Adaptive Contextual Perception: How to Generalize to New Backgrounds and Ambiguous Objects

Biological vision systems make adaptive use of context to recognize objects in new settings with novel contexts as well as occluded or blurry objects in familiar settings. In this paper, we investigate how vision models adaptively use context for out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization and leverage our analysis results to improve model OOD generalization. First, we formulate two distinct OOD settings where the contexts are either irrelevant (Background-Invariance) or beneficial (Object-Disambiguation), reflecting the diverse contextual challenges faced in biological vision. We then analyze model performance in these two different OOD settings and demonstrate that models that excel in one setting tend to struggle in the other. Notably, prior works on learning causal features improve on one setting but hurt in the other. This underscores the importance of generalizing across both OOD settings, as this ability is crucial for both human cognition and robust AI systems. Next, to better understand the model properties contributing to OOD generalization, we use representational geometry analysis and our own probing methods to examine a population of models, and we discover that those with more factorized representations and appropriate feature weighting are more successful in handling Background-Invariance and Object-Disambiguation tests. We further validate these findings through causal intervention on representation factorization and feature weighting to demonstrate their causal effect on performance. Lastly, we propose new augmentation methods to enhance model generalization. These methods outperform strong baselines, yielding improvements in both in-distribution and OOD tests. In conclusion, to replicate the generalization abilities of biological vision, computer vision models must have factorized object vs. background representations and appropriately weight both kinds of features.

Paper

References (54)

Scroll for more · 38 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer Qyp35/10 · confidence 5/52023-07-04

Summary

This paper presents an empirical study on out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization in two different settings: contexts that are either beneficial or irrelevant. The authors highlight an interesting finding that models performing well in one setting tend to struggle in the other. They analyze a population of models and demonstrate that those with more factorized representations and appropriate feature weighting achieve improved performance in handling both OOD settings. Additionally, the paper introduces novel data augmentation methods aimed at enhancing model generalization.

Strengths

One of the major strengths of this paper is its detailed analysis of generalization and the identification of factors that influence generalization performance.

Weaknesses

While the paper proposes a data augmentation method, the motivation behind its introduction lacks strong support.

Questions

In section 7, the authors describe the proposed data augmentation method without adequately establishing its connection to the motivation of “adaptively using context to recognize objects in new settings” due to the following reasons: (1) The weight of the training loss is set as fixed hyperparameters and lacks the adaptive nature required to effectively utilize context. (2) The data augmentation method does not provide clear instructions on how context can be effectively employed for object recognition.

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

The method requires additional annotation of the background classes and the segmentation of the foreground objects.

Reviewer FMxu7/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-04

Summary

This paper examines the influence of context on visual recognition capabilities. The authors distinguish two regimes, one where background context can help disambiguate objects and another one where the object information is orthogonal to the background information. The study shows that models can thrive in one regime but fail to extrapolate to the other regime. The paper then suggests that factorizing object and background information can help in out-of-distribution generalization and proposed data augmentation methods to help models generalize.

Strengths

The work is clearly written and presents a nice systematic examination of different aspects of how context can impact visual recognition. The work nicely puts the emphasis on generalization to OOD, which is not always tested in other context-aware models. Figure 3 is nice and clearly demonstrates the trade-off between invariance and the ability to use contextual features.

Weaknesses

No major weaknesses noted, but see questions below.

Questions

The authors distinguish situations where context can help recognition or where context is irrelevant and the desired output is invariance to contextual noise. Context can also hurt performance (see e.g., Bomatter et al ICCV 2021 and multiple studies on incongruent context conditions, summarized in Oliva and Torralba, TICS 2007). The addition of feature weights and especially the transition to All features lead to small improvements in Table 1. All the other entries are clearly justified and critical for the model. Similar comments apply to Fig. 4b. The enhancement is small. How is the pareto frontier computed in Fig. 3 and why is it called a frontier if there are points that can trespass this line?

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

4 excellent

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

There is minimal discussion of limitations in the current version.

Reviewer WSbu5/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-06

Summary

This work investigates how visual models leverage background and foreground information for out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization. The authors trained a large number of models and evaluate their performance in two OOD settings. They find that there is a tradeoff for the models in these two OOD settings as they need to balance how much foreground and background are separately used during the recognition task. Multiple analyses are further conducted to better understand this tradeoff. The authors find that “factorized representations and appropriate feature weighting are more successful in handling” the OOD tests. They also present experiments supporting the causal influence of these factors. Finally, they propose a new method to train the models through adding more background and foreground related augmentations. This method yields a better model compared to existing methods.

Strengths

The paper is well written. The logic is clear. The results are clearly presented. I enjoy reading the paper. The main idea in this paper is analyzing the models’ performance in two separate but relevant OOD tests: OBJECT-DISAMBIGUATION and BACKGROUND-INVARIANCE, where the background information is either beneficial or irrelevant. This idea is also innovative. To thoroughly investigate the performance of different algorithms, the authors train a lot of models, which makes the results general. The regression and probing analysis is also neat. After leveraging the results from this analysis, the authors also create a new method that yields a better model.

Weaknesses

My biggest worry is that the results reported in this work is just reflecting the models trained on small amount of data and cannot generalize to models trained with much more data. The training set of the models only contain 16000 images, not mentioning that many of these images are generated from the same object. So these images contain very limited diversity across objects and natural background. State-of-the-art models in recognition are trained with at least 2 magnitude more images, not mentioning very recent models trained on almost billion scale images (like Segment-Anything). Is the tradeoff observed in this work just a result due to not enough training data? When there are more data, maybe the model can achieve the optimal performance in both benchmarks. Then how would the finding in this paper be general to more realistic settings that are used in actual applications? In addition to this worry, the proposed new method is also over-engineered for the constructed benchmarks. The new method is simply augmenting the data with background and foreground operations, with clear implications to benefit the constructed benchmarks. How would this augmentation benefit other OOD settings? Is this augmentation useful for training on more images?

Questions

See comments in the weakness.

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

4 excellent

Presentation

4 excellent

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

yes

Reviewer D3vS5/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-07

Summary

This work investigates how vision models use background information in various contexts and find that models that are more invariant to backgrounds are less able to use the background to disambiguate. A new objective function and augmentations are proposed to control the balance between ignoring the background and using it for disambiguation. It is hypothesized that in order to make adaptive use of background as in biological vision, computer vision models must have factorized (orthogonal) object vs background representations.

Strengths

1. Clear presentation and motivation. 2. While many works have investigated the role of background vs foreground, much of the literature has focused on over-reliance on the background leading to spurious correlations, though background can also disambiguate. While this is still "known to the field", this systematic study can still be helpful to the community.

Weaknesses

1. There is some re-treading of scientific points from Xiao et al, 2020. 2. The architecture is limited to Wide ResNet-28 and MLP for synthetic datasets. Transformers are known to make adaptive use of context (and are an important, broadly applicable architecture, arguably more so than ResNets). How do these findings change when using vision transformers is an important unanswered question and a limitation. Also unknown is how the findings change with respect to model scale. 3. The augmentations proposed are possible on toy or synthetic datasets, but the need for dense annotations like segmentation masks for foreground objects makes the approach not really practical - especially for more complex scenes, with many objects and scales. If the authors really want to argue that the augmentation they propose is a new *methodological contribution*, then they will need to demonstrate it's feasibility on more practical datasets with more complex scenes. If the authors could please elaborate on this in the response, that would be great.

Questions

See weaknesses.

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

Yes.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-17

Thank you for your comment! PDFs for all papers were temporarily unavailable, presumably due to some OpenReview system issues. Our PDF is now accessible again and can be found at the bottom of our general response (https://openreview.net/forum?id=7JuReDmGSL&noteId=pLEPyZJhLW). Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Reviewer WSbu2023-08-18

Thanks for the response and the new results. First, from Fig. R1a, I agree with the authors that the scale does not critically influence the results reported in this work (“tradeoff exists”). But the Swin results are surprising to me. In the Fig. R1b, Swin got much better results than the ResNets, especially on the Object-Disambiguation task. Theoretically, the tradeoff does exist. But empirically, the right-most point on that figure seems to work just fine to me, as its y-value is only ~0.05 lower than the highest point, but its x-value is much better than the other points. Is the tradeoff still worth being explored in this case? Especially, this is only on the scale of 16000 images. If the models are trained with more images (like just 10 times more), will the right-most point achieve just good enough performance on both benchmarks, which makes the discussion of this tradeoff unnecessary?

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-19

> In Fig. R1b…empirically, the right-most point on that figure seems to work just fine to me, as its y-value is only ~0.05 lower than the highest point, but its x-value is much better than the other points. Is the tradeoff still worth being explored in this case? It’s true that Swin does quite well on our task. The point you mention gets about 74% on the background-invariance task and 85% on the object-disambiguation. What we’d like to emphasize is our argument in lns236-238, which is that whether this is a good point on the Pareto curve depends on the environment expected at deployment. If you deploy a model in a setting with no ambiguous objects, then this lower-right point would be the best one to pick. But, for example, a self-driving car vision model may face an environment where objects are typically in their “usual” background, but objects are often occluded, darkened, small, and far away, etc. If this were the environment, then it would be better to pick a point higher up on the curve, that does better at object disambiguation (at some trade-off with background-invariance). And we believe the trade-off will be worth exploring when performance swings by as much as 5% – a difference in error rates of 5% in a model deployed at scale is huge. > …If the models are trained with more images (like just 10 times more), will the right-most point achieve just good enough performance on both benchmarks, which makes the discussion of this tradeoff unnecessary? This is a good question. Will models reach 100% OOD generalization, and if they do, will there no longer be any trade-off in object-disambiguation and background-invariance? We suppose, though we do not know, that it is possible. Perhaps the Pareto frontier will expand with better and better models until there is a point at 100% accuracy for both OOD tests. In this case, no trade-off will have to be made! However, the model performances are not close to 100% even with strong transformer models. We think it is very likely that, in complex vision environments like ImageNet, models will continue to have sub-100% OOD generalization even with significantly more data, in which case the trade-off remains a pressing problem.

Area Chair aAg82023-08-18

Engage in the discussion with the authors

Dear Reviewer, The author has provided responses to your questions and concerns. Could you please read their responses and ask any follow-up questions, if any? Thank you!

Area Chair aAg82023-08-18

Engage in the discussion with the authors

Dear Reviewer, The author has provided responses to your questions and concerns. Could you please read their responses and ask any follow-up questions, if any? Thank you!

Area Chair aAg82023-08-18

Engage in the discussion with the authors

Dear Reviewer, The author has provided responses to your questions and concerns. Could you please read their responses and ask any follow-up questions, if any? Thank you!

Program Chairsdecision2023-09-21

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC