Aligning Object Detector Bounding Boxes with Human Preference

Ombretta Strafforello, Osman S. Kayhan, Oana Inel, Klamer Schutte, Jan van Gemert
8/20/2024
cs.CV

No official code found. Best implementation: ombretta/humans-vs-detectors (1 star, last commit 2024-08-19).

Abstract

Previous work shows that humans tend to prefer large bounding boxes over small bounding boxes with the same IoU. However, we show here that commonly used object detectors predict large and small boxes equally often. In this work, we investigate how to align automatically detected object boxes with human preference and study whether this improves human quality perception. We evaluate the performance of three commonly used object detectors through a user study (N = 123). We find that humans prefer object detections that are upscaled with factors of 1.5 or 2, even if the corresponding AP is close to 0. Motivated by this result, we propose an asymmetric bounding box regression loss that encourages large over small predicted bounding boxes. Our evaluation study shows that object detectors fine-tuned with the asymmetric loss are better aligned with human preference and are preferred over fixed scaling factors. A qualitative evaluation shows that human preference might be influenced by some object characteristics, like object shape.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations(1)

Official repository for the paper "Aligning object detector bounding boxes with human preference"

10HTML, PythonMay 20, 20242 years ago

Cite this paper

@article{strafforello2024aligning,
  title  = {Aligning Object Detector Bounding Boxes with Human Preference},
  author = {Ombretta Strafforello and Osman S. Kayhan and Oana Inel and Klamer Schutte and Jan van Gemert},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2408.10844},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10844v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2408.10844.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2408.10844)

Discussion