DI-MaskDINO: A Joint Object Detection and Instance Segmentation Model

This paper is motivated by an interesting phenomenon: the performance of object detection lags behind that of instance segmentation (i.e., performance imbalance) when investigating the intermediate results from the beginning transformer decoder layer of MaskDINO (i.e., the SOTA model for joint detection and segmentation). This phenomenon inspires us to think about a question: will the performance imbalance at the beginning layer of transformer decoder constrain the upper bound of the final performance? With this question in mind, we further conduct qualitative and quantitative pre-experiments, which validate the negative impact of detection-segmentation imbalance issue on the model performance. To address this issue, this paper proposes DI-MaskDINO model, the core idea of which is to improve the final performance by alleviating the detection-segmentation imbalance. DI-MaskDINO is implemented by configuring our proposed De-Imbalance (DI) module and Balance-Aware Tokens Optimization (BATO) module to MaskDINO. DI is responsible for generating balance-aware query, and BATO uses the balance-aware query to guide the optimization of the initial feature tokens. The balance-aware query and optimized feature tokens are respectively taken as the Query and Key&Value of transformer decoder to perform joint object detection and instance segmentation. DI-MaskDINO outperforms existing joint object detection and instance segmentation models on COCO and BDD100K benchmarks, achieving +1.2 $AP^{box}$ and +0.9 $AP^{mask}$ improvements compared to SOTA joint detection and segmentation model MaskDINO. In addition, DI-MaskDINO also obtains +1.0 $AP^{box}$ improvement compared to SOTA object detection model DINO and +3.0 $AP^{mask}$ improvement compared to SOTA segmentation model Mask2Former.

Paper

References (56)

Scroll for more · 38 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer KbFf5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-08

Summary

This work investigates the detection-segmentation imbalance issue in MaskDINO. It proposes DI-MaskDINO model with the residual double-selection mechanism to alleviate the imbalance. The framework mainly includes De-Imbalance and Balance-Aware Tokens Optimization. Experiments prove the effectiveness.

Strengths

1. The finding of detection and segmentation imbalance at the beginning of MaskDINO is interesting. 2. Experiments prove the effectiveness on various benchmarks. 3. Overall, the whole framework is clear and easy to follow.

Weaknesses

1. The motivation of De-imbalance module requires more verification. The authors claim "The token interaction is the key point to make sure that the secondly-selected tokens are beneficial for detection" in L169. But there are no experiments or theory to prove this claim or design. This makes the reviewer confused why the token interaction can play such a role. It's better to add some experiments or heatmap visualization. 2. The Balance-Aware Tokens Optimization module contains several components. It's essential to give experimental analysis of each design. 3. This work is built on MaskDINO, it is important to generalize this proposed manner to other decoder-based methods. It can further validate the generality of the proposed approach. 4. Experimental results on COCO test set should be provided for fair comparisons.

Questions

My main concern is the motivation and analysis of the designed component. Please refer to the Weakness section.

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

Limitations are discussed in the work.

Reviewer TyXi5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-08

Summary

This paper focuses on the detection-segmentation imbalance issue and proposes DI module with the residual double-selection mechanism to alleviate the imbalance; moreover, Balance-Aware Tokens Optimization (BATO) is proposed to guide the optimization of the initial feature tokens. The proposed method termed DI-MaskDINO, achieves SOTA results in both object detection and instance segmentation.

Strengths

1. The authors claim that the performance of object detection lags behind that of instance segmentation from the beginning transformer decoder is interesting; 2. The proposed method achieves SOTA results in both object detection and instance segmentation; 3. The paper is clear, and the experimental results are detailed.

Weaknesses

The technological innovation is somewhat limited.

Questions

The authors implement De-Imbalance module by stacking several self-attention and Multi-Head Cross-Attention. However, it could be seen as one-layer transformer encoder / decoder. The current phenomenon cannot clarify whether the performance improvement stems primarily from mitigating the detection-segmentation imbalance issue or from the increase in parameters/layer. The authors need to provide evidence to support this claim. For example, they could show that a 6-layer DI-MaskDINO outperforms a 7-layer MaskDINO, etc.

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

2

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

Yes.

Reviewer TyXi2024-08-14

The author's rebuttal has solved most of my concern, and I'd like to change my rating to Borderline accept.

Reviewer 5ayP7/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-09

Summary

This paper initially observes that in the current state-of-the-art model MaskDINO, the performance of object detection lags behind instance segmentation at the initial layer of the transformer decoder, resulting in a performance imbalance phenomenon. To explore whether this "performance imbalance issue" is a factor that restricts the effectiveness of the detector, the authors propose the DI-MaskDINO model, which introduces two key components: the De-Imbalance (DI) module and the Balance-Aware Tokens Optimization (BATO) module, to alleviate the performance imbalance between detection and segmentation tasks.

Strengths

- The paper identifies a novel issue: the performance imbalance that exists between object detection and instance segmentation, a problem that is less discussed in existing literature. This work is of significant importance for advancing research in the fields of object detection and instance segmentation, particularly by providing new perspectives and solutions for dealing with performance imbalance issues. - The proposed model demonstrates certain improvements over the baseline on the COCO and BDD100K benchmark tests, which to some extent indicates that the "performance imbalance issue" is a factor that restricts the effectiveness of detectors, and the logic of the paper is coherent.

Weaknesses

- The lack of in-depth analysis of "performance imbalance problem" in this paper, only through the experimental phenomenon, there may be a certain coincidence.

Questions

- In Experiment Table 1, why were AP_S, AP_M, and AP_L not tested separately for MaskDINO at epochs 12 and 24? - In Experiment Table 2, why is there no comparison on the BDD100K validation set for the SwinL backbone?

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

- Although the paper has proposed the "performance imbalance issue," it only conducted experimental observations on MaskDINO. Can other detectors also improve model performance by addressing the "performance imbalance issue"? The paper does not generalize this issue to a more general level, making it more universally applicable. - The paper's discussion of the "performance imbalance issue" is only focused on the initial layer of the transformer decoder and does not explore whether other layers of the decoder may also have the "performance imbalance issue."

Reviewer aN5C5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

The paper starts from an observation regarding imbalance in the intermediate results between detection and instance segmentation, which motivates the authors to propose DI-MaskDINO, which tries to improve the imbalance through the DE-Imbalance module and Balance-Aware Tokens Optimization module. Evaluated on COCO and BDD100K benchmarks, the proposed DI-MaskDINO achieves better results than MaskDINO baseline.

Strengths

- The paper is generally well-written and technically solid - The starting point of det/seg imbalance sounds interesting - Extensive experiments and achieve improvement over strong baseline MaskDINO

Weaknesses

- The paper claims improvement over SOTA results, yet it seems that the MaskDINO-SwinL is only reported under 12 epochs setting, while in MaskDINO paper they report results under 50 epochs setting with AP_mask=52.3, AP_box=59.0. I do not see why in tab.1 epochs = 12/24/50 are all reported for R50 backbone but only epochs = 12 are reported for SwinL backbone, making the SOTA claim less comprehensive and less convincing. - The motivation stems from the observation on det/seg imbalance. Yet, I do not see why performance gap between det and seg from the first layer can illustrate the imbalance. If the absolute AP value is used to measure the imbalance between det and seg, then why AP_box < AP_mask at first layer yet AP_box > AP_mask at the last layer? Furthermore, it is also possible that DI-MaskDINO just improves the performance of both branches which naturally reduce the performance gap (e.g., improving det from 10 to 20 may be in similar difficulty of improving seg from 15 to 22, but the absolute gap is reduced.) In short, I believe there lacks a solid definition and study on the "imbalance" problem, and the current comparison based on absolute AP value from first layer is not convincing to me. - Minor: I see the reported FPS is significantly different from the ones reported in MaskDINO, which I assume could be the hardware differences. Please explain how the FPS is measured. - Minor: The paper provides an anonymous link to the code/model, yet the provided repo is empty.

Questions

Though I hold several concerns as illustrated in the weakness, I feel the paper is generally technically good and with performance improvement over strong baseline MaskDINO. Thus my initial rating is boarderline accept. My major concerns lies in the motivation on imbalance is not so convincing to me, I look forward to the author's rebuttal for further illustration or other more convincing measurement.

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

No other limitations as far as I know

Reviewer 5ayP2024-08-09

Thanks for the authors responce, my concerns are resolved. I rise the score to Accept.

Reviewer KbFf2024-08-11

Thanks for the author's rebuttal. I have read the rebuttal and other reviews. It solved most of my concern. So I'd like to change my rating to Borderline accept.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC