Does it Really Count? Assessing Semantic Grounding in Text-Guided Class-Agnostic Counting
Open-world text-guided class-agnostic counting (CAC) has emerged as a flexible paradigm for counting arbitrary object classes by using natural language prompts. However, current evaluation protocols primarily focus on standard counting errors within single-category images, overlooking a fundamental requirement: the ability to correctly ground the textual prompt in the visual scene. In this paper, we show that several state-of-the-art CAC models often struggle to determine which object class should be counted based on the given prompt, revealing a misalignment between textual semantics and visual object representations. This limitation leads to spurious counting responses and reduced reliability in real-world scenarios. To systematically address these limitations, we propose a new evaluation framework focused on model robustness and trustworthiness. Our contribution is two-fold: (i) we introduce PrACo++ (Prompt-Aware Counting++), a novel test suite featuring two dedicated evaluation protocols -- the negative-label test and the distractor test -- paired with new specialized metrics; and (ii) we present the MUCCA (MUlti-Category Class-Agnostic counting) evaluation dataset, a new collection of real-world images featuring multiple annotated object categories per scene, unlike existing CAC benchmarks that typically include a single category per image. Our extensive experimental evaluation of 10 state-of-the-art methods shows that, despite strong performance under standard counting metrics, current models exhibit significant weaknesses in understanding and grounding object class descriptions. Finally, we provide a quantitative analysis of how semantic similarity between prompts influences these failures. Overall, our results underscore the need for more semantically grounded architectures and offer a reliable framework for future assessment in open-world text-guided CAC methods.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Semantic SimilaritySimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Grounding Fallacies Misrepresenting Scientific Publications in Evidence
Health-related misinformation claims often falsely cite a credible biomedical publication as evidence, which superficially appears to support the false claim. The publication does not really support the claim, but a read…
Fact CheckingLogical FallaciesMisinformationPassage Retrieval+1Geometry Meets Vision: Revisiting Pretrained Semantics in Distilled Fields
Semantic distillation in radiance fields has spurred significant advances in open-vocabulary robot policies, e.g., in manipulation and navigation, founded on pretrained semantics from large vision models. While prior wor…
Object LocalizationPose EstimationDoes Object Grounding Really Reduce Hallucination of Large Vision-Language Models?
Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have recently dramatically pushed the state of the art in image captioning and many image understanding tasks (e.g., visual question answering). LVLMs, however, often \textit{hallucin…
Caption GenerationHallucinationImage CaptioningObject Hallucination+2The Curious Case of Visual Grounding: Different Effects for Speech- and Text-based Language Encoders
How does visual information included in training affect language processing in audio- and text-based deep learning models? We explore how such visual grounding affects model-internal representations of words, and find su…
Visual GroundingInvestigating Anisotropy in Visual Grounding under Controlled Counterfactual Perturbations
Visual Grounding benchmarks assume that the object described by a referring expression is always present in the image, and grounding models are therefore rarely evaluated under semantically mismatched captions. In such c…
Referring ExpressionVisual Grounding