DiPEx: Dispersing Prompt Expansion for Class-Agnostic Object Detection

Class-agnostic object detection (OD) can be a cornerstone or a bottleneck for many downstream vision tasks. Despite considerable advancements in bottom-up and multi-object discovery methods that leverage basic visual cues to identify salient objects, consistently achieving a high recall rate remains difficult due to the diversity of object types and their contextual complexity. In this work, we investigate using vision-language models (VLMs) to enhance object detection via a self-supervised prompt learning strategy. Our initial findings indicate that manually crafted text queries often result in undetected objects, primarily because detection confidence diminishes when the query words exhibit semantic overlap. To address this, we propose a Dispersing Prompt Expansion (DiPEx) approach. DiPEx progressively learns to expand a set of distinct, non-overlapping hyperspherical prompts to enhance recall rates, thereby improving performance in downstream tasks such as out-of-distribution OD. Specifically, DiPEx initiates the process by self-training generic parent prompts and selecting the one with the highest semantic uncertainty for further expansion. The resulting child prompts are expected to inherit semantics from their parent prompts while capturing more fine-grained semantics. We apply dispersion losses to ensure high inter-class discrepancy among child prompts while preserving semantic consistency between parent-child prompt pairs. To prevent excessive growth of the prompt sets, we utilize the maximum angular coverage (MAC) of the semantic space as a criterion for early termination. We demonstrate the effectiveness of DiPEx through extensive class-agnostic OD and OOD-OD experiments on MS-COCO and LVIS, surpassing other prompting methods by up to 20.1\% in AR and achieving a 21.3\% AP improvement over SAM. The code is available at https://github.com/jason-lim26/DiPEx.

Paper

References (66)

Scroll for more · 38 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer fTsG6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-09

Summary

The paper proposed a prompt expansion method to produce a diverse set of text queries for class-agnostic object detection. Sequentially performing inference using each text query and collating the prediction results often achieves high recall but incurs significant computational cost. Merging all text queries into one prompt reduces the cost significantly but results in much lower performance. The paper argues that this is due to the semantic overlap amongst the queries. To address this, the paper starts with a learnable parent prompt. After training the prompt embeddings with the standard object detection losses, the parent prompt is expanded into numerous child prompts by applying random rotations. The child prompts are then further learned with additional loss terms to decrease the similarity amongst the child prompt embeddings. This was shown to increase the maximum angular coverage, measured by the largest angle between the embeddings of two child prompts. Experiments demonstrate significant improvement of average recall and average precision on MS COCO and LVIST datasets.

Strengths

1. The paper aims to tackle the task of class-agnostic object detection, which is essential for various applications such as OOD detection. The task moves away from the classic close-vocabulary object detection problem, and has significant practical values as the real world is much less constrained. 2. The paper proposed an interesting approach to grow the set of text queries that are used to prompt a grounding model. The approach is geometrically motivated and is rather intuitive. 3. The paper provided extensive experimental results on benchmark datasets like MS-COCO and LVIS. The improvements in average recall (AR) and average precision (AP) over existing methods demonstrates great potential of the method.

Weaknesses

1. The semantic overlap amongst words, as the motivation behind the paper, seems more like a hypothesis and was not sufficiently investigated. Lines 53-55 of the paper pointed out that merging all queries into one text prompt results in inferior performance compared to running inference on each query sequentially and combing the predictions. The paper then directly jumped to the conclusion that this was the result of "semantic overlap" between the queries, without any investigation or reference to prior investigations. This undermines the fluidity of the paper. Even though the proposed method does improve the performance, it may not be the solving the problem the paper is claiming to solve. The hypothesis should not be too hard to test. Semantically similar and dissimilar queries can be manually selected to compare their detection performance. 2. As I understand, the motivation behind merging queries as opposed to just merging predictions is to lower the computational cost. The paper would be more convincing if there is a inference cost comparison between the proposed method, the naive query-merging method and the prediction-merging method. 3. Some technical details of the paper were not stated very clearly and were somewhat hard to follow. There are also numerous typos and inconsistent use of notations. For instance, in section 3.1, subscripts of v denote the text embeddings of different words in the same prompt, but in section 3.2 and other subsequent sections, the subscripts seem to denote different text prompts.

Questions

1. In Figure 3 (right), the average precision seems of the proposed method seems to drop first before increasing again. Is this due to random noise? Overall, it appears that increasing the number of prompts to 9 yields significant improvements but the trend is not clear before it. 2. In line 269, the paper claims that a higher MAC correlates with a broader spectrum of vocabularies. Aside from intuitions, is the range of vocabularies measured in some way? How did paper come to this conclusion? 3. How exactly is the prompt logit activation computed?

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

2

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors discussed some technical limitations regarding the need of self-supervised learning and hyper-parameter tuning, both of which contribute to additional computational cost during training.

Reviewer UZCf5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-11

Summary

This paper proposes a novel Dispersing Prompt Expansion (DiPEx) approach to enhance class-agnostic object detection (OD) using vision-language models (VLMs). The authors observe that manually crafted text queries often result in undetected objects due to semantic overlap, and address this by progressively learning a set of distinct, non-overlapping hyperspherical prompts. DiPEx starts with a generic parent prompt, selects the one with the highest semantic uncertainty for further expansion, and generates child prompts that inherit semantics from the parent while capturing more fine-grained details. Dispersion losses are employed to maintain high inter-class discrepancy among child prompts while preserving parent-child consistency. The method utilizes the maximum angular coverage (MAC) of the semantic space as a criterion for early termination to prevent excessive prompt growth. Experiments on MS-COCO and LVIS datasets demonstrate that DiPEx outperforms other prompting methods by up to 20.1% in average recall (AR) and achieves a 21.3% AP improvement over SAM for out-of-distribution OD.

Strengths

- The proposed DiPEx approach seems novel and innovative to the class-agnostic object detection. - The paper is well-written and structured, with clear explanations of the concepts, techniques, and experimental setup. - The proposed DiPEx method has the potential to significantly advance the state-of-the-art in class-agnostic OD and out-of-distribution detection. - Some important works about class-agnostic learning could be appended: [1] In ECCV 2022. Pose for everything: Towards category-agnostic pose estimation. [2] In CVPR 2023. Matching is not enough: A two-stage framework for category-agnostic pose estimation. [3] In CVPR 2024. Meta-Point Learning and Refining for Category-Agnostic Pose Estimation.

Weaknesses

- The Abstract is not abstract enough. - The evaluation should be detailedly described. One intuitive way is to cast all categories into single category, but not all class-agnostic objects in dataset are annotated. How about the evaluation for these unannotated objects? - How about the efficiency of the proposed model in training/inference?

Questions

See Weaknesses*

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

2

Presentation

2

Contribution

2

Limitations

See Weaknesses*

Reviewer 86g86/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

This work identifies that the "semantic overlaps" may contribute to the diminished class-agnostic object detection performance for previous works utilizing VLMs, which is evidenced by the pre-experiments on had-crafted text queries on the MS COCO dataset. Furthermore, the authors derive a self-supervised prompt learning strategy to iteratively expand the (soft) prompt set in a tree hierarchy to ensure the diversity and coverage of class-agnostic object textual descriptions. A maximum angular coverage metric is provided for expansion determination to balance the prompt diversity and number cost. Experiments on MS COCO and LVIS datasets have proved the method's effectiveness.

Strengths

1. The research topic is interesting and valuable. Class-agnostic may be one of the cornerstones for large foundation vision models. 2. The proposed prompt set expansion method is novel. The experiments have proved its efficacy. 3. The paper is well-presented and easy-to-follow.

Weaknesses

1. My major concern lies in the author's claim that the "semantic overlap" among input words in the prompt declines object detection by visual-language matching. In Table 1, after the query-merging operation, the encoded text features are derived through the complicated self-attention mechanism across the input words (embeddings). Therefore, I prefer to owe the detection degradation to the disturbed attention compared to one input word in a single inference pass, rather than the so-called semantic overlap. In other words, Section 2 and Appendix 2 failed to relate semantic overlap with empirical results for me. 2. The overall framework is reasonable, but there are still some points to clarify: - For the children prompt initialization, it may not be sufficient to choose only one parent prompt with the high uncertainty to expand, especially for the first iteration when all of the root prompts are highly abstractive and therefore uncertain. In addition, Eq(2) may also be added to the children prompts with all of the prompts in previous generations, rather than only the chosen parent prompt. - For the MAC metric for expansion determination, it is weird to use the maximum angle to evaluate the diversity/coverage of ALL learned prompts. How about using the mean angular or KNN metrics? - Adding dispersion loss as well as the MAC metric at the input prompt embeddings is a little bit confusing, where the constraints may change after the encoding process. I wonder what will happen when adding the constraints to the encoded text features. - How to ensure the quality of pseudo labels for class-agnostic object detection? 3. The comparison with SAM on LVIS is unfair, as DiPEx is fine-tuned on the training set (even without box annotations) while SAM is a pre-trained model. Besides, is there some comparability between DiPEx and UniDetector[1]? [1] Z Wang et al. "Detecting Everything in the Open World: Towards Universal Object Detection", CVPR 2023.

Questions

1. The detailed operations in Table 1 should be specified, eg., does prediction-merging means NMS? In addition, it would be better to report prediction-merging at the top line and query-merging at the bottom, which helps to identify the performance decline. 2. There seems some misuse of notations. For instance, is the definition of $P$ in line 134 and line 137?

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The application of current work is limited by the training data sources, which only evaluate MS COCO and LVIS separately. Joint training with larger data sources (e.g., Object365) will improve the application value.

Reviewer Jt2M5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-13

Summary

This study investigates the use of visual-language models to improve class-agnostic object detection through a self-supervised prompt learning strategy. Diverse Prompt Expansion (DipEx) is proposed to enhance downstream task performance by learning to expand a set of diverse, non-overlapping prompts that boost recall rates of object detection.

Strengths

1) The authors find a new setting, class-agnostic object detection, which is practical and universal in real-world scenarios. 2) The proposed method achieves performance improvements compared to its baselines. 3) The figures are rich and vivid, and the writing is good.

Weaknesses

- I'm mainly concerned about the novelty. The primary contribution of this paper lies in the prompt expansion method, which uses contrastive loss for optimization to acquire diversified prompts. However, this kind of optimization-based prompt diversification is not new art [1,2], especially as the previous work [1] presents a rather similar concept of optimizing prompts on the hypersphere. [1] Promptstyler: Prompt-driven style generation for source-free domain generalization. ICCV, 2023. [2] Distilling Vision-Language Foundation Models: A Data-Free Approach via Prompt Diversification. ACM MM, 2023. - The proposed prompt expansion method seems not essentially related to object detection task, since it may also suitable to other vision tasks. I thins it's may be not proper to sell the class-agnostic object detection as a major contribution in this paper. - As the authors claim that this paper aims to solve class-agnostic task, I am highly curious about how to obtain the pseudo labels during training. Does the pseudo labels get updated during prompt-based optimization? If updated, how to do this? - What does the learned prompt resemble? More visualization results, such as the attention visualization, of the learned prompt are expected. - Some presentations leave me confused. For example, in Line 117-118, the authors state that, ``applying query-merging to UNIVERSAL words results in a 52.46% reduction in AR compared to prediction-merging, whereas CLASS-WIDE queries (e.g., from WordNet) achieve a smaller decrease in AR of only 23.64%''. However, I fail to understand how the 52.46% and 23.64% reductions are computed by the results in Table 1.

Questions

Please refer to the weakness.

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

2

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

The authors have stated the limitations in the conclusion part, and I hope they can do some further validations to explore the effecitveness of the proposed method on open-vocabulary and open-world detection.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-14

Thank You for Reading and Consideration

Dear Reviewer Jt2M, Thank you for your positive response and for raising your score! We are glad that our clarifications addressed your concerns. In our revised manuscript, we will make sure to include a discussion on the contrasts between our work and the literature you referenced [1, 2]. We will also further elaborate on the additional concerns you have raised in your review. [1] Promptstyler: Prompt-driven style generation for source-free domain generalization. ICCV, 2023. [2] Distilling Vision-Language Foundation Models: A Data-Free Approach via Prompt Diversification. ACM MM, 2023. Best, Authors.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-10

Follow-Up on Submission Responses

Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback on our submission. As we get closer to the end of the discussion period on August 13th, we wanted there are any additional questions or comments regarding our responses that you would like to discuss further. Apologies for reaching out over the weekend—we know it’s not the most ideal time. However, your feedback is very important to us, and we aim to address any outstanding concerns before next Wednesday. Thanks. Authors.

Reviewer Jt2M2024-08-13

Reply to the rebuttal (JT2M)

Thank you for the reply. My concerns have been mostly addressed so that I consider raising my rating score. And I hope that the authors could further elaborate on how their work diverges from related studies in prompt learning, such as [1,2], in the revised manuscript. Additionally, I believe there is a need for further clarification in other areas as I have stressed. [1] Promptstyler: Prompt-driven style generation for source-free domain generalization. ICCV, 2023. [2] Distilling Vision-Language Foundation Models: A Data-Free Approach via Prompt Diversification. ACM MM, 2023.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-10

Follow-Up on Submission Responses

Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback on our submission. As we get closer to the end of the discussion period on August 13th, we wanted there are any additional questions or comments regarding our responses that you would like to discuss further. Apologies for reaching out over the weekend—we know it’s not the most ideal time. However, your feedback is very important to us, and we aim to address any outstanding concerns before next Wednesday. Thanks. Authors.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-10

Follow-Up on Submission Responses

Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback on our submission. As we get closer to the end of the discussion period on August 13th, we wanted there are any additional questions or comments regarding our responses that you would like to discuss further. Apologies for reaching out over the weekend—we know it’s not the most ideal time. However, your feedback is very important to us, and we aim to address any outstanding concerns before next Wednesday. Thanks. Authors.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-10

Follow-Up on Submission Responses

Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback on our submission. As we get closer to the end of the discussion period on August 13th, we wanted there are any additional questions or comments regarding our responses that you would like to discuss further. Apologies for reaching out over the weekend—we know it’s not the most ideal time. However, your feedback is very important to us, and we aim to address any outstanding concerns before next Wednesday. Thanks. Authors.

Reviewer fTsG2024-08-11

Thank you for the clarification. My concerns are mostly addressed. I'm leaning towards accepting the paper provided that the authors revise the paper to include the clarifications in the response.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Thank You for Reading and Consideration

Dear Reviewer fTsG, Thank you for your positive response and for raising your score! We are glad that our clarifications addressed your concerns and will ensure they are included in the final version. Best, Authors.

Reviewer 86g82024-08-11

I appreciate the author's responses. I have raised my score to 6. Good luck.

Reviewer UZCf2024-08-13

Response to the author

Thanks for the author's response which addresses most of my concerns.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC