Recently, the convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have shown great success on semantic segmentation task. However, for practical applications such as autonomous driving, the popular supervised learning method faces two challenges: the demand of low computational complexity and the need of huge training dataset accompanied by ground truth. Our focus in this paper is semi-supervised learning for semantic segmentation. We wish to use both labeled and unlabeled data in the training process. A highly efficient semantic segmentation network is our platform, which achieves high segmentation accuracy with a low model size and high inference speed. We propose a semi-supervised learning scheme to improve segmentation accuracy by including extra images without labels. While most existing semi-supervised learning methods are designed based on the adversarial learning techniques, we present a new and different approach, which trains an auxiliary CNN network that validates labels (ground-truth) on the unlabeled images. In the supervised training phase, both the segmentation network and the auxiliary network are trained using the labeled images. Then, in the unsupervised training phase, the unlabeled images are segmented and a subset of image pixels are picked up by the auxiliary network; and then they are used as ground truth to train the segmentation network. Thus, at the end, all dataset images can be used for retraining the segmentation network to improve the segmentation results. We use Cityscapes and CamVid datasets to verify the effectiveness of our semi-supervised scheme. Our experimental results show that it can improve the mean IoU for about 1.2% to 2.9% on the challenging Cityscapes dataset.
- This paper proposes a semi-supervised learning strategy for semantic segmentation of road scenes. Specifically, authors propose to include an auxiliary network that will predict the confidence (at pixel-level) of the predictions on unlabeled images. These confidence values will be used to  generate a new auxiliary ground-truth to retrain the network using the unlabeled images.
- Even though the idea is somehow interesting and results seem to improve with respect to the baselines, this paper is very similar to standard semi-supervised learning approaches for natural images that employ image proposals (i.e., EM-based methods). In those works, unlabeled images are segmented with the network trained on labeled images, generating some proposals. These proposals are later employed as a fake ground truth to re-train the network employing both labeled and unlabeled images. The only difference in this work is to employ the virtual confidence map to mask-out some pixels (those with lowest confidence values).  
- Related work section is extremely weak. Authors merely mention few papers (some other relevant papers are missing), and throw a sentence for each one, without making connections between works. This makes difficult to place their work among the literature (e.g., which limitations of previous approaches the current method intend to address?). Authors should significantly improve this section.
- I am not sure about the fact that employing only the probability maps as input to generate a confidence map is reliable, if no other information is employed. These predictions (e.g., confidence map) will be based only on the probabilities obtained by the first network. While this is already a good indicator of the confidence of the network to make those predictions, I believe that input images should also be included. The intuition behind this is that there may exist some regions with similar probabilities (from first network), which are incorrectly classified (leading to 0-masked pixels on the auxiliary ground-truth) in some cases, while correctly classified in other situations (leading to 1-masked pixels on the auxiliary ground-truth).  
- Eq.1) is basically the standard cross-entropy loss, with the difference of the weighting terms.
- a_{h,w} is the softmax of the auxiliary network, isn’t it?
- Further, authors threshold the values of the confidence map to generate the new auxiliary ground truth. Why not to use the raw values so that each pixel is weighted differently according to its importance? 
- Authors make some claims which were never demonstrated. For example, they mention that the proposed approach performs better on small targets than previous approaches. Nevertheless, only mean results (over all the classes) are shown. To this end authors should report per-class performances, instead of the mean.
- Furthermore, authors make several over claims, misleading information. For example, they mentioned that they proposed a highly efficient segmentation method. Nevertheless, from Table 2 it can be observed that the proposed method ranks in the middle in terms of both speed and parameters, compared to other state-of-the-art models. Similarly, authors mention that their model is equipped with a carefully designed auxiliary loss function during training, while they basically employ a standard cross-entropy weighted by some values to account for imbalance between classes and between positive and negative pixels within the same class.   
- The paper contains many grammatical errors.