Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that decomposing pseudo-label generation into three visual reasoning steps—object verification, zero-shot naming, and background grounding—lets open-vocabulary detectors surpass single-step CLIP alignment, improving novel-

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 09:30 UTC pith:SXJB7TYX

load-bearing objection A well-ablated CoT-based pseudo-labeling recipe that deserves referee time, but a single ambiguous figure caption about an inference-time CBL++ step could invalidate the headline numbers if it is what it looks like. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.14792 v4 pith:SXJB7TYX submitted 2025-10-16 cs.CV

MSPL: Multi-Step Pseudo-Labeling for Open-Vocabulary Object Detection

Hojun Choi , Youngsun Lim , Jaeyo Shin , Hyunjung Shim This is my paper
classification cs.CV MSC 68T45
keywords open-vocabulary object detectionpseudo-labelingvisual chain-of-thoughtmultimodal large language modelcontrastive learningSegment Anything ModelOV-COCOOV-LVIS
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that pseudo-labeling for open-vocabulary object detection should not be a one-shot image-text match. It proposes CoT-PL, a framework that decomposes label generation into three interpretable steps: verifying SAM-generated regions with a multimodal LLM, naming each region zero-shot without captions, and grounding background cues. The final step feeds a contrastive loss that pulls object features away from background embeddings, directly targeting the crowded and occluded scenes where prior CLIP-based pseudo-labeling fails. On standard benchmarks the method reports state-of-the-art results, with the largest gains in exactly those challenging scenarios.

Core claim

The central discovery is that structured visual chain-of-thought, executed by an MLLM on SAM proposals, produces pseudo-labels good enough to push open-vocabulary detection well past single-step CLIP alignment: +7.7 box AP50 on novel OV-COCO classes and +2.9 mask mAP on rare OV-LVIS classes over the BARON baseline, with even larger relative gains in pseudo-label quality for crowded and occluded objects. The design is a three-step CoT—object existence verification, zero-shot category recognition, and background grounding—whose final step enables contrastive background learning (CBL), using identified background concepts as negative training signals to disentangle objects from background in fe

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the three-step visual chain-of-thought pipeline (region perception via SAM proposals plus an MLLM's Yes/No/Unsure gate; caption-free zero-shot category naming; grounding of background concepts), together with contrastive background learning (CBL), an InfoNCE-style loss in which MLLM-grounded background embeddings (sky, grass, etc.) act as negatives for the bag-of-regions alignment loss inherited from BARON. This turns the third CoT step into a training signal, not just a filtering step.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline assumes that a sufficiently capable multimodal LLM can reliably answer three questions on SAM-generated crops: Does the crop contain an object? What is it? Is it foreground or background?

What would settle it

On a labeled subset of crowded/occluded images, compute precision/recall of the MLLM's Yes/No/Unsure gate against human annotation; if the gate rejects a large share of true objects (or accepts background), the CoT pipeline's pseudo-labels lose their value. Alternatively, run the pipeline with a deliberately weak or always-'Unsure' MLLM—if AP50 does not fall to near baseline, the central claim about MLLM-dependent reasoning is unsupported.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, pseudo-labeling for OVD no longer needs image captions or predefined novel-class names; the detector learns novel classes from SAM boxes named by an MLLM.
  • Crowded and occluded scenes, the known weak point of CLIP-based pseudo-labeling, become the method's relative strength: pseudo-label quality improves by 103.4% (crowded) and 168.4% (occluded) over the best prior pseudo-labeling method.
  • Performance scales with teacher MLLM capability: swapping BLIP2 for Qwen2 raises AP50 by 4.1 points, suggesting that future MLLM advances will translate into further OVD gains.
  • The contrastive background loss reduces background collapse, where occluded objects are mistakenly learned as background, and cached semantic anchors cut training time by roughly 4x relative to online sampling.
  • Cross-dataset transfer improves slightly without fine-tuning, narrowing the gap to fully supervised detectors on COCO and Objects365.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the authors do not draw: the same three-question CoT could be applied beyond pseudo-labeling, e.g., to open-vocabulary instance segmentation or interactive annotation, where SAM masks already exist and an MLLM can name and ground them.
  • The paper's hard gate on 'Unsure' (discarding those boxes) suggests a testable variant: instead of discarding, re-query with different crops or use soft pseudo-labels, which might recover genuinely occluded objects that the current pipeline drops.
  • Because the pipeline depends on a strong MLLM, a lightweight student that distills the CoT teacher's yes/no/name/background decisions could be trained on a small annotated subset; measuring whether the student retains the crowded/occluded gains would isolate the value of the CoT structure from the teacher's raw capability.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper (whose abstract and title use "MSPL," while the body uses "CoT-PL") proposes a pseudo-labeling pipeline for open-vocabulary object detection built on BARON. SAM generates class-agnostic proposals; an MLLM performs three visual chain-of-thought steps—object-presence verification, zero-shot category recognition, and background/foreground grounding; a frequency-based "semantic anchor" filter retains reliable pseudo-labels; and a contrastive background learning (CBL) loss pulls object features away from background embeddings. On OV-COCO and OV-LVIS the paper reports state-of-the-art novel-class results (+7.7 box AP50 and +2.9 mask APr over BARON), plus improved pseudo-label quality on crowded and occluded subsets.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it is, to my knowledge, the first to formulate OVD pseudo-labeling as explicit visual chain-of-thought, it ships code and detailed prompts, and the ablations in Table 5 support the incremental contribution of preprocessing, multi-step CoT, and CBL. The MLLM-capability dependence is acknowledged in Appendix A and quantified in Table 8. However, the evaluation is undermined by the unexplained inference-time CBL++ step described in Figure 4, which appears to use ground-truth novel-class information at inference. This concern is load-bearing because the headline numbers—Tables 1 and 3—depend on the validity of open-vocabulary evaluation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Figure 4 / Appendix C] CBL++ is described only in the Figure 4 caption: "At inference time, we apply CBL++ to mitigate class interference by removing pseudo-labels associated with the ground-truth novel classes." This directly contradicts Appendix C, which states that pseudo-labels are "used exclusively during training and discarded during inference." If CBL++ suppresses or reweights outputs using ground-truth novel-class annotations, then Tables 1 and 3 are not valid open-vocabulary evaluations. If the phrase means something else, that definition and an ablation are missing. Because CBL++ is never defined, pseudo-coded, or ablated, the reported state-of-the-art numbers cannot currently be interpreted.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, 3.4 / Appendix C] The main text says the third CoT step identifies background concepts C_bg and that these are encoded and used as negatives in CBL. Appendix C, however, states that "CBL background prototypes are built from hand-crafted prompts rather than category names" and lists only five generic prompt types. These are different sources of background cues. Please clarify whether the MLLM grounding output actually determines C_bg or whether CBL uses only the five hand-crafted prompts. If the latter, the claim that the third CoT step "naturally motivates" and "leads to" CBL is weakened, and an ablation separating hand-crafted cues from MLLM-grounded cues is needed.
  3. [Table 4 / Sec. 4.2] The pseudo-label quality comparison (crowded/occluded) is not controlled: PB-OVD, VL-PLM, and SAS-Det use their original CLIP-based teachers and proposal-generation pipelines, so the 103.4% and 168.4% relative improvements may be due to differences in teacher model (MLLM vs CLIP), proposal generator, or filtering, rather than to visual CoT reasoning per se. To support the paper's claim that CoT reasoning specifically improves complex-scene pseudo-labels, please include an ablation using the same SAM proposals and the same MLLM with and without the three-step CoT structure, and ideally a CLIP-based variant under the same proposal pipeline.
  4. [Sec. 3.2 / Table 6 / Appendix A] The semantic-anchor threshold is set to the minimum base-class annotation count, and Table 6 tests only ALL versus MIN. Appendix A admits that this threshold "unfairly removes" long-tailed categories. Without a sensitivity analysis (e.g., a few thresholds between ALL and MIN, or per-dataset justification), the paper's claim that this choice is reliable and not a source of uncontrolled bias is not fully supported. This is a reproducibility and robustness concern, though less severe than the CBL++ issue.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title / Abstract] The abstract and title refer to "MSPL," while the main text and GitHub use "CoT-PL." The abstract also reports gains (+9.4 AP50, +3.2/+2.2 APr) that differ from the body (+7.7, +2.9). Please reconcile names and numbers.
  2. [Sec. 3.4 vs Appendix F] The main text says the cached semantic-anchor composition generator "reduces overall training time by 4x," while Appendix F says caching "reduced training time by 25%." These are inconsistent statements and should be clarified.
  3. [Table 5 / Sec. 4.2] The prose states that CBL "improves performance by 7.1%" when the table shows the difference between CoT(3x) and CoT(3x)+CBL is 1.4 points. If the 7.1 is relative to the no-preprocessing baseline, say so explicitly.
  4. [Appendix B] All experiments use a single fixed seed. Given that the gains over BARON are on the order of a few points, reporting variance across at least three seeds would strengthen the empirical claims.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

CBL++ inference step is undefined and, read literally, uses ground-truth novel-class information at evaluation time; this is the only load-bearing circular reduction found.

specific steps
  1. other [Figure 4 caption (Section 3.4); contradicted by Appendix C; affects Tables 1 and 3]
    "At inference time, we apply CBL++ to mitigate class interference by removing pseudo-labels associated with the ground-truth novel classes. ... The pseudo-labels are used exclusively during training and discarded during inference."

    The paper's SOTA claims are novel-class AP50 on OV-COCO and rare-class mask AP on OV-LVIS. The only description of CBL++ says it removes pseudo-labels associated with the ground-truth novel classes at inference. Appendix C states pseudo-labels are training-only and discarded at inference, so this step is either undefined or it injects test-set novel-class information into inference. If the latter reading holds, the evaluated novel-class predictions are partially constructed from the evaluation target, so the headline improvements are not independent predictions. No pseudocode, ablation, or method text defines or isolates CBL++, making the main comparison unverifiable.

full rationale

The three-step CoT pseudo-labeling and contrastive background learning are empirical pipeline components trained from base-split images plus MLLM/SAM outputs; their training-time operation does not reduce to the evaluation target. The semantic-anchor threshold is a base-class-count heuristic, not a parameter fitted to novel-class AP, and Table 6 explicitly ablates it. There is no self-citation chain and no equation-level derivation-equals-input in the loss or pseudo-labeling formulas. The sole load-bearing problem is Figure 4's CBL++: it is the only description of an inference-time step applied to the main results, it is contradicted by Appendix C, and it is never defined or ablated. Read literally, it removes pseudo-labels using ground-truth novel-class knowledge, which would make the reported AP_N/AP_r numbers at least partially constructed from the answer key. Read benignly, it is a missing definition of a step that affects the central comparison. Either way, the main state-of-the-art claim is not independently verifiable as written; the score of 6 reflects this central, though isolated, reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. The learned background embedding and semantic anchors are model components, not invented entities. The main external dependencies are the capabilities of SAM, CLIP, and the MLLM teacher, plus several hand-chosen hyperparameters.

free parameters (3)
  • semantic_anchor_threshold = 1237 (OV-COCO), 1 (OV-LVIS)
    Threshold for filtering pseudo-labels by annotation count; chosen as the minimum annotation count among base classes. This is a per-dataset hand-set value that directly affects the pseudo-label set (Table 6).
  • background_temperature_tau'' = 10.0
    Temperature for the background contrastive loss in CBL (Appendix D). This is a hyperparameter chosen by the authors and controls the strength of background negative samples.
  • blur_kernel_and_sigma = 31x31, sigma=0
    Gaussian blur applied to regions outside the target mask before MLLM querying (Appendix G.1). A hand-chosen preprocessing parameter that affects pseudo-label quality.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption SAM whole-object masks can be converted to tight boxes that cover objects; MLLM 'Yes' responses correctly identify valid objects.
    Section 3.1 uses SAM masks and MLLM verification as the first CoT step. If SAM oversegments or the MLLM hallucinates object presence, all downstream labels are affected.
  • domain assumption MLLM zero-shot class recognition on blurred/grayscale proposals is accurate enough for novel classes.
    Section 3.2 relies on MLLM category recognition; Table 8 shows strong dependence on MLLM capability (BLIP2 37.6 vs Qwen2 41.7 AP50).
  • ad hoc to paper Five hand-crafted background prompts (sky, water surface, vegetation, paved ground, plain wall) adequately represent background for CBL.
    Appendix C defines exactly five background types. This is a manual choice with no independent justification; if real backgrounds are more diverse, the negative prototypes may be unrepresentative.
  • ad hoc to paper Semantic anchor filtering with the minimum base-class annotation threshold removes noise without discarding useful long-tail classes.
    Section 3.2 and Table 6 use this threshold. Appendix A acknowledges it unfairly removes long-tailed categories below the count, so the assumption is only partially satisfied.
  • domain assumption BARON's bag-of-regions alignment and CLIP text-image embedding space are valid for training the detector.
    The method is built directly on BARON (Wu et al., 2023c) and inherits its assumption that region features and text embeddings can be aligned via pseudo-words in a shared CLIP space.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24331 in / 11068 out tokens · 88324 ms · 2026-08-04T09:30:11.823300+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Open-vocabulary object detection (OVD) aims to recognize and localize object categories beyond the training set. Recent approaches leverage vision-language models to generate pseudo-labels using image-text alignment, allowing detectors to generalize to unseen classes without explicit supervision. However, these methods depend heavily on single-step image-text matching, neglecting the intermediate reasoning steps crucial for interpreting semantically complex visual contexts, such as crowding or occlusion. In this paper, we introduce MSPL, a framework that incorporates multi-step visual reasoning into the pseudo-labeling process for OVD. It decomposes complex scene understanding into three interpretable steps-object localization, category recognition, and background grounding-where these intermediate reasoning states serve as rich supervision sources. Extensive experiments on standard OVD evaluation protocols demonstrate that MSPL achieves state-of-the-art performance with superior pseudo-labeling efficiency, outperforming the strong baseline by 9.4 AP50 for novel classes on OV-COCO and improving box and mask APr by 3.2 and 2.2, respectively, on OV-LVIS. Code and models are available at https://github.com/hchoi256/mspl.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.14792 by Hojun Choi, Hyunjung Shim, Jaeyo Shin, Youngsun Lim.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Trends in pseudo-labeling for OVD. (a) Manual pseudo-labels for novel classes are costly and do not scale. (b) Recent self-training methods automate pseudo-labeling by labeling re￾gion proposals via similarity with category text embeddings using vision-language models (VLMs), but degrade with VLMs’ poor object localization and caption-dependent vocabulary. (c) We employ visual chain-of-thought with Segment… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Limitations and quality of pseudo-labels for complex scenes. (a) Noisy pseudo boxes due to poor object localization by VLMs, (b) limited object coverage from captions, and (c) occluded objects treated as background. (d) Pseudo-label quality on the OV-COCO validation set: Crowded denotes images with many objects and Occluded denotes objects occluded by other objects. pre-trained on large-scale image-text pa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of the proposed visual chain-of-thought pipeline. Our method first queries an MLLM about object existence inside SAM-generated pseudo boxes on preprocessed images, then performs zero-shot labeling, and finally extracts background representations nearby. Refined with semantic anchors for reliability, the resulting pseudo-annotations are merged into the base set. simple CLIP matching lacks fine-grai… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overall architecture of CoT-PL. Built on BARON (Wu et al., 2023c) (See Appendix F), the proposed method encodes the open-world base set, partially including novel classes, using the CLIP text encoder. The CLIP embeddings of multiple background concepts are averaged to initialize a single learnable background embedding. These concepts are also used as negative samples in contrastive learning to encourage fe… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The overall architecture of BARON (Wu et al., 2023c). To reduce sampling time during training, BARON’s naive neighbor sampling can optionally be replaced with our semantic anchor￾based strategy. In particular, caching the anchors reduced training time by 25% compared to the baseline, while maintaining the original performance. a contrastive learning loss based on InfoNCE (Rusak et al., 2024): Lbag = − 1 2 … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of image preprocessing strategies. We adopt three strategies: (a) simple box, (b) black mask, and (c) blur & grayscale. Each image is labeled with the MLLM’s (Bai et al., 2023) prediction. Qualitative analysis indicates that (c) yields the most reliable zero-shot object recognition performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of annotations per class. Based on our Qwen2 (Bai et al., 2023) pseudo￾labels across 65 classes in the OV-COCO benchmark. For brevity, we omit the OV-LVIS distribution visualization, as it includes over 3,000 different pseudo-labels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: t-SNE results of feature distributions. Compared to BARON (Wu et al., 2023c), our CoT-PL generates more compact embeddings for novel representations. BARON Ours [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: t-SNE visualization of background separation. The novel object class “airplane” is shown in green, and the “ Background ” in pink. Compared to BARON (Wu et al., 2023c), CoT-PL more effectively separates the novel class from the background. (d) “person” (e) “car” (f) “tennis racket” (g) “sports ball” (h) “bus” Original Image (a) Object-level Labeling (b) Pseudo-Labeling (c) Background Labeling Base Class No… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Our proposed CoT-PL generates accurate pseudo-labels without captions through a CoT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of our pseudo-annotations on the OV-COCO dataset. by +0.6% and +0.3%. Notably, CoT-PL also substantially reduces the performance gap with fully supervised detectors, narrowing the AP difference to only 9.7% on COCO and 11.7% on Objects365. G.3 T-SNE VISUALIZATION We employ t-SNE (van der Maaten & Hinton, 2008) to visualize the feature distribution of novel category proposals, emphasizing the… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visualization of detection results on the OV-COCO dataset. Red boxes and masks represent novel categories, while blue boxes and masks represent base categories. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Visualization of detection results on the OV-LVIS dataset. Red boxes and masks represent novel (rare) categories, while blue boxes and masks represent base categories. 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Open-Vocabulary Gaze Object Prediction: Benchmark and Method

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A COCO+GazeFollow-derived benchmark (86 categories) plus a Grounding DINO + gaze-selection pipeline with selective tuning improves open-vocabulary gaze object prediction over existing closed-vocabulary methods.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Lin Chen, Jinsong Li, Xiaoyi Dong, Pan Zhang, Yuhang Zang, Zehui Chen, Haodong Duan, Jiaqi Wang, Yu Qiao, Dahua Lin, and Feng Zhao. Are we on the right way for evaluating large vision- language models? InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38: Annual Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems 2024, NeurIPS 2024, Vancouver, BC, Can...

    2024

  2. [4]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszko- reit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021,...

    2021

  3. [7]

    Smith, Wei-Chiu Ma, and Ranjay Krishna

    Xingyu Fu, Yushi Hu, Bangzheng Li, Yu Feng, Haoyu Wang, Xudong Lin, Dan Roth, Noah A. Smith, Wei-Chiu Ma, and Ranjay Krishna. BLINK: multimodal large language models can see but not perceive. InComputer Vision - ECCV 2024 - 18th European Conference, Milan, Italy, September 29-October 4, 2024, Proceedings, Part XXIII,

    2024

  4. [8]

    Open vocabulary object detection with pseudo bounding-box labels

    10 Mingfei Gao, Chen Xing, Juan Carlos Niebles, Junnan Li, Ran Xu, Wenhao Liu, and Caiming Xiong. Open vocabulary object detection with pseudo bounding-box labels. InComputer Vision - ECCV 2022 - 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23-27, 2022, Proceedings, Part X,

    2022

  5. [9]

    Open-vocabulary object detection via vi- sion and language knowledge distillation

    Xiuye Gu, Tsung-Yi Lin, Weicheng Kuo, and Yin Cui. Open-vocabulary object detection via vi- sion and language knowledge distillation. InThe Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022,

    2022

  6. [10]

    Hallusionbench: An advanced diagnostic suite for entangled language hallucination and visual illusion in large vision- language models

    Tianrui Guan, Fuxiao Liu, Xiyang Wu, Ruiqi Xian, Zongxia Li, Xiaoyu Liu, Xijun Wang, Lichang Chen, Furong Huang, Yaser Yacoob, Dinesh Manocha, and Tianyi Zhou. Hallusionbench: An advanced diagnostic suite for entangled language hallucination and visual illusion in large vision- language models. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognit...

    2024

  7. [11]

    Girshick

    Agrim Gupta, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross B. Girshick. LVIS: A dataset for large vocabulary instance segmentation. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2019, Long Beach, CA, USA, June 16-20, 2019,

    2019

  8. [13]

    Deep residual learning for image recog- nition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recog- nition. In2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2016, Las Vegas, NV , USA, June 27-30, 2016,

    2016

  9. [15]

    Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig

    Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc V . Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In Marina Meila and Tong Zhang (eds.),Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtu...

    2021

  10. [16]

    Llms meet vlms: Boost open vocabulary object detection with fine-grained descriptors

    Sheng Jin, Xueying Jiang, Jiaxing Huang, Lewei Lu, and Shijian Lu. Llms meet vlms: Boost open vocabulary object detection with fine-grained descriptors. InThe Twelfth International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024,

    2024

  11. [17]

    Contrastive feature masking open-vocabulary vision transformer

    11 Dahun Kim, Anelia Angelova, and Weicheng Kuo. Contrastive feature masking open-vocabulary vision transformer. InIEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023,

    2023

  12. [18]

    Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross B

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chlo ´e Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross B. Girshick. Segment anything. InIEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023,

    2023

  13. [19]

    Learning background prompts to discover implicit knowledge for open vocabulary object detection

    Jiaming Li, Jiacheng Zhang, Jichang Li, Ge Li, Si Liu, Liang Lin, and Guanbin Li. Learning background prompts to discover implicit knowledge for open vocabulary object detection. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2024, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-22, 2024,

    2024

  14. [20]

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven C. H. Hoi. BLIP-2: bootstrapping language- image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. InInternational Con- ference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA,

    2023

  15. [21]

    Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll´ar, and C

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge J. Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll´ar, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft COCO: common objects in context. InComputer Vision - ECCV 2014 - 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V,

    2014

  16. [23]

    Class-agnostic object detection with multi-modal transformer

    Muhammad Maaz, Hanoona Abdul Rasheed, Salman Khan, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Rao Muhammad Anwer, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Class-agnostic object detection with multi-modal transformer. InComputer Vision - ECCV 2022 - 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23-27, 2022, Proceedings, Part X,

    2022

  17. [24]

    LP-OVOD: open-vocabulary object detection by linear probing

    Chau Pham, Truong Vu, and Khoi Nguyen. LP-OVOD: open-vocabulary object detection by linear probing. InIEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, WACV 2024, Waikoloa, HI, USA, January 3-8, 2024,

    2024

  18. [25]

    Belongie, Alan L

    Jiyang Qi, Yan Gao, Yao Hu, Xinggang Wang, Xiaoyu Liu, Xiang Bai, Serge J. Belongie, Alan L. Yuille, Philip H. S. Torr, and Song Bai. Occluded video instance segmentation: A benchmark. Int. J. Comput. Vis., 130:2022–2039,

    2022

  19. [26]

    Langsplat: 3d lan- guage gaussian splatting

    Minghan Qin, Wanhua Li, Jiawei Zhou, Haoqian Wang, and Hanspeter Pfister. Langsplat: 3d lan- guage gaussian splatting. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2024, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-22, 2024,

    2024

  20. [27]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    12 Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agar- wal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InProceed- ings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July...

    2021

  21. [28]

    Khan, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan

    Hanoona Abdul Rasheed, Muhammad Maaz, Muhammad Uzair Khattak, Salman H. Khan, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Bridging the gap between object and image-level representations for open- vocabulary detection. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Con- ference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2022, NeurIPS 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, ...

    2022

  22. [29]

    Girshick, and Jian Sun

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross B. Girshick, and Jian Sun. Faster R-CNN: towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, December 7-12, 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,

    2015

  23. [30]

    Visual cot: Advancing multi-modal language models with a comprehensive dataset and benchmark for chain-of-thought reasoning

    Hao Shao, Shengju Qian, Han Xiao, Guanglu Song, Zhuofan Zong, Letian Wang, Yu Liu, and Hong- sheng Li. Visual cot: Advancing multi-modal language models with a comprehensive dataset and benchmark for chain-of-thought reasoning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems 38: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2024, NeurIP...

    2024

  24. [31]

    Objects365: A large-scale, high-quality dataset for object detection

    Shuai Shao, Zeming Li, Tianyuan Zhang, Chao Peng, Gang Yu, Xiangyu Zhang, Jing Li, and Jian Sun. Objects365: A large-scale, high-quality dataset for object detection. In2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2019, Seoul, Korea (South), October 27 - November 2, 2019, 2019a. Shuai Shao, Zeming Li, Tianyuan Zhang, Chao Peng, Gang Yu,...

    2019

  25. [34]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V . Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2022, NeurIPS 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, November 2...

    2022

  26. [35]

    Visual chatgpt: Talking, drawing and editing with visual foundation models.CoRR, 2023a

    Chenfei Wu, Shengming Yin, Weizhen Qi, Xiaodong Wang, Zecheng Tang, and Nan Duan. Visual chatgpt: Talking, drawing and editing with visual foundation models.CoRR, 2023a. Kangxi Wu, Liang Pang, Huawei Shen, Xueqi Cheng, and Tat-Seng Chua. Llmdet: A third party large language models generated text detection tool. InFindings of the Association for Computa- t...

    2023

  27. [36]

    CORA: adapting CLIP for open-vocabulary detection with region prompting and anchor pre-matching

    Xiaoshi Wu, Feng Zhu, Rui Zhao, and Hongsheng Li. CORA: adapting CLIP for open-vocabulary detection with region prompting and anchor pre-matching. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023, 2023d. Lingfeng Yang, Yueze Wang, Xiang Li, Xinlong Wang, and Jian Yang. Fine-grained visu...

    2023

  28. [37]

    Open- vocabulary SAM: segment and recognize twenty-thousand classes interactively

    Haobo Yuan, Xiangtai Li, Chong Zhou, Yining Li, Kai Chen, and Chen Change Loy. Open- vocabulary SAM: segment and recognize twenty-thousand classes interactively. InComputer Vision - ECCV 2024 - 18th European Conference, Milan, Italy, September 29-October 4, 2024, Proceedings, Part XLIII,

    2024

  29. [38]

    MMMU: A massive multi-discipline multimodal understanding and reasoning benchmark for expert AGI

    Xiang Yue, Yuansheng Ni, Tianyu Zheng, Kai Zhang, Ruoqi Liu, Ge Zhang, Samuel Stevens, Dongfu Jiang, Weiming Ren, Yuxuan Sun, Cong Wei, Botao Yu, Ruibin Yuan, Renliang Sun, Ming Yin, Boyuan Zheng, Zhenzhu Yang, Yibo Liu, Wenhao Huang, Huan Sun, Yu Su, and Wenhu Chen. MMMU: A massive multi-discipline multimodal understanding and reasoning benchmark for exp...

    2024

  30. [39]

    Mert Y¨uksekg¨on¨ul, Federico Bianchi, Pratyusha Kalluri, Dan Jurafsky, and James Zou. When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it? InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023,

    2023

  31. [40]

    Open-vocabulary DETR with conditional matching

    Yuhang Zang, Wei Li, Kaiyang Zhou, Chen Huang, and Chen Change Loy. Open-vocabulary DETR with conditional matching. InComputer Vision - ECCV 2022 - 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23-27, 2022, Proceedings, Part IX,

    2022

  32. [41]

    Open-vocabulary object detection using captions

    14 Alireza Zareian, Kevin Dela Rosa, Derek Hao Hu, and Shih-Fu Chang. Open-vocabulary object detection using captions. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021,

    2021

  33. [42]

    Cyclic contrastive knowledge transfer for open-vocabulary object detection.CoRR, 2025a

    Chuhan Zhang, Chaoyang Zhu, Pingcheng Dong, Long Chen, and Dong Zhang. Cyclic contrastive knowledge transfer for open-vocabulary object detection.CoRR, 2025a. Hang Zhang, Kristin J. Dana, Jianping Shi, Zhongyue Zhang, Xiaogang Wang, Ambrish Tyagi, and Amit Agrawal. Context encoding for semantic segmentation. In2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and P...

    2018

  34. [44]

    Cot-vla: Visual chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-language-action models

    Qingqing Zhao, Yao Lu, Moo Jin Kim, Zipeng Fu, Zhuoyang Zhang, Yecheng Wu, Zhaoshuo Li, Qianli Ma, Song Han, Chelsea Finn, Ankur Handa, Tsung-Yi Lin, Gordon Wetzstein, Ming-Yu Liu, and Donglai Xiang. Cot-vla: Visual chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-language-action models. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2025, Na...

    2025

  35. [45]

    Shiyu Zhao, Zhixing Zhang, Samuel Schulter, Long Zhao, B. G. Vijay Kumar, Anastasis Stathopou- los, Manmohan Chandraker, and Dimitris N. Metaxas. Exploiting unlabeled data with vision and language models for object detection. InComputer Vision - ECCV 2022 - 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23-27, 2022, Proceedings, Part IX,

    2022

  36. [46]

    Shiyu Zhao, Samuel Schulter, Long Zhao, Zhixing Zhang, B. G. Vijay Kumar, Yumin Suh, Man- mohan Chandraker, and Dimitris N. Metaxas. Taming self-training for open-vocabulary object detection. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2024, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-22, 2024,

    2024

  37. [47]

    Regionclip: Region-based language- image pretraining

    Yiwu Zhong, Jianwei Yang, Pengchuan Zhang, Chunyuan Li, Noel Codella, Liunian Harold Li, Lu- owei Zhou, Xiyang Dai, Lu Yuan, Yin Li, and Jianfeng Gao. Regionclip: Region-based language- image pretraining. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022,

    2022

  38. [48]

    Detecting twenty-thousand classes using image-level supervision

    Xingyi Zhou, Rohit Girdhar, Armand Joulin, Philipp Kr ¨ahenb¨uhl, and Ishan Misra. Detecting twenty-thousand classes using image-level supervision. InComputer Vision - ECCV 2022 - 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23-27, 2022, Proceedings, Part IX,

    2022

  39. [49]

    We adopt the 1×training schedule for OV- COCO (Lin et al.,

    and utilizes synchronized Batch Normalization (SyncBN) (Zhang et al., 2018). We adopt the 1×training schedule for OV- COCO (Lin et al.,

    2018

  40. [50]

    Pseudo-label generation process.During our offline pseudo-label generation process, we lever- age SAM (Kirillov et al., 2023; Qin et al.,

    and 2×for OV-LVIS (Gupta et al., 2019). Pseudo-label generation process.During our offline pseudo-label generation process, we lever- age SAM (Kirillov et al., 2023; Qin et al.,

    2019

  41. [51]

    a photo of [OBJ]

    is used to encode textual prompts, which are constructed using the hand-crafted template “a photo of [OBJ]” following ViLD (Gu et al., 2022). Pseudo-labels are generated using only the training set, without leveraging any image cap- tions. The pseudo-labels are used exclusively during training and discarded during inference. Contrastive Background Learnin...

    2022

  42. [52]

    During training, model checkpoints are saved every 10,000 iter- ations for OV-COCO and every 30,000 iterations for OV-LVIS

    and 180,000 iterations on OV-LVIS (Gupta et al., 2019), with a fixed batch size of 16 across all experiments. During training, model checkpoints are saved every 10,000 iter- ations for OV-COCO and every 30,000 iterations for OV-LVIS. The best-performing checkpoint on the validation set is selected for final evaluation. For our proposed modules, we provide...

    2019

  43. [53]

    For semantic anchor construction, we filter out infrequent pseudo-labels using a minimum annotation threshold—set to 1,237 for OV-COCO and 1 for OV-LVIS

    experiments. For semantic anchor construction, we filter out infrequent pseudo-labels using a minimum annotation threshold—set to 1,237 for OV-COCO and 1 for OV-LVIS. Additionally, the background contrastive loss temperature 16 parameter is set toτ ′′ = 10.0, which controls the regularization strength of background embeddings relative to foreground embedd...

    2014

  44. [54]

    Due to the severe long-tail distribution, some rare categories contain fewer than five instances; such categories are removed during semantic anchor construction

    protocol, we treat 337 rare categories as novel, and the remaining frequent and common categories as base. Due to the severe long-tail distribution, some rare categories contain fewer than five instances; such categories are removed during semantic anchor construction. Evaluation is performed on the standard LVIS validation split. •Objects365(Shao et al.,...

    2015

  45. [57]

    is a general-purpose segmentation model that predicts instance masks given spatial prompts. It enables high-quality, class-agnostic mask generation via zero-shot segmentation, providing fine-grained object candidates valuable for downstream tasks (Yuan et al., 2024; Han et al., 2025). Recently, LangSplat (Qin et al.,

    2024

  46. [58]

    By densely sampling point prompts across the image, SAM generates a diverse set of masks that capture object regions at varying levels of granularity

    leveraged SAM to extract hierarchical segmentation masks from images, enabling structured multi- scale object representation. By densely sampling point prompts across the image, SAM generates a diverse set of masks that capture object regions at varying levels of granularity. These masks are filtered and organized into three semantic levels—subpart, part,...

    2025

  47. [59]

    This setup enables efficient vision-language alignment and achieves strong performance on tasks such as image captioning and visual question answer- ing (VQA) with minimal training

    adopts a modular architecture comprising a frozen im- age encoder, a trainable QFormer (Zhang et al., 2024b), and a frozen language model such as OPT (Zhang et al., 2022). This setup enables efficient vision-language alignment and achieves strong performance on tasks such as image captioning and visual question answer- ing (VQA) with minimal training. •In...

    2022

  48. [60]

    This design allows the model to follow natural language instructions and generalize across diverse multimodal tasks

    and a frozen language model, such as Flan-T5 (Chung et al., 2024). This design allows the model to follow natural language instructions and generalize across diverse multimodal tasks. As shown in Table 9, this MLLM exhibits fair zero-shot performance on academic multimodal benchmarks, with accuracy ranging from 24% to 32% on most tasks. •Qwen2:Qwen2 (Bai et al.,

    2024

  49. [61]

    However, when applied to object-level understanding, recent studies (Zang et al., 2025; Fu et al.,

    MLLMs (Li et al., 2023; Dai et al., 2023; Bai et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a) exhibit strong zero- shot reasoning across vision-language tasks such as image captioning and retrieval. However, when applied to object-level understanding, recent studies (Zang et al., 2025; Fu et al.,

    2023

  50. [62]

    In our setting, where the MLLM is prompted on individual region proposals, it is essential to emphasize the target object while suppressing ir- relevant background information

    have shown that they remain highly sensitive to visual context. In our setting, where the MLLM is prompted on individual region proposals, it is essential to emphasize the target object while suppressing ir- relevant background information. As shown in Table 10, omitting preprocessing slightly degrades performance, yielding an APN 50 of 33.6 relative to t...

    2023

  51. [63]

    In practice, we validate that this strategy improves localization and reasoning in MLLMs (Bai et al., 2023), as shown in Table

    suggests that grayscaling and blur- ring regions outside the mask can effectively suppress background noise and enhance model focus. In practice, we validate that this strategy improves localization and reasoning in MLLMs (Bai et al., 2023), as shown in Table

    2023

  52. [64]

    dog,” “knife,

    Statistics.Figure 7 illustrates the annotation counts of pseudo-labels in the OV-COCO dataset, revealing a typical long-tail distribution. A small number of frequent categories account for the majority of annotations, reflecting their higher prevalence in the training data. This imbalance natu- rally emerges, as the MLLM tends to predict commonly occurrin...

    2024

  53. [65]

    Methods MS-COCO(Lin et al., 2014)Objects365(Shao et al., 2019b) AP (%) AP 50 (%) AP 75 (%) AP (%) AP 50 (%) AP 75 (%) Supervised (Gu et al.,

    and Objects365 (Shao et al., 2019b).We use BARON as the baseline and evaluate all methods without fine-tuning. Methods MS-COCO(Lin et al., 2014)Objects365(Shao et al., 2019b) AP (%) AP 50 (%) AP 75 (%) AP (%) AP 50 (%) AP 75 (%) Supervised (Gu et al.,

    2014

  54. [66]

    and OV-LVIS (Gupta et al., 2019), as shown in Figures 13 and

    2019

  55. [2008]

    Kankanhalli, and Ying Shan

    Guangzhi Wang, Yixiao Ge, Xiaohan Ding, Mohan S. Kankanhalli, and Ying Shan. What makes for good visual tokenizers for large language models?CoRR, 2023a. Junjie Wang, Bin Chen, Bin Kang, Yulin Li, Weizhi Xian, Yichi Chen, and Yong Xu. OV-DQUO: open-vocabulary DETR with denoising text query training and open-world unknown objects su- pervision. InAAAI-25, ...

    2025

  56. [2014]

    Hayes, Elisa Ricci, Gabriela Csurka, and Riccardo V olpi

    Mingxuan Liu, Tyler L. Hayes, Elisa Ricci, Gabriela Csurka, and Riccardo V olpi. Shine: Semantic hierarchy nexus for open-vocabulary object detection. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2024, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-22, 2024, 2024a. Shilong Liu, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Jie Yang, Qing Jiang, Chun...

    2024

  57. [2015]

    a photo of{category}in the scene

    for OVD, replacing its classifier with a linear layer that projects region features into the word embedding space. This enables each region to be represented by mul- tiple pseudo-words, capturing the rich semantics of each object. GivenCobject categories, the probability of a region being classified as thec-th category: pc = exp(τ· ⟨T(w), fc⟩)PC−1 i=0 exp...

    2015

  58. [2016]

    Girshick

    Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross B. Girshick. Mask R-CNN. InIEEE Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2017, Venice, Italy, October 22-29, 2017,

    2017

  59. [2017]

    VLMs support novel class recognition in OVD through various techniques, such as pseudo-labeling

    in open- vocabulary object detection (OVD) have been largely driven by the emergence of foundation models, including vision-language models (VLMs) (Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021). VLMs support novel class recognition in OVD through various techniques, such as pseudo-labeling. We build upon Faster R-CNN (Ren et al.,

    2021

  60. [2018]

    Explor- ing region-word alignment in built-in detector for open-vocabulary object detection

    Heng Zhang, Qiuyu Zhao, Linyu Zheng, Hao Zeng, Zhiwei Ge, Tianhao Li, and Sulong Xu. Explor- ing region-word alignment in built-in detector for open-vocabulary object detection. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2024, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-22, 2024, 2024a. Jiarui Zhang, Mahyar Khayatkhoei, Prateek Chhikara, and Fil...

    2024

  61. [2019]

    Boosting segment anything model towards open-vocabulary learning

    Xumeng Han, Longhui Wei, Xuehui Yu, Zhiyang Dou, Xin He, Kuiran Wang, Yingfei Sun, Zhenjun Han, and Qi Tian. Boosting segment anything model towards open-vocabulary learning. In AAAI-25, Sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, February 25 - March 4, 2025, Philadelphia, PA, USA,

    2025

  62. [2021]

    Learning to prompt for open-vocabulary object detection with vision-language model

    Yu Du, Fangyun Wei, Zihe Zhang, Miaojing Shi, Yue Gao, and Guoqi Li. Learning to prompt for open-vocabulary object detection with vision-language model. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022,

    2022

  63. [2022]

    Instagen: Enhancing object detection by training on synthetic dataset

    Chengjian Feng, Yujie Zhong, Zequn Jie, Weidi Xie, and Lin Ma. Instagen: Enhancing object detection by training on synthetic dataset. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2024, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-22, 2024,

    2024

  64. [2023]

    Zero-shot ob- ject detection

    Ankan Bansal, Karan Sikka, Gaurav Sharma, Rama Chellappa, and Ajay Divakaran. Zero-shot ob- ject detection. InComputer Vision - ECCV 2018 - 15th European Conference, Munich, Germany, September 8-14, 2018, Proceedings, Part I,

    2018

  65. [2024]

    Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Meng Huat Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Li, Pascale Fung, and Steven C. H. Hoi. Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision- language models with instruction tuning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, ...

    2023

  66. [2025]

    Object-aware distillation pyramid for open-vocabulary object detection

    Luting Wang, Yi Liu, Penghui Du, Zihan Ding, Yue Liao, Qiaosong Qi, Biaolong Chen, and Si Liu. Object-aware distillation pyramid for open-vocabulary object detection. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023, pp. 11186–11196, 2023b. Zhao Wang, Aoxue Li, Fengwei Zhou, Zhenguo Li, a...

    2023