mask prediction probability mi[h,w] are high. Pixels assigned to the same probabilitymask pair i form a segment where each pixel is labelled with ci. For semantic segmentation, segments sharing the same category label are merged; whereas for instance-level segmentation tasks, the index i of the probability-mask pair helps to distinguish different instances of the same class. Finally, to reduce false positive rates in panoptic segmentation we follow previous inference strategies [3, 22]. Specifically, we filter out low-confidence predictions prior to inference and remove predicted segments that have large parts of their binary masks (mi > 0.5) occluded by other predictions.
  Semantic inference is designed specifically for semantic segmentation and is done via a simple matrix multiplication. We empirically find that marginalization over probability-mask pairs, i.e., arg maxc∈{1,...,K} ∑N i=1 pi(c) ·mi[h,w], yields better results than the hard assignment of each pixel to a probability-mask pair i used in the general inference strategy. The argmax does not include the “no object” category (∅) as standard semantic segmentation requires each output pixel to take a label. Note, this strategy returns a per-pixel class probability ∑N i=1 pi(c) ·mi[h,w]. However, we observe that directly maximizing per-pixel class likelihood leads to poor performance. We hypothesize, that gradients are evenly distributed to every query, which complicates training.
sections.heading: 4 Experiments
sections.text: We demonstrate that MaskFormer seamlessly unifies semantic- and instance-level segmentation tasks by showing state-of-the-art results on both semantic segmentation and panoptic segmentation datasets. Then, we ablate the MaskFormer design confirming that observed improvements in semantic segmentation indeed stem from the shift from per-pixel classification to mask classification.
  Datasets. We study MaskFormer using four widely used semantic segmentation datasets: ADE20K [49] (150 classes) from the SceneParse150 challenge [48], COCO-Stuff-10K [2] (171 classes), Cityscapes [13] (19 classes), and Mapillary Vistas [31] (65 classes). In addition, we use the ADE20K-Full [49] dataset annotated in an open vocabulary setting (we keep 874 classes that are present in both train and validation sets). For panotic segmenation evaluation we use COCO [26, 2, 22] (80 “things” and 53 “stuff” categories) and ADE20K-Panoptic [49, 22] (100 “things” and 50 “stuff” categories). Please see the appendix for detailed descriptions of all used datasets.
  Evaluation metrics. For semantic segmentation the standard metric is mIoU (mean Intersection-overUnion) [16], a per-pixel metric that directly corresponds to the per-pixel classification formulation. To better illustrate the difference between segmentation approaches, in our ablations we supplement mIoU with PQSt (PQ stuff) [22], a per-region metric that treats all classes as “stuff” and evaluates each segment equally, irrespective of its size. We report the median of 3 runs for all datasets, except for Cityscapes where we report the median of 5 runs. For panoptic segmentation, we use the standard PQ (panoptic quality) metric [22] and report single run results due to prohibitive training costs.
  (a) PerPixelBaseline
  𝐾×𝐻×𝑊
  per-pixel loss
  backbone pixel decoder ou tp ut
  (b) PerPixelBaseline+
  𝐾×𝐻×𝑊𝐶×𝐻×𝑊
  𝐾×𝐶
  transformer decoder
  ou tp ut
  per-pixel loss
  backbone pixel
  decoder Baseline models. On the right we sketch the used per-pixel classification baselines. The PerPixelBaseline uses the pixel-level module of MaskFormer and directly outputs per-pixel class scores. For a fair comparison, we design PerPixelBaseline+ which adds the transformer module and mask embedding MLP to the PerPixelBaseline. Thus, PerPixelBaseline+ and MaskFormer differ only in the formulation: per-pixel vs. mask classification. Note that these baselines are for ablation and we compare MaskFormer with state-of-the-art per-pixel classification models as well.
sections.heading: 4.1 Implementation details
sections.text: Backbone. MaskFormer is compatible with any backbone architecture. In our work we use the standard convolution-based ResNet [20] backbones (R50 and R101 with 50 and 101 layers respectively) and recently proposed Transformer-based Swin-Transformer [27] backbones. In addition, we use the R101c model [6] which replaces the first 7× 7 convolution layer of R101 with 3 consecutive 3× 3 convolutions and which is popular in the semantic segmentation community [46, 7, 8, 21, 44, 10].
  Pixel decoder. The pixel decoder in Figure 2 can be implemented using any semantic segmentation decoder (e.g., [8–10]). Many per-pixel classification methods use modules like ASPP [6] or PSP [46] to collect and distribute context across locations. The Transformer module attends to all image features, collecting global information to generate class predictions. This setup reduces the need of the per-pixel module for heavy context aggregation. Therefore, for MaskFormer, we design a light-weight pixel decoder based on the popular FPN [24] architecture.
  Following FPN, we 2× upsample the low-resolution feature map in the decoder and sum it with the projected feature map of corresponding resolution from the backbone; Projection is done to match channel dimensions of the feature maps with a 1 × 1 convolution layer followed by GroupNorm (GN) [41]. Next, we fuse the summed features with an additional 3× 3 convolution layer followed by GN and ReLU activation. We repeat this process starting with the stride 32 feature map until we obtain a final feature map of stride 4. Finally, we apply a single 1× 1 convolution layer to get the per-pixel embeddings. All feature maps in the pixel decoder have a dimension of 256 channels.
  Transformer decoder. We use the same Transformer decoder design as DETR [3]. The N query embeddings are initialized as zero vectors, and we associate each query with a learnable positional encoding. We use 6 Transformer decoder layers with 100 queries by default, and, following DETR, we apply the same loss after each decoder. In our experiments we observe that MaskFormer is competitive for semantic segmentation with a single decoder layer too, whereas for instance-level segmentation multiple layers are necessary to remove duplicates from the final predictions.
  Segmentation module. The multi-layer perceptron (MLP) in Figure 2 has 2 hidden layers of 256 channels to predict the mask embeddings Emask, analogously to the box head in DETR. Both per-pixel Epixel and mask Emask embeddings have 256 channels. Loss weights. We use focal loss [25] and dice loss [30] for our mask loss: Lmask(m,mgt) = λfocalLfocal(m,mgt) + λdiceLdice(m,mgt), and set the hyper-parameters to λfocal = 20.0 and λdice = 1.0. Following DETR [3], the weight for the “no object” (∅) in the classification loss is set to 0.1.
sections.heading: 4.2 Training settings
sections.text: Semantic segmentation. We use Detectron2 [42] and follow the commonly used training settings for each dataset. More specifically, we use AdamW [29] and the poly [6] learning rate schedule with an initial learning rate of 10−4 and a weight decay of 10−4 for ResNet [20] backbones, and an initial learning rate of 6 · 10−5 and a weight decay of 10−2 for Swin-Transformer [27] backbones. Backbones are pre-trained on ImageNet-1K [32] if not stated otherwise. A learning rate multiplier of 0.1 is applied to CNN backbones and 1.0 is applied to Transformer backbones. The standard random scale jittering between 0.5 and 2.0, random horizontal flipping, random cropping as well as random color jittering are used as data augmentation [12]. For the ADE20K dataset, if not stated otherwise, we use a crop size of 512× 512, a batch size of 16 and train all models for 160k iterations. For the ADE20K-Full dataset, we use the same setting as ADE20K except that we train all models for 200k iterations. For the COCO-Stuff-10k dataset, we use a crop size of 640 × 640, a batch size of 32 and train all models for 60k iterations. All models are trained with 8 V100 GPUs. We report both performance of single scale (s.s.) inference and multi-scale (m.s.) inference with horizontal flip and scales of 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75. See appendix for Cityscapes and Mapillary Vistas settings.
  Panoptic segmentation. We follow exactly the same architecture, loss, and training procedure as we use for semantic segmentation. The only difference is supervision: i.e., category region masks in semantic segmentation vs. object instance masks in panoptic segmentation. We strictly follow the DETR [3] setting to train our model on the COCO panoptic segmentation dataset [22] for a fair comparison. On the ADE20K panoptic segmentation dataset, we follow the semantic segmentation setting but train for longer (720k iterations) and use a larger crop size (640× 640). COCO models are trained using 64 V100 GPUs and ADE20K experiments are trained with 8 V100 GPUs. We use
  the general inference (Section 3.4) with the following parameters: we filter out masks with class confidence below 0.8 and set masks whose contribution to the final panoptic segmentation is less than 80% of its mask area to VOID. We report performance of single scale inference.
sections.heading: 4.3 Main results
sections.text: Semantic segmentation. In Table 1, we compare MaskFormer with state-of-the-art per-pixel classification models for semantic segmentation on the ADE20K val set. With the same standard CNN backbones (e.g., ResNet [20]), MaskFormer outperforms DeepLabV3+ [8] by 1.7 mIoU. MaskFormer is also compatible with recent Vision Transformer [15] backbones (e.g., the Swin Transformer [27]), achieving a new state-of-the-art of 55.6 mIoU, which is 2.1 mIoU better than the prior state-of-theart [27]. Observe that MaskFormer outperforms the best per-pixel classification-based models while having fewer parameters and faster inference time. This result suggests that the mask classification formulation has significant potential for semantic segmentation. See appendix for results on test set.
  Beyond ADE20K, we further compare MaskFormer with our baselines on COCO-Stuff-10K, ADE20K-Full as well as Cityscapes in Table 2 and we refer to the appendix for comparison with state-of-the-art methods on these datasets. The improvement of MaskFormer over PerPixelBaseline+ is larger when the number of classes is larger: For Cityscapes, which has only 19 categories, MaskFormer performs similarly well as PerPixelBaseline+; While for ADE20K-Full, which has 847 classes, MaskFormer outperforms PerPixelBaseline+ by 3.5 mIoU.
  Although MaskFormer shows no improvement in mIoU for Cityscapes, the PQSt metric increases by 2.9 PQSt. We find MaskFormer performs better in terms of recognition quality (RQSt) while lagging in per-pixel segmentation quality (SQSt) (we refer to the appendix for detailed numbers). This observation suggests that on datasets where class recognition is relatively easy to solve, the main challenge for mask classification-based approaches is pixel-level accuracy (i.e., mask quality).
  3It isn’t recommended to compare fps from different papers: speed is measured in different environments. DeepLabV3+ fps are from MMSegmentation [12], and Swin-UperNet fps are from the original paper [27].
  Panoptic segmentation. In Table 3, we compare the same exact MaskFormer model with DETR [3] on the COCO panoptic val set. To match the standard DETR design, we add 6 additional Transformer encoder layers after the CNN backbone. Unlike DETR, our model does not predict bounding boxes but instead predicts masks directly. MaskFormer achieves better results while being simpler than DETR. To disentangle the improvements from the model itself and our post-processing inference strategy we run our model following DETR post-processing (MaskFormer (DETR)) and observe that this setup outperforms DETR by 2.2 PQ. Overall, we observe a larger improvement in PQSt compared to PQTh. This suggests that detecting “stuff” with bounding boxes is suboptimal, and therefore, boxbased segmentation models (e.g., Mask R-CNN [19]) do not suit semantic segmentation. MaskFormer also outperforms recently proposed Max-DeepLab [38] without the need of special network design as well as sophisticated auxiliary losses (i.e., instance discrimination loss, mask-ID cross entropy loss, and per-pixel classification loss in [38]). MaskFormer, for the first time, unifies semantic- and instance-level segmentation with the exact same model, loss, and training pipeline.
  We further evaluate our model on the panoptic segmentation version of the ADE20K dataset. Our model also achieves state-of-the-art performance. We refer to the appendix for detailed results.
sections.heading: 4.4 Ablation studies
sections.text: We perform a series of ablation studies of MaskFormer using a single ResNet-50 backbone [20].
  Per-pixel vs. mask classification. In Table 4, we verify that the gains demonstrated by MaskFromer come from shifting the paradigm to mask classification. We start by comparing PerPixelBaseline+ and MaskFormer. The models are very similar and there are only 3 differences: 1) per-pixel vs. mask classification used by the models, 2) MaskFormer uses bipartite matching, and 3) the new model uses a combination of focal and dice losses as a mask loss, whereas PerPixelBaseline+ utilizes per-pixel cross entropy loss. First, we rule out the influence of loss differences by training PerPixelBaseline+ with exactly the same losses and observing no improvement. Next, in Table 4a, we compare PerPixelBaseline+ with MaskFormer trained using a fixed matching (MaskFormer-fixed), i.e., N = K and assignment done based on category label indices identically to the per-pixel classification setup. We observe that MaskFormer-fixed is 1.8 mIoU better than the baseline, suggesting that shifting from per-pixel classification to mask classification is indeed the main reason for the gains of MaskFormer. In Table 4b, we further compare MaskFormer-fixed with MaskFormer trained with bipartite matching (MaskFormer-bipartite) and find bipartite matching is not only more flexible (allowing to predict less masks than the total number of categories) but also produces better results.
  We further calculate the number of classes which are on average present in a training set image. We find these statistics to be similar across datasets despite the fact that the datasets have different number of total categories: 8.2 classes per image for ADE20K (150 classes), 6.6 classes per image for COCO-Stuff-10K (171 classes) and 9.1 classes per image for ADE20K-Full (847 classes). We hypothesize that each query is able to capture masks from multiple categories.
  N um
  be ro
  fu ni
  qu e
  cl as
  se s
  pr ed
  ic te
  d by
  ea ch
  qu er
  y on
  va lid
  at io
  n se
  t 0 20 40 60 80 1000 5
  10 15 20 25
  (a) ADE20K (150 classes)
  0 20 40 60 80 1000 5
  10 15 20 25 30 35
  (b) COCO-Stuff-10K (171 classes)
  0 20 40 60 80 1000 20 40 60 80
  100
  (c) ADE20K-Full (847 classes) The figure to the right shows the number of unique categories predicted by each query (sorted in descending order) of our MaskFormer model on the validation sets of the corresponding datasets. Interestingly, the number of unique categories per query does not follow a uniform distribution: some queries capture more classes than others. We try to analyze how MaskFormer queries group categories, but we do not observe any obvious pattern: there are queries capturing categories with similar semantics or shapes (e.g., “house” and “building”), but there are also queries capturing completely different categories (e.g., “water” and “sofa”).
  Number of Transformer decoder layers. Interestingly, MaskFormer with even a single Transformer decoder layer already performs well for semantic segmentation and achieves better performance than our 6-layer-decoder PerPixelBaseline+. For panoptic segmentation, however, multiple decoder layers are required to achieve competitive performance. Please see the appendix for a detailed discussion.
sections.heading: 5 Discussion
sections.text: Our main goal is to show that mask classification is a general segmentation paradigm that could be a competitive alternative to per-pixel classification for semantic segmentation. To better understand its potential for segmentation tasks, we focus on exploring mask classification independently of other factors like architecture, loss design, or augmentation strategy. We pick the DETR [3] architecture as our baseline for its simplicity and deliberately make as few architectural changes as possible. Therefore, MaskFormer can be viewed as a “box-free” version of DETR.
  In this section, we discuss in detail the differences between MaskFormer and DETR and show how these changes are required to ensure that mask classification performs well. First, to achieve a pure mask classification setting we remove the box prediction head and perform matching between prediction and ground truth segments with masks instead of boxes. Secondly, we replace the computeheavy per-query mask head used in DETR with a more efficient per-image FPN-based head to make end-to-end training without box supervision feasible.
  Matching with masks is superior to matching with boxes. We compare MaskFormer models trained using matching with boxes or masks in Table 5. To do box-based matching, we add to MaskFormer an additional box prediction head as in DETR [3]. Observe that MaskFormer, which directly matches with mask predictions, has a clear advantage. We hypothesize that matching with boxes is more ambiguous than matching with masks, especially for stuff categories where completely different masks can have similar boxes as stuff regions often spread over a large area in an image.
  MaskFormer mask head reduces computation. Results in Table 5 also show that MaskFormer performs on par with DETR when the same matching strategy is used. This suggests that the difference in mask head designs between the models does not significantly influence the prediction quality. The new head, however, has significantly lower computational and memory costs in comparison with the original mask head used in DETR. In MaskFormer, we first upsample image features to get highresolution per-pixel embeddings and directly generate binary mask predictions at a high-resolution. Note, that the per-pixel embeddings from the upsampling module (i.e., pixel decoder) are shared among all queries. In contrast, DETR first generates low-resolution attention maps and applies an independent upsampling module to each query. Thus, the mask head in DETR is N times more computationally expensive than the mask head in MaskFormer (where N is the number of queries).
sections.heading: 6 Conclusion
sections.text: The paradigm discrepancy between semantic- and instance-level segmentation results in entirely different models for each task, hindering development of image segmentation as a whole. We show that a simple mask classification model can outperform state-of-the-art per-pixel classification models, especially in the presence of large number of categories. Our model also remains competitive for panoptic segmentation, without a need to change model architecture, losses, or training procedure. We hope this unification spurs a joint effort across semantic- and instance-level segmentation tasks.
  Acknowledgments and Disclosure of Funding
  We thank Ross Girshick for insightful comments and suggestions. Work of UIUC authors Bowen Cheng and Alexander G. Schwing was supported in part by NSF under Grant #1718221, 2008387, 2045586, 2106825, MRI #1725729, NIFA award 2020-67021-32799 and Cisco Systems Inc. (Gift Award CG 1377144 - thanks for access to Arcetri).
title: Per-Pixel Classification is Not All You Need for Semantic Segmentation