FDTDNet: Privacy-Preserving Lensless Object Segmentation via Feature Demultiplexing and Task Decoupling

Authors: Yin Xiangjun, Huihui Yue
Primary area: applications to computer vision, audio, language, and other modalities
Keywords: lensless object segmentation; lensless imaging; privacy-preserving; feature demultiplexing; task decoupling

Abstract:
Camera-based vision systems pose privacy risks, whereas lensless cameras present a viable alternative by omitting visual semantics from their measurements due to the absence of lenses. However, these captured lensless measurements pose challenges for existing computer vision tasks such as object segmentation that usually require visual input. To address this problem, we propose a lensless object segmentation network via feature demultiplexing and task decoupling (FDTDNet) to perform object segmentation for lensless measurements. Specifically, we propose an optical-aware feature demultiplexing mechanism to get meaningful features from lensless measurements without visual reconstruction and design a multi-task learning framework decoupling the lensless object segmentation task into two subtasks, i.e., the reason for contour distribution maps (CDM) and body distribution maps (BDM), respectively. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our FDTDNet achieves highly accurate segmentation effect, which sheds light on privacy-preserving high-level vision with compact lensless cameras.

Decision: withdrawn
Reviewer scores: 6, 5, 6, 8

Reviews and discussion:
<thread>
creation date:
1730191235108

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_8fg3

<content>
summary:
The authors propose a one-step method without intermediate image reconstruction, addressing privacy concerns and computational efficiency.

strengths:
1. Introduces an Optical-Aware Feature Demultiplexing mechanism that enhances feature extraction from lensless measurements.
2. Effectively decouples segmentation into contour and body tasks, leveraging a mutual learning strategy.
3. Demonstrates superior performance on two datasets, outperforming state-of-the-art methods in multiple metrics.

weaknesses:
1. The performance of the network is not analyzed, such as the number of parameters, number of floating-point operations, inference time, etc.
2. Lack of explanation and verification of the weight setting of the hybrid loss function.
3. The paper does not explain the advantages of this one-step segmentation over the prior visual reconstruction method, and the experiment does not compare it with another method.
4. There is a lack of a more detailed description of the datasets. According to my understanding, are these datasets all synthetic? Are the measurements of the images synthesized using prior knowledge?

questions:
1. The performance of the network is not analyzed, such as the number of parameters, number of floating-point operations, inference time, etc.
2. Lack of explanation and verification of the weight setting of the hybrid loss function.
3. The paper does not explain the advantages of this one-step segmentation over the prior visual reconstruction method, and the experiment does not compare it with another method.
4. There is a lack of a more detailed description of the datasets. According to my understanding, are these datasets all synthetic? Are the measurements of the images synthesized using prior knowledge?
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1730194811563

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_jnbq

<content>
summary:
To enhance segmentation accuracy while ensuring privacy, the authors propose a one-step method called FDTDNet for lensless object segmentation from lensless measurements without visual reconstruction. They propose an optical-aware feature demultiplexing (OFD) mechanism aimed at refining the features obtained from lensless measurements via modeling the linear equation between the semantic features bound to lensless measurements and those corresponding to visual inputs. They decouple the segmentation task into a contour distribution map (CDM) and a body distribution map (BDM) inference by contour-/bodydistribution learning branches, and propose a contour-body interaction (CBI) module for reasoning segmentation results from correlations between CDM and BDM. They conducted extensive experiments to verify their methods.

strengths:
The originality is supported by modelling the linear equation between the semantic features bound to lensless measurements and those corresponding to visual inputs, and application of multiple current machine learning methods to a new domain, i.e., lensless object segmentation. The quality, clarity and significance of this work is good.

weaknesses:
Equation 1 is the basis for their modeling and derivation of the relationship between the original image and the measurement in the feature space. However, Equation 1 itself is not convincing. That is, does the linearity between the original image and the measurement mean that the semantic features of the original image and the measurement are also linear? The authors should have a more rigorous derivation or proof for this.

questions:
In OFD, one downsampling and two CBRs are used to transform $A_L $ or $A_R$ into its semantic space, and one PVT is used to transform the measurement Y into its semantic space. Why not do the same for AL/AR and Y? What is the author's consideration?
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1730663670663

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_4smu

<content>
summary:
This paper presents FDTDNet, a framework for object segmentation using lensless cameras, designed to enhance privacy by bypassing visual image reconstruction.

strengths:
1) Quality: All figures and tables are well-designed and of high quality, except Figure 2, which will be discussed in the weaknesses section below.
2) Performance: Experiments across two different datasets validate the method’s performance. this proposed approach consistently outperforms competing methods.

weaknesses:
Updated Review 

Firstly, I would like to thank the authors for the clarifications and modifications provided during the discussion period. Your detailed explanations regarding the mathematical equations, as well as the associated adjustments, have addressed my initial confusion to some extent. Upon closer re-examination, it has become clear that many of the equations in the paper are existing, well-established results rather than novel contributions. While these equations may be important to your implementation, they do not appear to represent theoretical innovations. I strongly recommend that the authors explicitly highlight their contributions and clearly distinguish them from prior work to improve clarity on this point.

In addition to these observations, I have identified other concerns, including some raised by other reviewers, which I believe are more critical and warrant further discussion:

1. Overclaims on Privacy Protection:
- As highlighted by other reviewers, the privacy-preserving aspect of the proposed method seems overstated. 
- While the idea of bypassing visual reconstruction aligns with privacy goals, the OFD block appears to perform some level of visual reconstruction at varying scales, which undermines the claim of mitigating sensitive privacy leakage. 
- Moreover, privacy protection is presented as a core contribution, yet this aspect feels secondary or incidental to the main framework. 
- Additionally, alternative imaging methods, such as single-pixel imaging or minimalist cameras, are capable of achieving similar or better privacy-preserving effects. These methods are neither discussed nor compared, which weakens the claimed contribution in this area.
- I just noticed that this point has already been addressed by the authors through revisions, so it does not require excessive concern. However, it should be noted that the contribution has been further weakened as a result, making it even more important for the authors to clearly articulate their innovations and contributions, as well as how their method differs from existing approaches.

2. Dataset Limitations and Lack of Real-World Experiments:
- The lack of real-world experiments. 
- As pointed out by the AC, the datasets used in the paper are limited to controlled conditions (e.g., FlatCam/PhlatCam captures with clear foreground-background separation). This constrained setup does not sufficiently demonstrate the robustness or generalizability of the proposed method to complex, real-world scenarios, such as cluttered backgrounds, occlusions, or diverse illumination conditions. 
- Without such evidence, it is difficult to assess whether the method is robust enough for broader applications.

3. Dataset Renaming and Reporting Discrepancies:
- As pointed out by the AC, the datasets were renamed. The renaming of datasets (e.g., DISC, DIRC) without proper justification raises concerns about the transparency and rigor. 
- Furthermore, as also pointed out by the AC, discrepancies in the reported results for competing methods (e.g., RecSegNet) compared to their original papers call into question the reliability of the reported comparisons. These issues must be clarified to ensure confidence in the findings.

Given the above concerns, I am lowering my score due to the recognition of more significant flaws of this paper. Specifically:

1. Overclaims regarding privacy protection (I just noticed that this point has already been addressed by the authors through revisions, so it does not require excessive concern. However, it should be noted that the contribution has been further weakened as a result, making it even more important for the authors to clearly articulate their innovations and contributions, as well as how their method differs from existing approaches.)
2. Insufficient experimental validation on real-world datasets
3. Transparency and rigor issues related to dataset naming and reported results

If the authors can address these points convincingly, I am willing to adjust my rating back to a positive recommendation. 


_____________________________

Initial Review

This paper has two main issues:

1) Clarity:
- The equations are overly complex. The mathematical presentation, particularly in the OFD mechanism on page 3, lines 162-215 (Equations 3-11), is overly dense and challenging to understand.
- This section mainly stacks equations without sufficient explanation, making it difficult for readers to grasp the underlying principles. It would be beneficial to include more intuitive or conceptual explanations alongside these equations. 
- Additionally, labeling elements of Figure 2 to indicate which parts correspond to specific equations could greatly improve clarity. Given the length and complexity of this section, I suggest either simplifying the equations or providing clearer explanations.

2) Analysis: 
- The paper could benefit from a more in-depth discussion of its limitations. 
- Although some failure cases are illustrated in Figure 12 on page 16 (Appendix), it would be helpful to place these directly in the main text and discuss potential solutions more explicitly. 
- Discussion about addressing these limitations directly within the main body is suggested.
- However, this is a minor suggestion. My main concern is the first point about clarity.

questions:
1) Can the authors provide further insights into how the method might generalize to more complex datasets, particularly in scenarios where small objects or highly cluttered backgrounds are present? 
2) How does the proposed FDTDNet handle noise in real-world lensless measurements? Could additional noise abatement strategies enhance the robustness of the segmentation?
3) Could the authors expand on the potential for adapting the method to edge devices, considering the computational demands highlighted in the complexity analysis?
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1730813128575

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_ztf8

<content>
summary:
The paper proposes a model for segmentation that operates on measurements from a lensless camera. Instead of prior approaches that first attempt to reconstruct an RGB image and then carry out segmentation, the paper's approach directly operates on the lensless measurements. The architecture is endowed with knowledge of the optical measurement process through "optical feature demultiplexing", along with other innovations. Experimental results confirm the benefits of this approach.

strengths:
- The paper is generally well motivated (except for the question of privacy below) and written. It makes sense that a single unified approach would work better than segmenting reconstructed images.
- The OFD approach is novel and interesting. It has the potential to be useful beyond the segmentation task as a general way of processing lensless measurements for vision tasks.
- The experiments and ablations are extensive and largely convincing.

weaknesses:
- The paper adds an unnecessary "privacy preserving" claim (in its title!) that is really only discussed in the (first paragraph of the) introduction, and mostly by citing other papers. Privacy preserving is a strong claim and should not be made without more care. If anything, a paper that shows improved performance at segmentation implies that lensless measurements  carry a fair amount of information about the underlying scene, and could leak private details. A video of segmentation masks could, for example, be enough to identify people by gaits. At that point, we get to deciding what privacy preserving means and what kind of privacy is being preserved.

  But this entire question is un-necessary to the central contribution of the paper --- a better segmentation approach for lensless cameras. The paper would be stronger, and in my opinion more sound, if it dropped the superfluous privacy claim from its title.

- The ODM + CDM approach could be explained a bit better, and especially discussed more with related work. Has this division into subtasks been tried before? How does this relate to CDMNet?

- Minor point, but the paper should make the experimental results section a bit more self contained and describe the content of the two benchmark datasets.

questions:
Please address the points brought up in the weakness section above.
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1732659200390

thread_type:
official_comment

<thread_object>
creator: area_chair_rofj

<content>
title:
comments from AC

comment:
Dear authors, 

I read your paper and would like to bring up some concerns for discussion. I will encourage the reviewers to add/correct me if I missed anything. 

1. Privacy claims are brought up by other reviewers, and I think we will further discuss it there if needed. I would like to hear some clarification on what do you mean by "the OFD mechanism facilitates back-end tasks without visual reconstruction, mitigating sensitive privacy leakage." in L202-203? 
It seems to me that your OFD block will provide a visual reconstruction at different scales. If so, please add some sample reconstructions.  

2. I have another question about the so-called OFD-based extractor module. How is this new or a significant contribution that has a subsection and an appendix? It is a well-known Tikhonov Least Squares solution for a separable system, an identical version was proposed in the original FlatCam paper and subsequently used in other follow up papers. 
 
3. One serious concern related to the lack of real experiments and the specific dataset used in this paper. I consider the lack of real experiments under different conditions a serious limitation of this work. The dataset and experiments in the paper seem limited to FlatCam or PhlatCam captures, (please clarify what dataset you used and also why are you giving these datasets new names as DISC and DIRC if you are using FlatCam or PhlatCam datasets?) Both FlatCam and PhlatCam captures images in controlled environments (illumination, isolated objects). The dataset and results are essentially foreground and background separation of single object. Is that sufficient for segmentation? How well would the proposed method work in real-world environments or dense scenes/multiple objects is unclear. 

4. The results for LOINet and RecSegNet reported in this paper (Fig 6) do not match the results in (e.g., Fig 10 in ) RecSegNet paper. Why is this discrepancy? 

5. When I look at this paper and RecSegNet, I feel they essentially follow same motivation and experiments with different modules for reconstruction and segmentation. Is there any fundamental innovation in the proposed work over RecSegNet or LOINet? 

I am writing this note to give you an opportunity to respond to some or all of these comments before tomorrows deadline for major changes in the pdf where necessary. 

You do not need to add new experiments in the pdf. We can discuss these points in the message format as well.
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>


Metareview:
metareview:
Summary. The paper proposes a model for segmentation that operates on measurements from a lensless camera. Instead of prior approaches that first attempt to reconstruct an RGB image and then carry out segmentation, the paper's approach directly operates on the lensless measurements. 

Strengths. The paper is generally well motivated and written. The idea of segmentation on lensless measurements without reconstruction has some advantages. The experiments demonstrate good performance on two datasets.  

Weaknesses. The paper adds unsubstantiated "privacy preserving" claims. Technical innovations of the paper are limited and incremental. The OFD-based extractor module uses a Tikhonov least squares solution fo a separable system, which authors claim as a novel contribution. The datasets and experiments in the paper are limited to two datasets (mainly used for image reconstruction, but repurposed by authors for segmentation), which do not represent realistic/complex scenes needed for segmentation. Results of prior work presented in the paper are inconsistent with the published work. The proposed segmentation method bears strong resemblance with LOINet and RecSegNet. 

What is missing. 
Authors proposed to tone-down privacy-preserving claims during the rebuttal, but insist on that claim without convincing answers to questions and concerns raised by the reviewers. 
Technical innovation of the proposed method is unclear. The OFD module combines Tikhonov solution in FlatCam with learnable matrices in FlatNet. Segmentation modules follow the framework proposed in LOINet and RecSegNet. 
Experiments for real scenes mainly use data captured by FlatCam and PhlatCam, where scenes largely consist of a single object with black background. Segmentation on more realistic scenes is essential to demonstrate the utility of the proposed method. 
Authors offered contradictory explanations on using FlatCam and PhlatCam datasets. FlatCam assumes a separable model, while PhlatCam assumes convolutional model. This part should be clarified in any revision. 

Justification. 
Privacy-preserving claims are not justified. The paper lacks technical novelty and experiments do not appear significant. The improvements and advantages over similar lensless-segmentation methods is unclear.