用目标检测给视觉语言模型加空间定位,解决计数幻觉问题。
GroundCount: Grounding Vision-Language Models with Object Detection for Mitigating Counting Hallucinations
- 用目标检测结果为大模型提供显式空间定位,减少计数错误。
- 在最强模型上计数准确率提升6.6个百分点,推理速度加快22%。
- 适合需要精确计数的多模态应用,如自动驾驶与医疗影像分析。
视觉语言模型(VLMs)在计数任务中存在持续的幻觉现象,准确率远低于其他视觉推理任务(不包括情感识别)。这一问题即使在最先进的具备推理能力的VLMs中依然存在。相比之下,基于CNN的目标检测模型(如YOLO)在空间定位和实例计数方面表现优异,且计算开销极低。本文提出GroundCount框架,通过引入目标检测模型的显式空间信息对VLMs进行增强,以缓解计数幻觉。最佳情况下,提示增强策略使性能最优的模型(Ovis2.5-2B)计数准确率达到81.3%,提升6.6个百分点,同时通过消除由幻觉引发的推理循环,将推理时间降低22%。全面消融实验表明,位置编码对强模型有益,但对弱模型有害;置信度分数则普遍引入噪声,移除后在五种模型中的四种提升了性能。进一步评估特征级融合架构发现,通过结构化提示实现的显式符号定位优于依赖复杂交叉注意力机制的隐式特征融合。该方法在五种评估的VLM架构中实现了四次稳定提升(6.2–7.5个百分点),仅一种因迭代反思机制与结构化提示不兼容导致性能下降。结果表明,计数失败源于根本性的空间-语义整合缺陷,而非架构特定问题,同时强调了增强策略中架构适配性的重要性。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Vision Language Models (VLMs) exhibit persistent hallucinations in counting tasks, with accuracy substantially lower than other visual reasoning tasks (excluding sentiment). This phenomenon persists even in state-of-the-art reasoning-capable VLMs. Conversely, CNN-based object detection models (ODMs) such as YOLO excel at spatial localization and instance counting with minimal computational overhead. We propose GroundCount, a framework that augments VLMs with explicit spatial grounding from ODMs to mitigate counting hallucinations. In the best case, our prompt-based augmentation strategy achieves 81.3% counting accuracy on the best-performing model (Ovis2.5-2B) - a 6.6pp improvement - while reducing inference time by 22% through elimination of hallucination-driven reasoning loops for stronger models. We conduct comprehensive ablation studies demonstrating that positional encoding is a critical component, being beneficial for stronger models but detrimental for weaker ones. Confidence scores, by contrast, introduce noise for most architectures and their removal improves performance in four of five evaluated models. We further evaluate feature-level fusion architectures, finding that explicit symbolic grounding via structured prompts outperforms implicit feature fusion despite sophisticated cross-attention mechanisms. Our approach yields consistent improvements across four of five evaluated VLM architectures (6.2--7.5pp), with one architecture exhibiting degraded performance due to incompatibility between its iterative reflection mechanisms and structured prompts. These results suggest that counting failures stem from fundamental spatial-semantic integration limitations rather than architecture-specific deficiencies, while highlighting the importance of architectural compatibility in augmentation strategies.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。