MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405033500 · doi:10.1109/iccv51701.2025.00210

Visual Modality Prompt for Adapting Vision-Language Object Detectors

2025· preprint· en· W4405033500 on OpenAlexafffund
Heitor R. Medeiros, Atif Belal, Éric Granger, Marco Pedersoli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsModality (human–computer interaction)Computer scienceObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The zero-shot performance of object detectors degrades when tested on different modalities, such as infrared and depth. While recent work has explored image translation techniques to adapt detectors to new modalities, these methods are limited to a single modality and apply only to traditional detectors. Recently, vision-language detectors, such as YOLO-World and Grounding DINO, have shown promising zero-shot capabilities, however, they have not yet been adapted for other visual modalities. Traditional fine-tuning approaches compromise the zero-shot capabilities of the detectors. The visual prompt strategies commonly used for classification with vision-language models apply the same linear prompt translation to each image, making them less effective. To address these limitations, we propose ModPrompt, a visual prompt strategy to adapt vision-language detectors to new modalities without degrading zero-shot performance. In particular, an encoder-decoder visual prompt strategy is proposed, further enhanced by the integration of inference-friendly modality prompt decoupled residual, facilitating a more robust adaptation. Empirical benchmarking results show our method for modality adaptation on two vision-language detectors, YOLO-World and Grounding DINO, and on challenging infrared (LLVIP, FLIR) and depth (NYUv2) datasets, achieving performance comparable to full fine-tuning while preserving the model's zero-shot capability. Code available at: https://github.com/heitorrapela/ModPrompt.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207