Scene Graph Generation with Role-Playing Large Language Models

Current approaches for open-vocabulary scene graph generation (OVSGG) use vision-language models such as CLIP and follow a standard zero-shot pipeline -- computing similarity between the query image and the text embeddings for each category (i.e., text classifiers). In this work, we argue that the text classifiers adopted by existing OVSGG methods, i.e., category-/part-level prompts, are scene-agnostic as they remain unchanged across contexts. Using such fixed text classifiers not only struggles to model visual relations with high variance, but also falls short in adapting to distinct contexts. To plug these intrinsic shortcomings, we devise SDSGG, a scene-specific description based OVSGG framework where the weights of text classifiers are adaptively adjusted according to the visual content. In particular, to generate comprehensive and diverse descriptions oriented to the scene, an LLM is asked to play different roles (e.g., biologist and engineer) to analyze and discuss the descriptive features of a given scene from different views. Unlike previous efforts simply treating the generated descriptions as mutually equivalent text classifiers, SDSGG is equipped with an advanced renormalization mechanism to adjust the influence of each text classifier based on its relevance to the presented scene (this is what the term "specific" means). Furthermore, to capture the complicated interplay between subjects and objects, we propose a new lightweight module called mutual visual adapter. It refines CLIP's ability to recognize relations by learning an interaction-aware semantic space. Extensive experiments on prevalent benchmarks show that SDSGG outperforms top-leading methods by a clear margin.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer xMLQ6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-08

Summary

This paper proposes SDSGG, a novel open vocabulary scene graph generation(OVSGG) algorithm that leverages the reasoning capability of a LLM to better determine the relations between objects in the scene. It achieves this goal by first prompting a LLM with multiple persona prompts to expand a simple relational predicative to a list of detailed visual descriptions, which are subsequently used to augment the classification process. It also introduces a novel mutual visual adapter, which better captures the interaction between subjects and objects. Experiments show that these proposed designs are effective.

Strengths

1. Incorporating a LLM to augment the predicate labels for scene graph generation is a novel idea. This paper provides meaningful insight to future works in this area. 2. The experiment results (table 1-2) are strong, significantly outperforming previous methods. 3. The authors conducted extensive ablation studies on various design elements.

Weaknesses

1. Prompting the LLM is a key element of the method, however some crucial details are missing. For example, how are the prompts constructed? While the author provided the prompt in Appendix Fig 5, it is unclear how the "{scene content to be discussed}" is generated. The author did show some examples throughout the paper, but they are not sufficient for the reader to understand the underlying process. In particular, in L167, the author showed example #1 "Imagine there is an animal that is eating, ". In Fig 1c, there is example #2 "Assuming that the scene has a man riding a horse." These two descriptions have two different granularity, as one only includes the generic concept of "an animal that is eating" while the other has specific class names "man" and "horse". The authors should clearly describe what information is included into the prompt, and discuss the scalability and cost of generating such prompts. I suppose if the prompts are like example #1, they can be generated offline based on predicative label sets. However, if the prompts are like example #2, they need to be generated for every possible triple of (subject, predicative, object) over the label space, or be generated online over possible objects in a scene. It is unclear which is the case. 2. Additional discussions and experiments are required to justify some of the design choices. For example, 2.1 in eq 8, the loss of descriptions marked by possible coexistence is to make the prediction "close to those of CLIP." (L255). If this is the case, why not directly use CLIP results for these possible coexistence descriptions at inference time (eq 2)? 2.2 some discussion is needed on if CLIP is good at classifying the generated descriptions. What are the nature of these descriptions and do they fit well with CLIP's pretraining pipeline (i.e. object-level image caption)? As a concrete example, can CLIP properly distinguish descriptions involving counting, such as "with four legs", and "with two legs", mentioned in the examples? 2.3 what happens if we discard "possible coexistence" descriptions and only use definite coexistence and contradiction? Table8 shows that it is ideal to have a low weight for "possible coexistence" loss. What happens if we set the weight to 0 and remove it at inference pipeline?

Questions

See weakness.

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors discussed limitations and societal impact.

Reviewer RK4c6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-10

Summary

This paper aims to solve the open-vocabulary scene graph generation problem. Previous methods mainly adopt scene-agnostic prompts as text classifiers. The authors argue that using the fixed text classifiers not only struggles to model visual relations with high variance, but also falls short in adapting to distinct contexts. Therefore, the authors propose the scene-specific description based OVSGG framework. They employ an LLM and ask it to play different roles. Besides, they design the mutual visual adapter to encode visual features. Extensive experiments show that the proposed method significantly outperforms top-leading methods.

Strengths

The motivation and idea of this paper are innovative and interesting. Simply applying LLM to SGG cannot effectively reason the relationships. The authors consider employing the context and introducing multiple roles of LLM, which is shown to be effective for solving the OVSGG problem. Besides, the experiments are convincing. Plenty of ablation studies are provided.

Weaknesses

My main concern is Computational Complexity: The proposed framework involves multiple stages, including generating descriptions, renormalizing them, and applying mutual visual adapters. This multi-step process could be computationally intensive, making it less practical for real-time applications or scenarios with limited computational resources.

Questions

Please read the weaknesses part.

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

Yes

Reviewer qa1m6/10 · confidence 5/52024-07-12

Summary

This paper starts by discussing methods for Open-vocabulary Scene Graph Generation (OVSGG) based on the CLIP model, highlighting the issue that current OVSGG methods do not differentiate between various scenes, which limits their effectiveness. The authors introduce SDSGG, a scene-specific description-based OVSGG framework that improves both the textual and visual parts, enhancing the model's open-vocabulary relationship prediction capabilities.

Strengths

1. The novelty of this paper lies in its analysis of the issues present in current OVSGG methods, leading to the conclusion that differentiating between scenes is necessary to enhance the performance of OVSGG. The proposed Scene-specific Descriptions are particularly insightful. 2. The paper validates its findings on two datasets, VG and GQA, with experimental results showing significant performance improvements over previous state-of-the-art methods.

Weaknesses

1. The description in Sec3.1, Scene-specific Text Classifiers, of the paper is somewhat confusing. This confusion arises primarily because the text section includes multiple different naming conventions and several distinct modules. It is recommended that this section be rewritten to make it easier for readers to understand. Additionally, the terminology used in this section is inconsistent with that in lines 64~77, leading to comprehension difficulties. 2. For the OVSGG method, it is suggested to also train the model on a full set of relations and compare its performance with conventional SGG methods to ensure that it achieves good performance under standard settings. 3. Is the model robust to different base/novel splits? It is recommended to train and test the model on different base/novel dataset divisions to assess its robustness. 4. It is advised to train and test the model on the PSG dataset as well.

Questions

1. Regarding the selection of multiple personas, the ablation study shows that not using this approach results in a significant performance decrease. My question is, what exactly are the "standard prompts" referred to in line 329 of the document? What would be the effect if only one persona is used, and among the three personas mentioned in the document, which persona demonstrates the most significant performance?

Rating

6

Confidence

5

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer RK4c2024-08-12

I am satisfying with the responses. I will keep my original rating.

Reviewer xMLQ2024-08-12

The authors successfully addressed my concerns. I especially appreciate the clarifications of Q1. I maintain my recommendation for acceptance.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-12

Dear Reviewer qa1m, The results of the physicist persona are as follows: | Method | Base | | Novel | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | mR @50 | mR @100 | mR @50 | mR @100 | | Physicist Persona | 4.8 | 6.9 | 9.1 | 14.7 | We appreciate the constructive feedback you provided, and we will incorporate all relevant results and details into our revision. Sincerely yours, Authors.

Reviewer qa1m2024-08-13

I appreciate the effort you put into addressing my concerns in your rebuttal. As a result, I am willing to increase the score by one point.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Thanks for your review

Dear Reviewer qa1m, We are grateful for your thorough review of our submission and the insightful feedback you've provided. Please let us know if you'd like any further information. Sincerely yours, Authors.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC