Adaptive Important Region Selection with Reinforced Hierarchical Search for Dense Object Detection
Authors: Dingrong Wang
Hitesh Sapkota
Qi Yu
Venue: NeurIPS 2024 poster (2024)
Keywords: Dense Object Detection
Reinforced Hierarchical Search
Primary area: machine_vision
TL;DR: We propose an Adaptive Important Region Selection framework guided by Evidential Q-learning coupled with a uniquely designed reward function for dense object detection.

Abstract: Existing state-of-the-art dense object detection techniques tend to produce a large number of false positive detections on difficult images with complex scenes because they focus on ensuring a high recall. To improve the detection accuracy, we propose an Adaptive Important Region Selection (AIRS) framework guided by Evidential Q-learning coupled with a uniquely designed reward function. Inspired by human visual attention, our detection model conducts object search in a top-down, hierarchical fashion. It starts from the top of the hierarchy with the coarsest granularity and then identifies the potential patches likely to contain objects of interest. It then discards non-informative patches and progressively moves downward on the selected ones for a fine-grained search. The proposed evidential Q-learning systematically encodes epistemic uncertainty in its evidential-Q value to encourage the exploration of unknown patches, especially in the early phase of model training. In this way, the proposed model dynamically balances exploration-exploitation to cover both highly valuable and informative patches. Theoretical analysis and extensive experiments on multiple datasets demonstrate that our proposed framework outperforms the SOTA models.

Adaptive Important Region Selection with Reinforced Hierarchical Search for Dense Object Detection
Dingrong Wang
Hitesh Sapkota f Amazon Inc. Sunnyvale, CA 94089 sapkoh@amazon.c com
Qi Yu"
Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, NY 14623 dw74456rit.edi
Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, NY 14623 qi y...urirtt.d
Abstract
Existing state-of-the-art dense object detection techniques tend to produce a large number of false positive detections difficult images with complex scenes be- cause they focus on ensuring a high recall. To improve the detection accuracy, we propose an Adaptive Important Region Selection (AIRS) framework guided by Evidential Q-learning coupled with a uniquely designed reward function. In- spired by human visual attention, our detection model conducts object search in a top-down, hierarchical fashion. It starts from the top of the hierarchy with the coarsest granularity and then identifies the potential patches likely to contain ob- jects of interest. It then discards non- con-informative patches and progressively moves downward on the selected ones for fine-grained search. The proposed eviden- tial Q-learning systematically encodes epistemic uncertainty in its evidential-O value to encourage the exploration of unknown patches, especially in the early phase of model training. In this way, the proposed model dynamically balances exploration-exploiatiiii
to cover both highly valuable and informative patches. Theoretical analysis and extensive experiments multiple datasets demonstrate that our proposed framework outperforms the SOTA models.
Introduction
Dense object detection enjoys a wide range of applications in diverse domains 21 Represen- tative use cases include surveillance video tracking by the police and merchandise recognition for online shopping 42 () Despite its importance, dense object detection is an inherently challenging task as it requires predicting the bounding boxes for all objects present in given image irrespec- tive their shape, size, and number. The inborn complexity of images, such as shadow/ocelusion. image size, shape, color, and texture could also pose significant hindrance in the detection process resulting in lower accuracy [[5].
Existing efforts have contributed different techniques to address the key challenges in dense object detection. For instance, two-stage approaches have been popularized where the first stage extracts candidate objects and the second stage classifies the extracted object while providing the bounding boxes through regression network [15]. Representative two-stage detectors include R-CNN [I5] and Faster R-CNN (33]. Two-stage detectors are limited in the number of candidate object found in first stage through the regional proposal network (RPN) and suffer from a low recall, especially in dense scenarios. To tackle this, one-stage approaches have been explored that achieve higher recall along with faster training and inference [26] 38). There are mainly two types of one-stage approaches: inchor-based (e.g.. RetinaNet (26)) and Anchor-free (e.g.. FCOS (8)). The former computes the bounding box of an object by regressing the offsets from a predefined anchor box whereas the latter directly outputs the position and size of an object. However, existing one-stage
"Corresponding author, Work completed during the PhD study RIT, which is not related the position Amazon.
38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NcurIPS 2024).

---

(a) GFocal
(b) AIRS
(c) GFocal-V2
(d) AIRS
Figure 1: Bounding boxes produced by GFocal 25 GFocal-V2 [22] and AIRS, where GFocal,
GFocal-V V2 still tend to generate unnecessary bounding boxes resulting from false positive anchors, comparing to the proposed AIRS model.
detectors usually exhibit inconsistency in localization quality estimation between training and test- ing, stemming from the lack of supervision and resulting in many false positive anchors as shown in (23). In testing, some negative anchors may generate an unusually high-quality estimation score and be selected as positive anchors (i.e., false positives) due lack of supervision. GFocal (23 alleviates this issue by leveraging the Focal Loss and aligning the localization quality and classifi- cation branches into a unified representation. While achieved improved performance compared to previous one-stage detectors, GFocal still suffers from the problem of generating too many false pos- itive predictions on small objects in a complex background because of selected low quality positive anchors, shown in | (a) and (c).
Our analysis reveals that the non-adaptive criterion (which favors high recall) in existing one- stage detectors does not capture diverse types of candidate anchors residing on the Feature Pyramid Network (FPN) 25 and will result into many false positive anchors. This phenomenon becomes prominent when testing images are difficult with complex/noisy background. To tackle this chal- lenge, we propose to conduct dapptiv Important Region Selection (A (AIRS) that guided by a rein- forcement learning (RI.) agent performing Evidential Q-learning with uniquely designed reward function. Similar to human visual attention, AIRS conducts object search a top-down, hierarchi- cal fashion. Benefiting from the top-down paradigm, the top layer in the hierarchy with coarser granularity helps the model quickly identify most interesting regions that likely contain objects of interest. Only within those regions, the model performs fine-grained search to more precisely lo- cate the objects. Intuitively, the model only searches the patches from lower levels if the RL agent collects sufficient evidence higher level supporting the presence of potentially valuable object according to the learned evidential Q v-vulu..
Furthermore, in the early phase of RI. agent training, AIRS also encourages the agent to explore highly uncertain patches by leveraging the epistemic uncertainty provided by our evidential Q-value. Exploration of novel patches is also dynamically balanced with the exploitation of predicted high quality region. As result, AIRS ensures that all potential patches have been adequately covered during the search process while avoiding the attendance of low-quality patches from fine-grained layers, leading to much improved precision without sacrificing the recall. As can be seen from Fig- ure (b) and (d), AIRS is able to identify all objects without producing any false positive bounding boxes. In contrast, GFocal, as shown in Figure aa) and (c), produces many false positive patches by paying too much attention on low-level details to maintain a high recall. To assess the effec- tiveness of AIRS, we perform extensive experiments on multiple real-world datasets with complex objects/hackgrounds. Furthermore, conduct thorough theoretical analysis to show the conver- gence guarantee of our proposed evidential Q-learning. Our contributions are summarized below:
adaptive hierarchical object detection paradigm supported by an RL agent to mimic human visual attention that performs searching in the top-down fashion,
novel evidential Q-learning driven by a unique reward function, covering both potentially positive and highly uncertain patches through dynamically balancing exploitation and exploration, theoretical guarantee the fast convergence of the proposed evidential Q-learning algorithm, SOTA object detection performance outperforming strong baselines on challenging datasets.
2 Related Work
Object Detection. In dense object detection I0 both two-stage and one-stage detectors have been investigated in existing literature. Representative techniques in the former group include R-CNN [5],
Faster R-CNN (33, where the detection involves two stages. Considering the limitation of

---

slow training and inference in two-stage detectors, multiple one-stage detectors have been proposed, such as FCOS, ATSS and GFocal series [8 45
23 22]. However, these methods still suffer from at- tending too many false positive anchors (region proposals) resulting from the architecture design and the training setting. To overcome this, we design an uncertainty-guii guided RI. to perform hierarchical search that effectively reduces the false positive detections.
Deep Reinforcement Learning for Object Detection. DRL formulates object detection problem as a Markov-Decision Process (MDP). It tries to find the salient parts of an image that are more probable to contain a target object, and then further zoom into them 4 g] There are generally two different action settings for this MDP. In the first setting. hierarchical method is proposed by [4) where the agent chooses focus on one of the 5 sub-regions of the image (ie. top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right center) at each time step. In the second setting, dynamic method is proposed by (8) where the agent deforms a bounding box using simple transformation actions (horizontal moves, vertical moves, scale changes, and aspect ratio changes) at each step to find the specific location of an object in the image. However, the above methods only detect fixed number of objects. To overcome this issue, Ba et al. introduce deep recurrent attention model (RAM) to recognize multiple objects [3]. Further, Zhou et al. propose ReinforceNet, which performs region selection and refinement by integrating RL's action space with CNN based feature space [47.. Different from all these works, AIRS leverages the advanced Feature Pyramid Network structure and performs RL-driven hierarchical search guided by epistemic uncertainty with much improved detection performance.
Uncertainty in Deep Learning. There have been different approaches to quantify uncertainty in deep learning models. Sensoy et al. (36) propose an Evidential Deep Learning (EDL. network, which treats the predicted multi-class probability multinomial opinion as developed in subjective logic [8]. Malinin et al. [30] propose Prior Networks (PNs) that consider distributional mismatch to explicitly quantify the distributional uncertainty. Amini et al. T1 propose evidential regres- sion network that quantifies the aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty based on the
Different from previous work, we propose novel evidential deep Q-learning through an evidential regression Q-network to quantify the epistemic uncertainty, which is used to explore regions that the RL-agent is less familiar with.
Methodology
In this section, we first present the overall object detection process. We then go through each of the key component in our framework. We conduct a theoretical analysis to show how the proposed AIRS leverages effective exploration and hierarchical search to ensure theoretically guaranteed per- formance. Finally, we describe the training and inference process and explain how AIRS could be used for real-world object detection problems.
3.1
The Overall Detection Process
The overall detection process is guided by an RL agent as shown in Figure 2 Our RL environment consists of Feature Pyramid Network (FPN) that projects an input image into different resolutions organized into a hierarchical structure. As an example, the FPN in Fig. 2a has three layers with P5 having the lowest resolution and P3 having the highest resolution (these numbers follow the original FPN 255). Once a patch is selected by the RL agent, it is passed through the feature extractor followed by the recurrent neural network (RNN) to generate the state representation. The state representation then goes through the evidential Q-network, which formulates an evidential Normal-inverse Gaussain (NIG) distribution and outputs the Q-value estimate for each available action. Then by combining with the corresponding epistemic uncertainty in the Q-value estimate, we have the evidential Q-value which balances the estimated Q-value with the (lack of) knowledge of the RL agent on the chosen action. Thus, in the initial phase of RL training. there are more uncertain patches and the RI. agent is expected to explore more actively. As training progresses, the agent should try to choose those actions leading to patches (regions) that are most valuable. Based on the evidential Q-value obtained by balancing epistemic uncertainty and estimated Q-value, the agent takes action, and then selects the next patch with the goal of maximizing the expected reward.
3.2 Description of Key Components
State Generation. To generate a state, we rely on the patches produced by RL environment from one of the I. + 1 layers in the FPN, where I, is the top layer and 0 being the bottom one.
3

---

Feature Embedding
RNN
Ourrent State
Evidentiol network
e leaming
Trained
Agent
Feature
Training
Interaction Protocol
Selected Patch
Evidential G-vatue
Pretminned
FPM
Action Interaction
Replay
Bufter
positive
Calculation
(a) Overview the AIRS framework
(h) RI. Inference generate the binary RI. mask
Figure 2: AIRS training and test pipelines
In the FPN, each patch in the higher layer (low resolution) mapped to multiple patches lower layer (high resolution). Once patch from layer is selected, it is passed through the feature extractor to get the feature embedding vector e, E RR4 Finally, the feature embedding and previous state representation (s;-1) concatenated and passed through the RNN to generate the next state representation 8, = (N, 8; 0,) where Sp = and 0, is the parameters associated with the RNN. In this way, every state S, captures the knowledge of previous observations from environment via S:-1-
Evidential Q-Learning. To ensure detection of all positive patches, it is crucial to perform effective exploration. To achieve this, we design evidential Q-learning that performs exploration in a system- atic way by leveraging epistemic uncertainty. Let D denote the size of the action space. The Q-value for dt action gd.t given state s, is assumed to draw from a Gaussian distribution with mean Pa,t and variance o2e-- We further place Gaussian and Inverse-Gamma priors on the mean and variance, respectively 5
9d, N(-lua,, 22,). Ha, W-haa,, 0² ~ Lnv-Gamma(-Jaal Pa.e) (1)
where Inv-Gamma(Ou,r (d,.) is the Inverse Gamma distribution [ and (rd,t. Ma,t: Otd,t 9d,t) are evidential Q-network outputs that form the evidential distributions specified above. From these distributions, we can sample mean Pdd and variance o²,, i to generate Q-value estimate Jd,t- It should be noted that, because the Inv-Gamma term, effective sampling for qa. through the reparametriza- tion trick [19 becomes difficult. We instead generate mean and variance with their expectations:
Ba,
Eluaad] 7d,t.
Bloă,1
(aa,t 1)
Thus, the q-value sampled as
Id. N (-17a., (aaat (ca,t-1)
3d.t
(3)
Using this trick, the gradient could be easily traced back to evidential Q-network's hyper- parametrr outputs (Ya,,, Va,t. o,,,; Ba,e) ) for each action ad,t from the corresponding Q-value Jd.: in evidential Q-learning. In addition to the Q-value estimate, is also essential to integrate uncertainty facilitate exploration of unknown patches, leading to the following evidential Q-value
Blo%,1
Ba,
La. = qd.t + XVa[[pa,), Var[pa,
(4)
Vd,
Vd,i Va
where Var[pa, captures the epistemic uncertainty and À balances epistemic uncertainty and Q- value. The evidential decomposition of the total uncertainty allows us to separate uncertainty caused EE(2,,)) and uncertainty caused by lack of
by the noise in the data (i.e., aleatoric uncertainty knowledge (i.e., epistemic uncertainty or Var(ua,))). Since the evidential-Q value only integrates with the epistemic uncertainty, it ensures that the exploration will focus on improving the knowledge of the agent while being robust the noise in the data.
To generate the action vector, we consider both Li and the constraints that avoid the agent moving into an invalid region that includes already visited patches and void space (e.g. downward move- ments from layer 0, upward movement from layer L). To this end, we define mask vector. Let

---

mi, be the mask value (binary) associated with the dth action in t layer in tt time step then the masked evidential Q-value is
Chf - L. @ mi,
(5)
Let j arg max, (ahde then the action value for each entry d E {0, 10, D 13 is updated:
1, if
Od,
0, otherwise
(6)
More detailed information of the constraint mask design can be found in Appendix
Based on the masked evidential Q-value L the RL agent selects the best action a, and receives a reward r(s,, ay). The agent repeats the selection process until reaching a limit T steps or arriving at the terminal condition (i.e., upward movement in top-most layer L) is triggered. During each step, the agent stores the tuple of St, ar, Tt, S into replay buffer. After collecting K training tuples, one batch of training tuples is sampled for off-policy Q-learning. The following loss is used to update the feature extractor (0,) RNN (0,), and evidential Q-network (fe):
00,.0..0. 0. (qa.: 02) 2
qd,t r(s,, + +7 max(gd.c+1)
where qd.t is evaluated using the Bellman equation.
Action Interaction. The action interaction module translates the action into the location of the next patch to be selected. It considers a D dimensional action vector, where the first D actions: ad,t; df E [0, .., D 2] are downward movements that direct the agent currently located on layer ( into one of its mapping sub-patches in layer / with p², being the current selected patch from I layer. The location of the selected sub-patch from - layer is provided by the index of the action-value whose entry is set to 1 (e.g., ao The last action -D. denotes the upward movement to the parent patch in layer ( + 1. The action interaction process is essentially hierarchical tree search in FPN (with a virtual layer L as the root node) and we provide illustrative examples in Appendix
means top-left and a1,1 1 means top-right).
Reward Design. The action space of the RL agent involves two major types of movements in the hierarchical search, downward and upward. To facilitate each type, we define a unique reward function. For downward movement actions, we compute the reward based on the ranking of the patch selected by the movement action compared to all other patches located on the same layer in terms of the number of the positive anchors they contain. Specifically, we compute the quality measure estimate of each anchor by investigating a range of metrics: centerness [88. IoU[22), GIoU[34). and DIoU [46]. It should be worth noting that all these metries encode the supervised signal with a threshold to decide whether an anchor is positive or not. We follow the RetinaNet setting but DIoU our positive anchor criterion and conduct superiority. After getting the positive anchors for each patch, we calculate the quality score g(s,, ar) for each patch in terms of the number of positive anchors it as "ground truth" information. The details can be seen in Appendix C.I In addition, we set up a penalty term with the downward movement in each time step representing the searching cost. Such cost should be related both training progress and the depth of search. For example, searching a bottom layer's patch in a later training phase when the model gets enough knowledge of the input should be considered costly. Given this insight and by combining the above two factors, we design our unique reward
ablation study to verify its
Nepeoh P!.
r(s;, ar) g(st, a.)
(8)
Nepoch
where Repeoh, Nepoch are the current and total training epoch, aa is the penalty term for each layer L, and is the layer index of next selected patch given St, a, in time step t. For upward movement, the reward is simply set to 0, which means when the downward movement's 's benefits for exploration cannot cover the search cost, the model prefers to return back and search other patches in the same layer. In this way, achieve the exploitation exploitation-explorttio balance in the reward design, besides the evidential Q-learning.
3.3 Theoretical Analysis
We establish the statistical guarantee for AIRS that integrates evidential Deep-Q learning with hier- archical search. Let Q" be the optimal action-value function and QT be the action-value function corresponding to the policy nk.
5

---

Theorem 3.1. Under the assumption of the smoothness on the Bellman optimality operator, there exists a constant C such that the following bound holds
47 K+1
7 1Q - Q S Cbe.. 1 1 (A)((n.
1 1- Rmaz
(9)
where A denotes the action space, Rmaz upper bounds the uniquely designed reward, and K is the total number of RL iterations. The term ((,, v) is associated with the Hölder smoothness criterion on neural network function f. which required here to ensure the finite sample guarantee with E Z denoting the upper limit of the number of input variables on which the Hölder smooth function depends. This integer essentially controls the statistical rate for estimating the Hölder smooth function (39]. Term v is the exponent in the Hölder smooth function with v 1 leading to the Lipschitz continuity. Finally, De.5 the upper bound on the cumulative discounted concentration parameter over K steps. It quantifies the similarity between the sampling distribution obtained through f and the actual distribution of Kth step Markov Decision Process (MDP) starting from the initial fixed distribution on initial state-action pairs (So, Ao). A larger difference leads to higher S-.f-
Remarks. The complete proof is given in the Appendix B along with justification ensure all the assumptions hold in our setting. First, the upper bound on the r.h.s. consists of two types of errors: statistical (first term) and algorithmic (second term), where the latter decreases exponentially because our reward is upper bounded. As a result, the bound is dominated by the former term after sufficient rounds of iterations. Second, the Hölder smoothness assumption on the Bellman opti- mality operator implies that the optimal action-value function Q is close to the functional classes constituting the evidential Q-network and that functional classes are approximately closed under the Bellman operator. This completeness assumption ensures the finite sample guarantee for the pro- posed AIRS. In particular, the term r(n, v) X n -((,.) decays quickly with respect to the sample size making the bound even tighter. Third, thanks to the specially designed hierarchical search strategy, the action space in our setting is very small (i.e., D = 5) making the |A| small, leading to a tighter bound. Finally, the de./ term essentially provides the upper bound on the similarity between sampling distribution and actual distribution of the state-action space. By performing epistemic un- certainty guided exploration, our collected state-action samples are likely be representative of the actual distribution. This makes Φe.f small that further tightens the bound.
3.4 Training and Testing Procedures
The detailed training process is presented in Algorithm Mand illustrated in Appendix C.2 where the search always starts from the top-most layer i.e., L. It should be noted that, we create the RL environment by leveraging the FPN structure of the pre- traitra backbones (i.e., ResNet-50). Based on the masked evidential Q-value estimate, the agent selects the next action, which would be either downward or upward movement. Then, the agent moves to the next patch and continues the process until receiving an upward movement in layer L reaches the maximum time step i.e., T. After every K such iterations, training tuples are sampled from the replay buffer for off-policy learning. For inference, we leverage the same pre-trained FPN as training, and run the trained RL agent on the test image's ' FPN to generate RL mask for its FPN structure, illustrated as Figure 2b These binary RL masks are then used for patch selection in the test phase generate more precise anchors from large magnitude of candidate positive anchor pool to facilitate a more calibrated training (see Figure of Appendix C.2). As can be seen, the training is more efficient comparing to other RL based methods, and the inference speed is also competitive w.r.t. the latest baselines (see Appendix D.6).
4 Experiments
We conduct extensive experimentation to evaluate the effectiveness of AIRS. We first describe three real-world object detection datasets. For each dataset, we also construct a subset of images with more complex scenes. These challenging subsets can provide direct evidence of reducing false positive predictions using AIRS. We then present the experimental setting consisting of evaluation metrics and experimental setup (such network backbones used). We show the comparison results with competitive baselines in terms of object detection performance as well as inference cost in a quantitative study. Additionally, we conduct qualitative analysis and ablation study to uncover deeper insights on performance advantage of AIRS. Finally, in Appendix [D.4] we introduce the detailed training configurations to guarantee the success of our off- oof-po Q-leariing

---

4.1
Datasets
use the COCO trainval35k split containing I 15K images for training and minival split containing 5K images for testing. PASCAL Visual Object Classes (VOC) 20/2 [12] It contains 20 categories and is partitioned into three subsets: 5,717 images for training, 5,823 images for validation, and 10,991 images for
MS COCO 27:: It contains 91 categories. Following [38 26].
testing.
Google Open Images V4 [20]: It contains 9M (million) image with 600 object categories, where training set contains 1.74 M images, validation set contains 125K images, and testing contains 41K images. It is worth noting that images in this dataset are very diverse and often contain complex scenes with several objects i.e., on average 8.4 objects per image.
Challenging subset: From each dataset, we construct a subset (denoted as 'CH') to include most challenging images using the following criteria: (a) images where the ratio of large and medium objects (area 2 32²) to small objects (area < 322) ranging from I to 1/2 to ensure smaller objects coexist and embedd within large objects making detection task much more challenging, (b) im- ages where multiple objects overlap with each other, and (c) images where multiple small objects are embedded into the bigger one. Appendix D.7 show examples of selected images.
4.2 Experimental Settings
Following evaluation performed in the benchmark COCO dataset 27 we assess the performance using Average Precision (AP). Additionally, we separately report the AP performance for small, medium, and large objects named AP$, APM AP" respectively. For the challenging subsets, we report the AP score named as APCH It should be noted that small objects and constructed subsets correspond to the more challenging detection tasks and therefore we would expect a more significant performance gap compared with the baselines.
Evaluation Metrics.
Experimental setup. For the FPN, we follow the same experiment setting as GFocal, which uses its pre-trained ResNet-50 as backbone, and applies a 3-layer FPN with patch size defined as a quarter of the area of the layer L (the top layer L in case is virtual layer the root node in the tree structure), but instead use DIoU as positive anchor criterion. For the feature extractor, we use three-layer Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) structure. Through grid based syper-parameter search using a validation dataset, we set the total training epochs N Nepoch = 12, action space D = 5, maximum time step T 60, discount factor 7 0.9, learning rate 0.001, and X 1. We gradually shrink À to balance exploitation and exploration. For the penalty term Pi "t,0, set up, we choose (0.3,0.6.0.9) for layers (P5, P4, P3) after hyper- parameterr searching. For other baselines, we train them until convergence and test in the same data sets for fair comparison.
4.3 Quantitative Study
Comparison basclines. In our quantitative study, we include baselines that are most relevant to our model, including representative or latest two-stage detectors: Faster R-CNN 133, Cascade R- CNN 77]. Reppoints [41) TridentNet (24. DETR (1, Co-DETR 49 EVA
14 and DINO 44
as well as most recent one stage detectors: RetinaNet 126.. FCOS 38)
ATSS
45,, SAPD 48
SpineNet [II and GFocal (23). Faster R-CNN and Cascade R-CNN use an ROI pooling layer to extract candidate ROI regions first then regress from those regions, while Reppoints and TridentNet apply deformable convolution technique or scale-specific feature maps to handle scale and perspec- tive variations in images. DETR leverages set-based global loss that forces unique predictions via bipartite matching, and transformer decoderr architecture to effectively remove the need for Non maximal suppression and anchor generations. Co-DETR further applies a novel collabo- rative hybrid assignments training scheme on top of it. DINO improves DETR on de-noising the anchor boxes for end-to-end training. All one-stage methods use FPN, but the difference resides in the training loss (GFocal), and positive anchor criterion choices (RetinaNet, FCOS, ATSS, SAPD). Instead, EVA is vanilla VIT pre-trained to reconstruct the masked out image-text aligned vision features conditioned on visible image patches for exploring the limits of visual representation at scale. For fair comparison, all baselines apply the same pre-trained backbone (i.e., ResNet-50) to extract image features. For YOLO series comparison, since they are different from other one-stage detectors based on FPN, separately compare with them in Appendix D.I] Comparison results. Table I shows the performance in terms of AP for multiple datasets compared to competitive baselines. As shown, our approach has achieved better detection performance in general. Comparing to those RPN based two-stage frameworks which suffer from low recall given limited candidate object predictions, our approach leverages abundant positive anchors provided by
7

---

Table I: Detection performance comparison all three datasets along with their challenging subsets
Calegory
Method
MS COCO
Pascal VOC 2012
Open Image V4
AP
AP4
AP-
AP
AP-H
AP
APCH
Two-stage
Fasser R-CNN
83
36.2
18.2
39.0
48.2
19.4
73.8
25.2
15.2
78.4
25.5
37.4
19.6
38.5
42:2
Caccado R-CNNN
7
42.8
23.7
45.5
55.2
22.5
82.7
29.5
73.6
83.5
28.6
38.6
25.4
4014
44-
23.7
RepPoints
41
41.0
23.6
44.1
51.7
21.2
81.3
29.
74.4
83.0
27.6
39.1
24.2
39.1
42.5
21.5
TridentNet
42.7
23.9
46.6
20.5
82.5
29.5
64.3
84.7
28.4
41.9
20.4
Co-ETT
12.5
20.8
16.2
61.5
17.9
80.5
25.4
63.2
84,9
25.5
39.7
23.9
41.8
46.3
EVA [
46.7
28.5
48.2
61.9
28.8
84.7
31.5
75.4
86.5
28.7
44.1
25.8
46.5
50.8
26.7
DINO-4cale
47.8
30.2
50.1
62.3
29.0
86 M
33.4
77.2
K8.5
50.9
46.
29.8
47.8
$2.3
28,1
DINO-fcale
29.0
47-77
stage
FCOS
11.5
24.4
11.8
$1.6
23.5
83.3
31.4
61.2
85.8
30.5
40.3
26.1
41.8
45.4
ATSS 33
43.6
26.1
47.0
53.6
23.8
84.2
32.6
74.3
86.
51.3
42.2
26.9
42.5
46.8
24.0
SAPD 15
43.5
24.9
46.8
54.6
22.4
83.8
31.5
75.3
86.2
29.5
41.1
25.9
41.6
45.8
23.5
SpineNer
11
23.3
82.6
29.3
27.4
35.0
46.5
Ours
AIRS
483
32.1
48.5
34.3
29.4
88.7
37.3
79.0
91.5
35.6
47.5
31.5
48.1
83.1
29.0
Table 2: Detection performance using different backbone architectures
Caregoy
MS COCO
Pascal
Open Imagee
AP
APR
APPP
Twirstage
DINOrSwis: T
48.0
31.5
50.5
55.6
27.6
34.6
73.0
89.4
47.4
31:2
48.7
53.5
28:0
DINOIEdicienNNet
47.8
31.1
50.3
55.4
27.3
57.3
34.2
77.8
89.1
32.3
47-1
31.0
48.4
53.1
28.7
DINOCCoenNel
20
48.1
31.7
50.4
55.5
27.7
58.2
34.7
78.
89.6
32.8
47.5
11.5
48.7
53.2
29.2
Use stage
GFecal (Swin- 1)
46.0
22.6
49.5
54.8
25.7
87.3
35.8
78.7
91.1
33.2
46.4
30,0
46.9
51.9
26.7
Gieccl (PflicienNeet)
45.8
27.3
49.1
54.6
25.5
87.0
35.4
78.2
90.7
32.9
46.2
29.6
46/6
$1.5
26.5
Geocal (ConvNeXi)
46.2
27.7
19.8
55.0
25.8
87.5
36.0
78.9
33.5
46.6
30.3
47.1
52.2
27.0
32.8
29.8
48.5
49.0
53,9
(EfficientNet)
(CouNNeXi)
35.1
54.4
the underlying one-stage framework. Additionally, our approach can more effectively avoid false positive predictions benefiting from the learned RL masks that precisely detect positive anchors. This is clearly demonstrated through improved performance on small object detection (i.e., AP$) and the challenging subset (i.e., APCH). As can be seen, the performance improvement compared its base detector GFocal (without RI. augmentation) is as high as around 4% certain cases. noted that the performance advantage is not as prominent in the medium and large object detection as these are relatively easy cases and can be adequately handled by commonly used models. Our proposed technique is designed to focus on difficult images while remaining competitive easier detection tasks.
Results on different backbones. We also test our model's performance on multiple latest back- bones such as Swin-T (28], Efficientet-b3 [37] and ConvNeXt [29). and compare with the most competitive baselines of each category with the same backbone setting as shown in Table 2 The
results show a highly consistent trend as in Table
Inference speed comparison. Finally, we compare the parameter size as well as inference speed of our model with representative baselines. As the results shown in Table the inference speed of AIRS does not bring extra detection burden compared to those latest baselines.
Table 3: Inference speed comparison
Table 4: RL baseline comparison
Category
Model
Params
GFLOPS/FPS
Model
mAP
Two-stage
Faster-RCNN
40M
194/21
PACNet
4
54.2
DETR(DCS)
41M
216/25.4
Hierarchical-PP
4
46.1
Cascade R-CNN
41M
208/22.8
4scale
47M
212/24.1
Caicodo-RR RL
8
28.1
Onc-stage
FCOS
32M
165/19.4
Tree-RL [17
73.1
ATSS
32M
168/19.4
Multiplc-R1,
40.7
SpineNet
35M
176/23,4
ReinforceNet
53.4
GFocal
32M
168/21.8
Ours
AIRS
32M
165/20.7
AIRS
88.7

---

AIRS OPocal
ARS
Avsimignn Deetcctin
Avorage Detection
22
ma ang rnttrr
Smalll
Boudning Box Large
Boudning
Madium um
Large
Time step
MS COCO
(h) OpenImage V4
(c) Deep Q-learning curves
Figure 3: (a)-(b) Average number of detections per test image based on the bounding box area on
MS COCO and Openlmages V4. (c) Ablative study on epistemic uncertainty deep Q-evaluation.
Table 5: Ablation study on model design choices
Model Design Choice
MS COCO
IoU
Centerness
GloU
DIeU
DioU+Unnerrainty
AP
AP5
Apd
AP
APC
X
X
44.6
28.7
45.9
52.1
25.8
V
X
42.4
26.2
45.8
51.6
23.7
X
V
X
44.3
28.5
45.6
51.5
25.4
X
X
V
X
X
46.7
28.1
X
X
X
X
X
45.4
29.5
46.8
52.4
26.7
x
X
X
X
X
47.6
31.0
48.5
54.3
28.9
Results on RL baselines. We also compare AIRS with existing RL based object detectors
47
4 in Table It worth to note that these works either focus on active object localization which can only detect limited objects or leverage CNN and recurrent networks to detect multiple objects step by step that lacks the flexibility to conduct dense detection from complex background. In 43), ReinforceNet leverages hierarchical DRL framework for visual object tracking, which predicts target object's movement locations the next frame given the last frame's state information. Since the primary goal is different from ours, their policy network is for mode switch among four modes (search, stop, update, re-initialization) given the last state. In contrast, our policy network gives directional movement actions given the current state (i.e., patch location in the feature pyramid network) to support hierarchical search of objects. We ignore the specific APS APM APL metrics and only report the mAP performance averaged over all categories, which is also the most commonly used metric on the Pascal VOC dataset. The result demonstrates the superiority AIRS in dense scenarios with large performance gap comparing existing RL baselines.
4.4 Qualitative Analysis
Accurately selecting positive anchors via the generated RL masks has a strong impact on the final detection performance. For the more difficult images from the COCO and Openlmage V4 data sets, GFocal produces many false positive bounding boxes since it focuses on achieving a high recall on small objects. In contrast, AIRS has precisely identified the true objects (high recall) while avoiding the unnecessary small bounding boxes (high precision). This phenomenon supported by statistical counts in Figure (a)-(b). This clearly justifies its effectiveness especially in those challenging images. Appendix D.7 shows more results in the even more challenging subsets.
4.5 Ablation Study
We demonstrate the effectiveness of each proposed component through ablation study on MS COCO dataset. Specifically, we analyze the impact of different model design choices, such as positive an- chor criterion choices and the epistemic uncertainty design in evidential Q-learning. As shown in Table among all positive anchor criterion choices, DIoU is the most effective positive anchor cri- terion as it considers both overlapping area ratio and the centerness relativity between the prediction and target. Furthermore, without epistemic uncertainty. there is significant drop in detection per- formance. This justifies the importance of exploring the unknown patches by leveraging epistemic uncertainty in our proposed framework. In particular, for the challenging and small objects, it is more critical to conduct a deep exploration identify various types of objects. The deeper reason justifying the importance of epistemic uncertainty can be explained using Figure 3c where

---

one image's ' Q-learning curve in the search process as an example. The figure shows the Q-value (Q), evidential Q-value (Evi Q), epistemic uncertainty (EU) of the selected patch in each step, and the corresponding reward (Reward) as supervision signal. We also include the Q-value and the corresponding reward in each step if we train the model without epistemic uncertainty, denoted as Q w/o EL (i.e, evidential learning) and Reward w/o EL. Without epistemic uncertainty, at the early phase of training, the RL agent tends to select the patches with a high immediate reward and there- fore abandons patches with a low estimated Q-value (with low immediate reward). As many patches that require a deep exploration to find objects may be missed, the agent only selects those regions with high Q-value (shown in brown color) in the current step. Due to the top-down search strategy, the RL agent may never search the skipped region again, including all patches in the lower layers. This results in a significant reward drop (shown in the purple color) in the later steps along with an early termination (in step 40), resulting into a low cumulative reward in the long run. However, AIRS chooses regions based on the evidential Q-value (green curve) and therefore patches with even a low estimated Q-value (black curve) but high epistemic uncertainty (blue curve) may still have a chance be selected. In this way, AIRS can explore patches with objects requiring deep exploration resulting into high cumulative rewards shown in red.
4.6 Discussion
Performance of AIRS on large objects in MS COCO. this work, we aim to improve the detec- tion performance by having good balance between objects of different sizes and the AP metric is designed to assess the overall effectiveness in terms of detecting objects in all granularities. Com- pared to competitive baselines, AIRS is superior on all datasets. We observe that by placing more focus on smaller and more difficult objects, AIRS achieves lower performance on AP and APM in MS COCO. However, this is expected behavior as MS COCO has most of the objects being very large and therefore, the cost of missing smaller objects in the existing two-stage detectors seem to be low. As such, many two-stage detectors have superior performance (see Table TT. In contrast, as technique leverages a one-stage detector to better cover dense objects, it is relatively less effective to detect very large objects (which is evidenced by the lower performance by all one-stage detectors in Table D. It is worth mentioning that in other datasets, AIRS outperforms all baselines even on the large objects. In the case of Pascal VOC 2012, it is relatively easier and does not contain very large objects. As such, one-stage detectors perform comparable or even better than the two-stage detectors. As for Open Image V4, despite being challenging, it contains good amount of training samples with larger objects, which provides enough supervision for models to detect these large objects. As such, all single-detectors including our technique perform comparable or even better compared to two-stage detectors.
Comparison with two stage detectors like RPN. There are key differences between two stage de- tectors and AIRS. The former usually relies on a Region Proposal Network (RPN), which is less effective capture all targeted objects especially in a dense scenario. This is because, RPN selects anchors from the candidate anchors provided by the RPN based on the confidence score resulting into missing many true positive object anchors with low confidence. In contrast, FPN in AIRS is based on multi-scale feature representations. Thus, the number of selected anchors in all layers is far more than the ones proposed by the RPN, which avoids missing important object anchors. To tackle the many false positive anchors in the FPN based approaches, we propose a novel hierarchical search mechanism coupled with an effective exploration-exploitaiie Q Q-learning. As result, AIRS effectively removes the false positive bounding boxes without remov- ing the less confident true positive objects. This phenomenon also demonstrated in Table [] where two-stage detectors result in a lower performance compared to AIRS in dense object detection.
strategy leveraging evidential
5 Conclusion
We propose novel Adaptive Important Region Selection (referred to as AIRS) framework guided by evidential Q-learning built upon a uniquely designed reward function. AIRS encourages object search in a hierarchical, top-down fashion, where the RL agent moves down to a fine-grained level only when it likely to contain an object of interest. In addition, to facilitate detection of unknown patches, evidential Q-learning leverages the epistemic uncertainty to guide the exploration process. Our proposed technique dynamically balances exploration-exploiaaaii
where in the early phase the priority is given to the highly uncertain patches and in the latter phase priority is dynamically shifted to the potentially positive patches. Both theoretical analysis and empirical results on challenging object detection datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework.
10

---

Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by an NSF IIS award contained in this paper those of the authors and should not be interpreted representing any funding agency. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
The views and conclusions
References
[1] Alexander Amini, Wilko Schwarting, Ava Soleimany. and Daniela Rus. Deep evidential re- gression. In Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balean, and Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 14927-14937, 2020.
[2] Martin Anthony and Peter L. Bartlett. Neural Network Learning: Theoretical Foundations. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
[3] Jimmy Ba, Volodymyr Mnih, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Multiple object recognition with visual attention. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1412.775,, 2014.
[4] Miriam Bellver, Xavier Giro-i Nieto, Ferran Marques, and Jordi Torres. Hierarchical object detection with deep reinforcement learning. In Deep Reinforcement Learning Workshop, NIPS, December 2016.
[5] Christopher M Bishop. Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, 2006.
[6] Yuanqiang Cai, Longyin Wen, Libo Zhang, Dawei Du, Weigiang Wang, and Pengfei Zhu. Rethinking object detection in retail stores. ArXiv, abs/2003.0823., 0.0300, 2021.
[7] Zhaowei Cai and Nuno Vasconcelos. Cascade r-cnn: Delving into high quality object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and patter recognition, pages 6154 6162, 2018.
[8] Juan C. Caicedo and Svetlana Lazebnik. Active object localization with deep reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/15111.00115 2015.
[9] Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In European conference computer vision, pages 213-229. Springer, 2020.
[10] S. Chen, Z. Li, F. Huang, C. Zhang, and H. Ma. Improving object detection with relation mining network. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 52- 61, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, nov 2020. IEEE Computer Society.
[11] Xianzhi Du, Tsung-Yi Yi Lin, Pengchong Jin, Golnaz Ghiasi, Mingxing Tan, Yin Cui, Quoc Le. and Xiaodan Song. Spinenet: Learning scale-permuted backbone for recognition and localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11592-11601, 2020.
[12] M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, K. Williams, J. Winn, and Zisserman. The PASCAL Visual Object Classes Challenge 2012 (VOC2012) Results. http://www.paccal- httml. 2012.
[13] Jianqing Fan, Zhaoran Wang, Yuchen Xie, and Zhuoran Yang. A theoretical analysis of deep q-learning. In Learning for Dynamics and Control, pages 486-489, PMLR, 2020.
[14] Yuxin Fang, Wen Wang. Binhui Xie, Quan Sun, Ledell Wu, Xinggang Wang, Tiejun Huang, Xinlong Wang, and Yue Cao. Eva: Exploring the limits of masked visual representation learn- ing at scale. In Proceedings of the IEFF/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patlern Recognition, pages 1938-19369, 2023.
[15] Ross B. Girshick, Jeff Donahue, Trevor Darrell, and Jitendra Malik. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. 2014 IEFE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 580-587, 2014.

---

[16] Nisim Tarrab, Leonardo Chang. Miguel Konzalez-Mendozz and Neil Hernandez- Gress. Robust parking block segmentation from surveillance camera perspective. Applied Sciences, 10(15):5364, 2020.
[17] Zequn Jie, Xiaodan Liang, Jiashi Feng, Xiaojie Jin, Wen Lu, and Shuicheng Yan. Tree- structured reinforcement learning for sequential object localization. In D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. Luxburg, Guyon, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29. Curran Associates, Inc., 2016.
[18] Audun Jøsang. Subjective logic. Springer, 2016.
[19] Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv: 14, 2013.
[20] Alina Kuznetsova, Hassan Rom, Neil Alldrin, Jasper Uijlings. Ivan Krasin, Jordi Pont-Tuset Shahab Kamali, Stefan Popov, Matteo Malloci, Alexander Kolesnikov, et al. The open images dataset v4. International Journal of Computer Vision, 128(7):1956-199 2020.
[21] Sang-gil Lee, Jae Scok Bae, Hyunjae Kim, Jung Hoon Kim, and Sungroh Yoon. Liver lesion detection from weakly-labeled multi-phase ct volumes with a grouped single shot multibox detector, 2018.
[22] Xiang Li. Wenhai Wang. Xiaolin Hu, Jun Li, Jinhui Tang, and Jian Yang. Generalized focal loss v2: Learning reliable localization quality estimation for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11632- 11641, June 2021.
[23] Xiang Li, Wenhai Wang, Lijun Wu, Shuo Chen, Xiaolin Hu, Jun Li, Jinhui Tang, and Jian Yang. Generalized focal loss: Learning qualified and distributed bounding boxes for dense object detection. In NeurlPS, 2020.
[24] Yanghao Li, Yuntao Chen, Naiyan Wang, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. Scale-aware trident networks for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 6054-6063, 2019.
[25] Tsung-Y Yi Lin, Piotr Dollar, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Hariharan, and Serge Be- longie. Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), July 2017.
[26] Tsung-Y- Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollar. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Oct 2017.
[27] Tsung- Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, Lubomir Bourdey, Ross Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Dollár. Microsoft coco: Com- mon objects in context, 2014.
[28] Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103. 14030, 2021.
[29] Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao- Wu, Christoph Feichtenhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. A convnet for the 2020s. Proceedings of the IEEF/CVE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022.
[30] Andrey Malinin and Mark Gales. Predictive uncertainty estimation via prior networks. In S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett, edi- tors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018.
[31] Rémi Munos and Csaba Szepesvári. Finite-time bounds for fitted value iteration. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(27):815-857, 2008.
12

---

[32] Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. Yolo9000: Better, faster, stronger. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), July 2017.
[33] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. Faster r-cmn: Towards real-time ob- ject detection with region proposal networks. In Proceedings of the 28th International Confer- ence Neural Information Processing Systems- Volume 1, NIPS' 15, page 91-99, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. MIT Press.
[34] Hamid Rezatofighi, Nathan Tsoi, JunYo Gwak, Amir Sadeghian, lan Reid, and Silvio Savarese. Generalized intersection over union: A metric and loss for bounding box regres- sion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 658-666, 2019.
[35] Johannes Schmidt-Hiebor Nonparametric regression using deep neural networks with relu activation function. Annals of Statistics, Volume 48, Number 4, 1875-1897, 2020, 2020.
[36] Murat Sensoy, Lance Kaplan, and Melih Kandemir. Evidential deep learning to quantify clas- sification uncertainty. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018.
[37] Mingxing Tan and Quoe Le. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv: 11946, 2019.
[38] Zhi Tian, Chunhua Shen, Hao Chen, and Tong He. FCOS: Fully convolutional one-stage object detection. Proc. Int. Conf. Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019.
[39] Alexandre B. Tsybakov. Introduction Nonparametric Estimation. Anonymous, 2008.
[40] Artur Wilkowski, Wiodzimierz Kasprzak, and Maciej Stefaúczyk. Object detection in the police surveillance scenario. In 2019 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Infor- mation Systems (FedCSIS), pages 363-372, 2019.
[41] Ze Yang, Shaohui Liu, Han Hu, Liwei Wang, and Stephen Lin. Reppoints: Point set repre- sentation for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference Computer Vision, pages 9657-9666, 2019.
[42] Mengyao Zhai, Lei Chen, Jinling Li, Mehran Khodabandeh, and Greg Mori. Object detection in surveillance video from dense trajectories. In 2015 14th IAPR International Conference on Machine Vision Applications (MVA), pages 535-538, 2015.
[43] Dawei Zhang, Zhonglong Zheng, Riheng Jia, and Minglu Li. Visual tracking via hierarchical deep reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(4):3315-3323, May 2021.
[44] Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Shilong Liu, Lei Zhang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Lionel M Ni, and Heung- Yeung Shum. Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to-end object detec- tion. arXiv preprint 220::22000036033 2022.
[45] Shifeng Zhang, Cheng Chi, Yongqiang Yao, Zhen Lei, and Stan Z. Li. Bridging the gap between anchor-based and anchor-free detection via adaptive training sample selection. In CVPR, 2020.
[46] Zhaohui Zheng, Ping Wang. Wei Liu, Jinze Li, Rongguang Ye, and Dongwei Ren. Distance- iou loss: Faster and better learning for bounding box regression. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 12993-13000, 2020.
[47] Man Zhou, Rujing Wang, Chengjun Xie, Liu Liu, Rui Li, Fangyuan Wang, and Dengshan Li. Reinforcenet: A reinforcement learning embedded object detection framework with region selection network. Neurocompuring, 443:369-377 -793699779..0 2021.
[48] Chenchen Zhu, Fangyi Chen, Zhiqiang Shen, and Marios Savvides. Soft anchor-point object detection. In ECCV, 2020.
[49] Zhuofan Zong, Guanglu Song, and Yu Liu. Detrs with collaborative hybrid assignments train- ing. In Proceedings of the IEEF/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 14588,758, 2023.
13

---

Supplementary Material
Appendix
Table of Contents
Summary Notations
B Proof of Theoretical Results
B.1 Definitions and Assumptions
Remark about Assumption 1.
Remark about Assumption 2.
B.2 Proof of Theorem
Additional Details of AIRS
C.I Reward Design
C.2 Training/Test process
C.3 Action Interaction Details
20
Examples Demonstrating Action Interaction Process:
Case 1:
Downward movement.
Case 2: Upward movement.
Case 3: Search termination.
C.4 Clarification on RL masks.
D Additional Experiments
X3
D.1 Comparison with the Latest YOLO Series
23
D.2 Balancing paprme-rr Search
D.3 Datasets with a Large Amount of Small Objects
D.4 RL Agent Training Configurations
Ablation Study on Base Detectors
D.6 Train efficiency
D.7 Subset Generation Illustration
26
E Limitation and Broader Impact
26
F Link to Source Code
26
14

---

Organization of the Appendix:
In Appendix
A
we summarize major notations used throughout the paper.
In Appendix B
we provide detailed proof of the main theoretical result.
In Appendix
we provide more detailed information about our AIRS framework including
reward design and action interaction.
In Appendix
D we provide details related to experimentation along with additional results.
In Appendix we discuss the limitation of our work and its broader impact.
In Appendix
we provide the link to the source code.
A Summary of Notations
The major notations and their descriptions are summarized in Table 6
Table 6: Symbols with Descriptions
Notation
Description
pl..
ith selected region in Ith layer at time step t
P Me
The penalty term of the next selected patch on layer in time step t Center of region pl.,
(1),es Vire)
i,
Index of sub-patch and top layer index in FPN
N Nopocks Bepoch
The number of total epoch and current epoch
T
The number of maximum time step
D
Dimensionality of action space
S;
State space representation in time step
e₁
Feature embedding representation in time step /
ad.t
Action of movement signal at time step
rSst (t)
Reward associated with the state Sy generated by action a
Discounting factor used in the TD computation
P
MDP transition matrix
4d.1
Q-value estimates over the action space a,
qd.1
Temporal different target associated with the action d in time step t
qd.
Evidential Q-value estimate associated with the action d in time step t
Masked evidential Q-value estimate associated with the action d in time step t
mf.
Mask value (binary) associated with the dh action in 1th layer in t time step
0,
Parameters associated with the Feature Extractor
0,-
Parameters associated with the state encoder (RNN)
0.
Parameters associated with Evidential Q-network
+
All network parameters in our framework
pd.t
Mean of the Gaussian distribution
Variance of the Gaussian distribution
Va.t
of Evidence network as an output from Evidential Q-network
Ba,
Hyper-parameter of Evidence network an output from Evidential Q-network
Hyper-parameter of Evidence network as an output from Evidential Q-network
Otd,t
Hyper-parameter of Evidence network as an output from Evidential Q-network
mnv-Gamm(
Inverse Gamma function
X
balancing the exploration and exploitation
B Proof of Theoretical Results
We aim to obtain an upper bound for ||Q - 1h We start by providing formal definitions of sev- eral key components used in proof, including sparse ReLU network, Hölder smooth functions,
15

---

their compositions, and functional classes. We then provide two assumptions related to Bellman op- timality smoothness and concentration coefficient bound. Finally, we provide the proof for Theorem 1. It should be noted that our proof is developed based upon some key results in 35 13
B.1 Definitions and Assumptions
Definition B.1 (Sparse ReLU Network). Let L be the number of hidden layers, V be the upper bound for the neural network outputs, di be the number of nodes in the t layer, fi be the output of the (-th layer, and Wmaz be the total number of non-zero weights. The sparse ReLU networks can be formally defined as
{{
{
L+1
F (L, (d Wmaz: V) V)
max Willoo S 1. Σ Willo Wmaws max (E(de+1]
IIfiloo SV
LE[L+1]
(10)
In our case, since Q-values are always bounded and therefore, we can replace V by Vmaax = To simplify the notations, we can simply omit the term and use notation F(L, [=t)
Rame
I-7
[++1 Wmax):
In the above equation, Wi denotes the weights of the 1th layer of the neural network, i.e., W (W1, bi) and the final output f of the network given by
f(x) = WL+1o(WWL LW........ (W, - b1) + b2)...b-11) + bL)
(11)
where a is the ReLU function. In our case, we can have ReLU activation in each output layer except for the last layer to make the network sparse, which required prove the theorem. In the later part of our proof given by Equation 31 we show that the number of samples and network sparsity are directly related (more sparse, less samples) and therefore, to get the given convergence result, having sparse network will reduce the number of samples.
Definition B.2 (Hölder Function). Let a compact subset of R". Then, the set of Hölder functions on D is defined as
180 180((x) (5:))-aa(i s(y)l
C, v, H) = T:D
Σ ac <v
110e fllc +
sup a:||a|||= xyEEDxyy
Σ
||x --llks
(12)
where V > -, > 0 are function parameters, vn is the largest integer no greater than v, Or (01,-..,0;))) T, = (8t: -6"::...0". and is the dimensionality of the state space S.
Definition B.3 (Compositions of Hölder Function). Let and {py (pileew be integers and gj be a function with gyk being a Hölder smooth function that depends on at most πΙ components of its input, i..., Bik Cn, (D,, Fy. Hj). With G(Ip), My, My. H2 ( being the family of functions that can be expressed as compositions of {gil then for any f G([p;, f5 Vj, H2 Hzlse(w)) we can write the following
f f 8y 8y
82 -i
(13)
Definition B.4 (Functional Classes). Let F(L, {di 1=1 Wmax) be the family of sparse ReLU net- works defined on the state space S with dg and d 1. then Fo can be defined
I++1
=o= (f A R: f(., a) E F(L. [dt) Wmaz); Va A}
(14)
In addition, let G((p,, Ni Mj H))s)()) be set of compositions of the Hölder smooth functions defined on S E R'. Similar to Fo. we define functional class Go as
Go {f S x A R: f(., a) G((p, M; H, Hibia Va E A}
(15)
Based on these definitions, we introduce two assumptions about the Hölder smoothness on the Bell- man optimality and concentration coefficient bound, which are given below.
Assumption B.5 (Bellman Optimality Smoothness). For any sparse ReLU network function f e F with F being the family of functions, (s)) a) with T being the Bellman optimality operator can be written the composition of the Hölder smooth functions.
(T)) a) = Bg 8g-1-... 81 g0
(16)
In the above equation, g, has Pj+1 components, where each component gyt is a Hälder smooth function as defined above.
16

---

Remark about Assumption 1, It should be noted that Bellman Optimality Smoothness assump- tion holds whenever the reward function is smooth [3]. As our reward function is based on existing metrics (e.g., loU, GloU), we can easily convert to smooth variant (3 This will make the As- sumption true in our proposed framework.
Assumption B.6 (Concentration Coefficient Bound). Let u1, U2 E P(S. A) two probability mea- sures absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on S x A. Also consider h22 be sequence of policies and for any integer m, let us denote the distribution of (St, A by pam p=m-1 ....... u1. Then, the m concentration coefficient is given as
Pmm Pim-1 P W1)
x(m; U1, U2)
sup
Eus
(17)
dug
#1 #1 Tm
We assume that there exists constant the S oo that bounds the concentration coefficient, given as
(1-79) 7-) Σ
?"'h t mmx(m; e, S Pe.
(18)
where e is the fixed distribution of S x A and f is the sampling distribution.
Remark about Assumption 2. The Concentration Coefficient Bound assumption is commonly used in large class of MDP systems [3]. requires sampling distribution f to have sufficient coverage over S x A. In our context, because of the novel exploration strategy coupled with hi- erarchical searching strategy, our sampling distribution will likely have sufficient coverage on S x A, implying that this assumption holds.
B.2 Proof of Theorem 1
Based on the above assumptions, we proceed to prove Theorem 1, which is restated as:
||Q* Q ||1 Co..f I- Al)(n. v) + 4x K+
1 72 Rana
(19)
Proof. In the proposed AIRS algorithm, Ty is the policy with respect to QT and let QT be the action-value function associated with TK. Since, [QT*k is constructed by iterative algo- rithm, it is helpful to relate IQ" - Q* || to the errors that occur in the previous steps in AIRS, i.e., {QT T ] Therefore, the first step, we provide the upper bound for ||Q - QTK k || as function of error introduced in each step, which is given by the following theorem.
Q ||2 and l|Q -Q with f being the Theorem B.7. The relationship between Q!Q sampling distribution is
y 72
K+K+1
11Q" Q S
max Q!TT TQ 1 + (1- Rmaz
(20)
KE
Please refer Section C.1 of 13 for a detailed proof of the above theorem. It should be noted that
the first term (specifically max k] I - Q* 2I /) is statistical error and the second term is an algorithmic error. In the later part of our proof, we show that the statistical error diminishes as the sample size in each iteration grows whereas the algorithmic error decays to zero geometrically with K. the above equation, to get the upper bound, we need to bound ||@ TQ || In order to do this, we use the nonparametric regression. Specifically, we provide the following theorem to bound that error.
Theorem B.8. Under the assumption of the Bellman optimality smoothness in Assumption 1, for any & [K] we have
CR n(1 - 7)2
log No CR 5
11Q -TQ*
(21)
1 1-
For any 8 > 0 and C > 0 being a constant.
17

---

Please refer to the Section C.2 of [13 for a detailed proof for the above theorem. There are two terms that play a major role in the bound. The first term indicates the bias, which given
dist (Fo, 9o)
sup f'ECo./EFo
Ilf - ff
(22)
This term reflects the loc error of estimating the function in Go using the sparse ReLU defined in Fo. It also indicates the bias in estimating the functions in Go- The second term N3 indicates the minimum cardinality of the balls required to cover function Fo with respect to the lo -nomm This term indicates the variance associated with estimating the action-value function using sparse ReLU network. Substituting 8 = +. we can rewrite the above equation as
|| TQ ||? < od Go) + CR
'i(1 22) log No + CReaa
(1 7)n
In the Above Equation, in the right hand side, the last term is constant for given n. Then there exists absolute constant C' > 0 such that following Equation holds
CR log No CRmmz= CC R (1 (1-7)m n(1 - 7)2 log No8
n1 - 72)
Using this inequality, we have the following
QQ 113 s ( Go) + C'
n(1 7)² log No, C'
(23)
Now, if we establish a bound for dist.c (Fo, Go) and log N&. we will be able to get the bound for the ||QTh TQ*=-+1| as well. So let us find out the bound for each term.
(1) Bound for dist. (Fo, 9o): To get the bound for (Fo, we first show that ReLU net- work a( can be reformulated as a composition of Hölder functions defined on the hypercube. Next, we show that using Lemma 6.3 in (35), we can construct the ReLU network to approximate the hypercube components yielding a function close to f(., a) in the Loo norm. Thus, f(., a) can
be reformulated as compositions of Hölder functions defined on the hypercube. Considering,
h = 2Hr (u) = Bg (2H 1u Hg-1) and hy(u) = 8,(2H, -1- + 2: Vj E [2, 1), we can write
2H,
S( a) = gn ..... gi hg h where we can write hyg E Cn2 (10, 112, W) with W 0 and given as
(24)
W = max
max (2H, 1) H2 - 1) 15359-1
(25)
Now we can use Lemma 6.3 from (35] to construct ReLU network to approximate hyg, which can be combined with Equation 24 to show that ReLU network can be used to approximate [(,, a) in the L00 norm. According to Lemma 6.3 from (35), there exists a ReLU network hyt which is Hölder smooth such that [ihy hy S N 29. When is large, it can be written as
N max Cn Fi5511 13y 15i
(26)
where 1/3 = II min(y,, 1) with Vn = 1. For the large N, we can approximate f(., a) by +1 wmaz). Specifically, we have the following bound
belonging the ReLU class F(L", (d7]/ +1 for the approximation.
lIf(..a) -fllo S [ 112
(27)
where, X1- = IH Mi (T A 1)45 E 14-11 with Ag = 1. Now using above inequality along with
definition of N and [Íaz hiklooo I N v. we get the following
Idist (Fo, Go)l n" --1
(28)
18

---

where a" = ma +n5+ns
Bi and v3 v III=/+1 min 1).
(2) Bound for log Na: Using classical results the covering number of neural networks in have the following
[2]
log logNs - [[lwmmn L* max log(d))
(29)
sE(L*)
Let us consider that there exists Ç with Ç* + 2 such that
max
(n 13 + 1)3tts
Σ
log(n; + v2), maxp;
Pj
S (logn)s
(30)
sElg]
jElg
We further assume that
L S n))
. jE[L-]
min df z max dj S n Wmaz s3 n²" (logn)s
(31)
_E[L
Then we can rewrite Equation 29
log No < |Aln (log n) n)
(32)
Now substituting Eq. 32 and 28
into Eq 23 and replacing it into Eq. 20 we obtain the following
QTx 1 Coe,
K
CΦe [A]r(u,)) n)+
4y +1
-
[
+25"
Rmaz
Rmar
1-
(1 72)
1 1-
(1
72)
(33)
This completes the proof of our theorem.
C Additional Details of AIRS
In this section, first introduce the reward design in detail. Then explain the overall detailed training and test process through the complementary diagram and pscudo code. Next, we explain different actions defined and their interactions with the RL environment (i.e., FPN tree-structure) under AIRS framework with some illustrative examples.
C.1 Reward Design
For the reward design, first we need to get positive anchor by using IoU, GloU, DIoU, etc as selection criterion, along with the corresponding thresholds following RetinaNet (26.. we did an ablation study for these choices in Table Then calculate the number of positive anchors for each patch and rank those patches in the same layer to form L ranking lists. the action directed next patch in 75th
any list resides on 0-25th percentile, the quality score g is up-scaled 0.25, or if it resides percentile to 100th percentile, the quality score is up-scaled to 1, etc. In this way, the quality score and the penalty term have an alignment and perform exploitation-exploraiio balance in the reward design besides evidential Q-learning.
C.2 Training/Test process
Fig shows the detailed workflow of AIRS. It also captures important steps of the training process along with the major symbols and parameters used in the actual implementation. For RL training, we leverage the FPN from the backbone model (e.g., pre-trained GFocal)
up the RL environment. Training starts from the initial patch pl., on the virtual top-most layer L, where state embedding rep- resentation is generated after passing through the feature extractor f(-; θ,) and the RNN network. Next, the state passed into the evidential Q-network to get hyper-pas parametrsssstrrs governing the eviden- tial distribution, where Q-value is sampled. After getting the Q-value qa.: and epistemic uncertainty uds generated from the same distribution, we evaluate the evidential Q-value Gar-- Then, by im- posing environment constraints through masking distribution, the RL agent selects the next action a, based on maximum masked evidential Q-value - Finally, the RL agent moves next step's patch p/- .41 calculates reward Yt, and collects training tuples (8t, ag Tt, 8(+1) along this process.
19

---

RL mask
Weah
CC
class+box subnets
Niva -250
Voess
Figure 4: RL-augmented detection process
keeps searching in a given image until the upward movement action is selected in the highest layer or maximum time step 7' is reached. After every K such iterations, AIRS samples one batch of training tuples from the replay buffer D and conducts off-policy Q-learning to train all network pa- rameters e The overall training process is shown in Algorithm I where we use {0., 0,, 0,) to denote all network parameters. In test phase, as shown in Fig. 4 those aforementioned binary RL masks will be used mask out unnecessary patches across different levels the FPN structure so that those low-value false positive anchors (candidate regions) will be filtered out and never passed the head blocks for the bounding box prediction.
Algorithm AIRS Training
Require: Hyperparameters: Nepoch T, K, 7/ Ar
1:
Initialize network parameters (0), epoch Repoch = 0, stack S current selected patch p/,,-
ph, action a, count of training tuple k
2: repeat
3: repeat
4: time step f = 0,
5:
repeat
6:
Generate embedding <- f(p 0y)
7:
Compute state 8; per 8, RNN(e,, 1: 0,)
8:
Compute evidential Q-value estimate q², per Eq. (4)
9:
Compute masked evidential Q-value per Eq.
10:
Update action per Eq. 6
11:
Select next patch p:-- .++1 from RL environment given current patch and new action
ac
12:
Add last patch P',, to the stack S recording visited patches Compute RL. reward rt based on Eq. (8)
14:
Collect the training tuple 8t, Gz, 8141 into replay buffer D
t 1, k
16:
until > T or (p',
= ph,, and ap- =)
17:
if k% = 0 then
Compute total loss Le using Eq.
öCe Update O O Ir 69
20:
end
until One Epoch Ended
22:
Nepoch -epooch +
23:
until Pepoohh Wepoch
C.3 Action Interaction Details
Given the current selected patch pl,, and an action space with size D, the first D actions au,e, 1-1 [0, ... 2] denote the downward movements directing into one of the sub-patches P4,4+ when ad, 1; the last action aD-1, denotes upward movement into the mother patch from the immediate upper layer. An upward movement in the initial patch pf,e of highest level L indicates
20

---

hiddon vector
RNN
Current vector (s)
Evidential natwork
learning
Feature Extractor
Feature Embeddingg (6.)
Prus Pui.
Hoa Poc)
Selected Patch 10,1
Training Tupla (s, 3 (,4)
Gaussian Policy
+
Masked Evideniall
Uncertainty
Prediction
environment:
FPN
Action Interaction Reward Calculation
Action (s)
Repley Buffer
(r)
Figure 5: Detailed Workflow of AIRS
the termination of RL searching for one image input. The Action Interaction module determines the constraint mask by considering the constraints from RL environment, iee, we mask the evidential Q-value of any downward movement, which directs to already visited sub-patch or void space (e.g,, downward movements on bottom layer 0) to zero. Specifically, we generate a mask m, of length D, where m f. is the individual unit contained in the mask. For downward movements m E [0, 2, 3] on the bottom layer directing to visited patches before, set the mask value to zero to avoid such illegal actions per above instructions. Then, the masked evidential Q-value is given by performing element-win multiplication between q8, and m
Examples Demonstrating Action Interaction Process: We follow depth-first-search (DFS) rule conduct the hierarchical search in the FPN tree-structure and further include several stud- ies as examples to illustrate the interaction protocol under different selected actions. Let (a²,,- v(,)) be the center (also an alias) of the 7th region in the (th layer at time step t. In the beginning (i.e., step t = 0), we pass all the regions present in the L-layer to obtain the masked evidential Q-value Gā for each action dd,, using Eq. (5) and then select the next action corresponding to the maximum masked evidential Q-value estimation. Depending on the action selected, we define the -foloowing three cases that describe the corresponding behavior of the agent to form the interaction protocol.
Case 1: Downward movement. It happens when Σd-2 ud, = 1. The RL agent will go down to one the lower-level regions from the current region. For example, in time step 0, assuming the uppermost virtual layer the current region (i.e., root of the hierarchy), the above condition directs the agent to go into one of the sub-patches from the P5 layer. Out of one go determined by Equation c For example in time step f 0 of Figure 6 we have ar=0 = 01,0,0,0,00
regions, which
L-1 which means the agent will move to the top-left region (00.1=1 vo.r=1) in Next, time step / 1, we pass the newly selected region as an input to the network and again obtain the action value a;=1 (0, 1, 0, 0, 0)T then the RL-agent will visit the top-right child region (xf-22 vf.r2)) in P4 associated with the tep-left region (x--1 v ) from P5. We then pass the top-right region from P4 as an input in time step = 2. This process continues until the agent needs to move upwards stop the search.
L-1
Case 2: Upward movement. It happens when ap-1, The RL agent will stop going further down in the hierarchy as the evidential Q-value indicates that no valuable information is available in the finer level of granularity to cover the searching cost. Thus, the agent will go back the parent region which allows the agent to search other sibling patches. For example, in time step = 2 of Figure
6 we have a (0, 0, 0, 0, 1) and the agent goes back to the parent region, which lep-left region in P5. It should be noted that we have used the mask generator to avoid the action choices directing to already visited and but-of-boundary regions. Next in time step 3, the top- right region in P4 is already visited and therefore, masked evidential Q-value estimate 42=1,=3 is
21

---

made zero. As shown in time step 3 of Figure 7 while this region has the highest evidential Q-value among P4 patches. we select the second best region, which is the top-left one from P4. In time step / = 4 of Figure 7 the input region becomes the top-left region from P4 associated with the top-left region from P5 and the search process continues.
Case 3: Search termination. It happens when upward movement Op-1,t 1 happens in the uppermost virtual layer which is the root node of the FPN tree-structure or when maximum time step T = 60 has been reached. In such cases, the RL agent is given the stop signal to terminate the entire search process, which implies that sufficient number of high quality regions have been detected.
Right 0g..5 xx
Step
Festure Extractor, RNN, Evidential D-nehwork
(0.76, 0.25, 9., 0.0) (0.75. 0.25
=1
J Baggaax o
Top right (2/11271
Patchee
Gonorator
Downward movament
Time Step
Extractirr
9,- 10.0, 8.60,
D.sj
W argmaa
1.1,1
Top Left 06 N.
Visitedd Patches
Mask Denerator stor
Time Step t
a- (0.55, 8.48, 9.24, 8.12, 0.78]
18-25, 0-48,
Extractor, Q-network
Top Right (K,-0,
Vistted Pabches
Maak Generstor
Upward movement
1,18,000,0111
Figure 6: Action interaction process: time steps = 0, 1,2
Time Step
Feature Extractor, RNN, Evidential Q-network
41 10 8.64, 0.2 8.05)
0.0,
INNIDD 8 [l Paggmeeq
PS
my 15, 1,
[4,5 9,7)
Putches
Gensrator
Downward movement
Time
[0-42, 0.57, 8.56,
Extractor,
0.28, 9.15)
8b, 0.14)
=I=11
Q-network
Et. 1.1, S.
E-aggaxx
Visited Patchen
Maok Generator
Downward movement
0,
Figure 7: Action interaction process: time steps t = 3,
C.4 Clarification on RL masks.
Clarification on use of masks to generate final bounding boxes. We run the trained RL agent on the test image's FPN to generate RL masks. Based on the masked evidential Q-value estimate, the agent selects the next action, which would be either a downward or upward movement. Then, the agent moves to the next patch and continues the process until receiving an upward movement in layer L or reaches the maximum time step ie. T. After the hierarchical searching process,
22

---

can have binary RL mask by recording which patches are visited by RL agent through it actions (denoted as 1 in RL mask), and which are not visited by the RL agent (denoted as in RL mask). Given the RI. mask, which is three-level binary mask covering the feature pyramid network (FPN), each pixel in the FPN will be assigned confidence score in the quality evaluation branch to decide if it is a positive anchor or not by (comparing with threshold). Those pixels covered by the zero RI. masks will have their confidence score reset to O, and other pixels will maintain the same confidence score. In that way, RL masks serve as additional filter to further eliminate the "false positive" bounding boxes.
How the binary RL mask helps reduce unnecessary bounding boxes in inference step. We are handling two different types of false positive bounding boxes. The first category involves bounding boxes that capture only background with no targeted object. To remove those patches, our novel exploration-xxplotaaiinn strategy plays a major role. Specifically, during the adaptive hierarchical search in the top-down fashion, exploration of the higher layer quickly discovers that there is no object in the lower-level granularity. Specifically, both Q-value as well as epistemie uncertainty (see Eq. 4) remains low, leading to removing bounding boxes backgrounds. The second category involves bounding boxes that cover only a part of a given object and are embedded in the larger bounding box that covers the whole object. As our approach works in the top-down fashion, once the RL agent explores the bigger bounding box covering the full object, the model assigns a very low epistemic uncertainty for partially covering bounding boxes. As such, the model avoids going downward in lower level granularity in the action space resulting in removing unnecessary partially covered bounding boxes.
D Additional Experiments
In this section, we first present the additional comparison results with YOLO series. After that, we show additional ablation study results that investigate the impact of the underlying base detectors and balancing parammearsssess.. We also test the transferred performance of the RL masks trained from the proposed AIRS and upply them to other base detectors. Finally, we show some additional quantitative and qualitative results on the challenging datasets (acrial park lot ([6]) or subsets chosen from all three data sets, containing difficult images with a large amount of small objects.
D.1 Comparison with the Latest YOLO Series
In this set of experiments, we include the latest YOLO series for comparison. We run the ex- periments for three times with different random seeds to verify the performance and provide the strongest YOLO-V7 V7 comparison results with statistical significance in Table Note that we use the same ppper-parameters reported in the original paper, including the image augmentation, learning rate, momentum decay, etc. For a fair comparison, we train all the baselines until convergence and test the models on the same test splits from different datasets, and we align all the weight initializa- tion to be Xavier initialization. As can be seen, comparing to these SOTA models, for the overall AP, AIRS is better than any YOLO series below medium parameter size scale and only slightly lower than yolo V6-L, yolo V7 on MS COCO (but significantly better than them on Open Image V4). It shows a clear advantage in images with small objects and with difficult dense scenarios, which is achieved by good balance of recall and precision thanks to the FPN with RL. selected mask augmentation. The good AP performance from yolo V6, V7 on MS COCO likely due to the spe- cial architectural design optimization targeting this dataset, where medium and large objects form the majority of image labels. These include extended efficient layer aggregation networks, model scaling for concatenation-base timized for the MS COCO dataset. We also provide the comparison results on Open Image V4 to show that yolo V6-I., V7 cannot beat our model in more complex dataset which contains more dense scenario images with small objects and difficult background.
models, and a bunch of trainable bag-of-freebbe designs highly op-
D.2 Balancing Hyper-parameter Search
À is changed dynamically. In the early stage, it is set to be high (A = 1) so the focus is on exploring the unknown patches. As training progresses, decreases as X = Neponk where N₂ the current epoch. Exact exploration balancing also depends complexity of dataset.
23

---

Table 7: SOTA YOLO baseline comparison on MS COCO test-dev and Open Image V4 test set
Method
MS COCO
Open Image V4
AP
AP
AP
AP"
AP
AP
AP"
Ap
APc
ApOW
yeloV5-L
45.8
26.2
48.5
54.2
26.6
39.7
24.1
43.8
47.3
24.5
yoloX.I.
55.4
yolot-1.
47.5
26.9
49.7
55.9
27.4
42.9
25.2
44.9
48.7
25,5
yoloV6.S
40.3
24.5
46.5
53.5
24.3
39.5
22.3
41.9
15.1
21.3
V6-M
55.5
yoloV6-L
49.5
29.1
51.2
57.4
28.6
44.5
27.5
46.5
50.9
26.7
yoloV?
49.8=0.544
29.5+0..88
51,4+0.52
58,2+0053
28.8+0.56
44.9=0.55
28,2+-0.99
47,240.57
51.6=0.54
27.4+0.61
32.1-0622
54,3400566
47.5=0.60
531=00.8
Table 8: Impact of hyper- papper-rrrmeter
For instance, for easy dataset, the model may quickly fo- cus on the exploitation part as epistemic uncertainty may reduce quickly whereas for difficult dataset, the model may stay longer to explore the patches. We also con- duct an additional experiment to sensitivity of A. As shown in the Table the performance is relatively robust for different À values. However, the adaptive À achieves a better performance.
Hyper-parameter
COCO
46.8
0.8
46.7
0.6
46.9
0.4
46.5
0.2
46.1
1--0 (AIRS)
48.3
D.3 Datasets with Large Amount of Small Objects
We clarify that COCO, Pascal VOC, and Open Images V4 commonly used benchmark datasets to evaluate dense object detection models such as GFocal, DINO, FCOS etc. Therefore, we choose same set of datasets in our evaluation. To explicitly show the effectiveness of our technique, further create a challenging subset, where large, medium and small objects are mixed and embedded with each other. This mixing strategy makes the detection highly challenging because such scenarios require a good balance of exploitation and exploration in RL training to achieve high precision and recall for all large, medium and small objects. Second, following the reviewer's suggestion for using datasets with more smaller objects, we redefine our criteria to select subsets that contain those images where the ratio of large and medium objects (area 2 322) small objects (area < 322) S 1/2. We additionally conduct experiments on an aerial park lot dataset with a large amount of small objects in each image
[16]. The quantitative results on the new challenging subset and an aerial dataset are summarized in Table 9 We also provide detection visualization of these two new challenge data sets Figure
Table AP performance of AIRS on the aerial parking lot dataset [16] and newly created MSCOCO challenging subset, both containing large number of cluttered small objects in one image, besides few medium or large objects.
GFocal APS
AIRS
Data Set
AP
APM
APL
AP
APS
APM
APL
Aerial parking lot
47.8
48.3
31.4
30.8
50.9
51.5
31.5
40.0
New challenging subset
32.5
33.8
30.4
31.9
33.2
34.6
30.3
31.9
D.4
RL Agent Training Configurations
As compared with existing Q-learning models, our model less computationally expensive to train due two reasons: The maximum time step T' is around 60 and most cases the reward is positive (between 0 and 1), so it does not suffer from reward vanishing. 2) Training samples in our datasets are sufficient to train the RL agent. Given such potential advantages for RL training brought by AIRS, Double-DQN target network is sufficient to stabilize the training. To further guarantee the training success and avoid early termination, we don't 't allow model move upwards in Layer L, L - in the first 40 time steps of each RL training episode. Figures Pa 9b and 9 show Q-learning loss with respect to training epochs, where the loss gradually decreases towards convergence. Furthermore, Figures 9d 9e and 9 show the average cumulative rewards, which exhibit a non-decreasing trend over three datasets. This justifies that our approach achieves stable model training and the minimization in the loss which is also reflected by the cumulative reward.

---

(a) GFocal
(b) AIRS
(c) FGocal
(d) AIRS
Figure 8: Results w/ and w/o AIRS generated masks aerial dataset [6 and new challenging MSCOCO subset, both of which contain many small objects: (a) and (c) are the GFocal detection re- sults while (b) and (d) the results from AIRS after applying the RL masks. As be seen, those grey boxes are the false positive bounding boxes, most of which possess irrelevant backgrounds or partial objects, masked out by the RL agent (i.e., 0 masks), while the red boxes the remaining true positive boxes, which are kept the by the RL agent (i.e., masks).
Table 10: Ablation RL masks trained on Different Detector Backbones
MS COCO
Method
AP
APS
APM
APL
APCH
RetinaNet 26
39.1
21.8
42.7
50.2
21.6
RetinaNet-RL.
42.5
25.0
41.8
50.2
25.8
RetinaNet- Trans
41.8
24.6
38.8
50.0
23.7
FCOS [38
41.5
24.4
44.8
51.6
23.5
FCOS-RL.
43.8
26.9
43.2
48.3
27.1
FCOS-Trans
43.2
26.4
42.7
47.6
25.8
ATSS 45
43.6
26.1
47.0
53.6
23.8
ATSS-RL
45.5
29.5
45.7
52.2
27.9
ATSS-Traan
44.8
27.6
45.1
49.5
26.2
D.5 Ablation Study on Base Detectors
To study the impact of base detectors, we select set of representative one-stage detectors, including RetinaNet, FCOS and ATSS, For a fair comparison, we use ResNet-50 as the common backbone for all the methods. We first train After training, we run the RL agent of each base detector and predict the binary masks for every test image. Finally, the RL masks used obtain the RL-augmented prediction results by training the underlying base detector again on the precise RL designated anchors. We apply the 'RL' suffix to these results. Meanwhile, training phase and apply the "Trans' suffix to these results. As Figure T0 shows, the RL masks independently trained each base detector further improve the AP, APS APCH performance comparing to original baseline without any RI. augmentations. Furthermore, we observe that the transferred RL masks trained from AIRS could also achieve performance improvement. We attribute such good transfer performance to the similar feature maps in the pre-train FPNs across different one-stage detectors.
RL agent the FPN of these pre-trained one-stage detectors.
directly apply the RL masks generated from AIRS to the other detectors
D.6 Train efficiency
Table 11: RL baseline training effi-
The training time of AIRS is around 12 hours, which far less than those one-stage detector's training time: 23h (RetinaNet), 24h (FCOS), 27h (ATSS), 27h (GFocal) with one A100 GPU memory 40G. worth note that we move the RL training to the pre-computing phase and apply RL learned masks onto the pre-trained FPN of GFocal to get the inference detection results. The com- parison of AIRS training cost with other RI. baselines is provided in Table []
ciency comparison
Model
Training Time (hours)
Hierarchieat-RL
Caicedo-RI.
16
Tree-RI.
23
Multiple-RL RL.
ReinforceNet
33.4
AIRS
12
25

---

0.7
Training Q-aass
Training Q-Loss
Training Q-Loss
0.6
0.6
Training 0 Luu0c
Training O-Loss
Training Q O-Loss
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
100
0.0
40
Iterations *(20)
Iterations (*20)
Iterations
(a) COCO
(b) PASCAL VOC 2012
(c)
Open Images
m w
0.7
Mhy Amanttmmmm h
mo M
0:30
Cumulativn ve Rewarr
Curulaaivv Reward
0.6-
0.6
0:20
0.10
0.4
0.4.
0.5
Cumulative Reward
Reward
Cumulative Reward
2.00
20 20 E0
Iterations 1/2)
BB
20
Iterations (*20)
40
60
80
100
20
Iteaationn (*20)
40
60 8D
100
(c) PASCAL VOC 2012
(f) Open Images V4
(d) COCO
Figure 9: Q-learning loss (top row) and cumulative reward (bottom row) of the RL agent
D.7 Subset Generation Illustration
Figure 10 provides additional examples to compare the detection results from GFocal v.s. AIRS on the subsets of three public datasets, respectively. As can be seen, AIRS is highly effective in reducing false positive detections compared to one of the most competitive baselines, GFocal. close look at the example images reveals that most false positive detections come from small duplicate bounding boxes that focus on local texture, which is usually unnecessary.
E
Limitation and Broader Impact
We identify two additional limitations of the proposed AIRS model. First, the evidential Q-value integrates the epistemic uncertainty predicted by the model. If the model is poorly calibrated, its uncertainty quantification becomes less trustworthy that can negatively impacts the exploration ef- fectiveness of the RL agent. We plan investigate effective network calibration methods and inte- grate them into the proposed model. The second limitation is that AIRS relies on the feature pyramid network (FPN), which leverages ResNet as its backbones. A systematic extension to the transformer based backbone may have the potential to further improve the detection performance.
AIRS is designed to be integrated and applied top of one-stage detector's FPNs for object detec- tion. For other domains, we believe there is potential for similar technique to be applied on them as well. For example, video tracking requires accurate object localization, which could be achieved by defining hange-ediimm-sen
image patch hierarchy and conducting object detection on each patch to collect reward. Note that is different from ours because conduct hierarchical patch search on pre-trained FPN, and then regress bounding boxes for every positive anchor on top of the selected patches. Leveraging FPN guarantees high recall, which helps in dense scenarios while not in (sin- gle) accurate object detection. As for segmentation, it is a pixel-level classification, how to select foreground pixels (positive anchors) residing in interested object (patches) could be achieved by one-stage detector's FPN with AIRS augmentation.
Link to Source Code
For the source code, please check http::///gggghbbboooo///aaaaaaaa
26

---

(a) GFocal: bar
bb) AIRS: bar
(c) GFocal: umbrella
(d) AIRS: umbrella
(g) GFocal: baseball
(h) AIRS: baseball
(e) GFocal: people
(1 AIRS: people
GFocal: food
AIRS: food
(k) GFocal: flower
(1) AIRS: flower
Figure 10: Qualitative comparisons between GFocal (Left) and AIRS (Right) detection results on
three datasets: COCO T0a 10a PASCAL VOC 2012 T0e 10h and OpenImages V4 TOi TO:

---

NeurIPS Paper Checklist
1. Claims
Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: Please check Introduction Section in the main paper for scope and contri- bution of our work.
2. Limitations
Question:
Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We provide the limitation discussion in Appendix
3. Theory Assumptions and Proofs
Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and complete (and correct) proof?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We provide the complete proof with full set of definition and assumption in Appendix B
4. Experimental Result Reproducibility
Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclu- sions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data provided not)?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We fully disclose the dataset, metrics, and experiment settings in Section of main paper.
5. Open access to data and code
Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We provide data open access with source code anonymous link in Appendix
6. Experimental Setting/Details
Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We fully disclose the hyper-paramete settings in Section 4.2 of main paper and detailed RL training configurations in Appendix of Appendix.
7. Experiment Statistical Significance
Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropri- ate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We include the statistical errors in the latest YOLO series baseline comparison in Appendix D.I For other baselines comparison, we ignore the statistical errors given the evident performance advantage achieved by our model.
8. Experiments Compute Resources
Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed reproduce the experiments?
27

---

Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We provide the computation resource, memory and training efficiency in Ap- pendix D.6
9. Code Of Ethics
Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurlPS Code of Ethics
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We confirm that we follow the NeurlPS Code Ethics in the whole paper
range.
10. Broader Impacts
Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
We discuss our broader societal impacts in Appendix
11. Safeguards
Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data models that have high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?
Question:
Answer: [NA]
Justification: Justification: We only use public data and release our models for advancing the research in dense object detection.
12. Licenses for existing assets
Question: Are the creators original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?
Answer: [Yes]
We cite all the used open-source baselines and public data sets as references for acknowledgement of these asset works.
Justification:
13. New Assets
Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and the documenta- tion provided alongside the assets?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We provide well documented code asset via an anonymized URL in Ap- pendix
14. Crowdsourcing and Research with Human Subjects
Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the pa- per include the full text of instructions given participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: our experiments, we don't interact with human subjects and use public data sets with open access.
15. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approvals or Equivalent for Research with Human Subjects
Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?
Answer: [NA]
28

---

Justification: In our experiments, we don't 't interact with human subjects and use public data sets with open access.
29


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "Si9liv9Yyw", "reviewer": "Reviewer_4PiS", "summary": "The paper presents an adaptive hierarchical object detection framework for dense object detection by evidential Q-learning with specially designed reward function, searching through FPN based hierarchy in a top-down fashion. Theoretical analysis proves the upper bound of the action value error and extensive experiments on various datasets illustrate the superiority of the proposed framework over other SOTA models.", "questions": "1. Fig. 2 shows the overview of the AIRS framework and the RL inference step outputs the binary RL mask, but how the mask is used to generate the final dectected bounding boxes? This is not so clear to me, I hope the authors can explain more on the inference step.\n2. How does the binary RL mask help reduce #unncessary bounding boxes?", "limitations": "Yes, the authors have addressed the limitations adqueately in the appendix section E.", "rating": 8, "confidence": 2, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 4, "contribution": 4, "strengths": "1.  The paper proposes a novel evidential Q-learning method in an adaptive hierarcical top-down searching framwork for dense object detection\n2.  The theoretical anlysis on the upper bound of the action value error is thorough, and guarantees the fast convergence of the Q-learning\n3.  The experimental evaluations are extensive and thorough, the AP metric scores of the propose AIRS on different backbones are highest in most categories (except M&L in MS COCO) in all evaluated datasets, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed model.", "weaknesses": "1. The main intention of the proposed AIRS framework is to reduce the false positive cases in complex scenes. I would hope the author give clearer definition/description on what kind of \"false positve\" cases they want to avoid and provide visual examples to justify the claim. I see some ambiguity based on the current visual illustrations in the paper.  Using Fig 1(a), (c) and Fig 9(k) as examples, if I understand the proposed method correctly, the mask values for the smaller boxes are still 1, because they are still part of the elephant, banana and flower respectively, but it seems authors view them as \"false positve\".\n2. For the experiment, especially qualitative comparisons, I would like to see more challenging examples. For current ones, I see most smaller unnecessary bounding boxes are fully within another bigger bounding box. In this case, a simple post processing is enough to remove these redundant small bounding boxes out from any exsiting models.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "**Q1: Clearer definition/description on what kind of \"false positive\" cases authors want to avoid and provide challenging visual examples to justify the claim.**\n\nThank you for the insightful question. A \"false positive\" detection covers two cases: i) a bounding box covering only part of an object, and ii) a bounding box covering irrelevant information (e.g., background  treated as elephant as shown in the right center of Figure 1(a)). In object detection, ideally we want to predict bounding boxes that completely cover all relevant objects. To this end, the training data contains ground truth bounding boxes that cover complete objects instead of partial ones. Bounding box capturing part of the object may be misleading.  For instance, in Figure 1(a), one of the bounding box captures the ear of the elephant, which is not precise to refer it as the whole elephant. This is why the false positive cases also include the partial bounding boxes. To more clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of our technique in better avoiding irrelevant information (i.e., case ii), we have performed an additional qualitative analysis. As shown in Figure 1 of attached PDF, our AIRS model successfully removes false positive cases that capture irrelevant background information. \n\n**Q2: A simple post-processing should be enough to remove redundant small bounding boxes.**\n\nThank you for your thoughtful comment! We would like to clarify that the smaller bounding boxes are usually associated with a high confidence score. As such, the standard post-processing algorithms like Non Maximum Suppression (NMS) cannot properly remove them. This is also demonstrated in Figure 1 of the paper, where GFocal (which leverages NMS) is unable to remove the redundant bounding boxes. Further, evidence is shown in our experimental result in Table 1 of the paper. Through our novel hierarchical searching strategy coupled with the epistemic uncertainty, during inference step, we can effectively mask out those false positive predictive bounding boxes even if they have a high confidence. We note that redundant small bounding phenomenon is a common problem in dense object detection that challenges most existing works (e.g., Li et al., Generalized focal loss, NeurIPS 2020). \n\n**Q3: Clarification on use of masks to generate final bounding boxes**\n\nPlease refer to the answer to **Q2** in the General Response.\n\n**Q4: How does the binary RL mask help reduce unnecessary bounding boxes in inference step**\n\nPlease refer to the answer to **Q4** in the General Response.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "HtxFp1KODa", "reviewer": "Reviewer_8nSu", "summary": "Current state-of-the-art dense object detection techniques often generate numerous false positive detections in complex scenes, as they prioritize high recall. This study tackles this problem by introducing an Adaptive Important Region Selection (AIRS) framework. This framework builds on a pre-trained FPN-based detector and uses evidential Q-learning to identify the most informative patches from the top layer to the bottom layers during training and testing. To enhance performance, the authors propose a uniquely designed reward function based on diverse detection metrics. Experiments on three standard detection benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed AIRS. Additionally, the authors provide a theoretical analysis of AIRS, which helps readers better understand the method.", "questions": "See Weaknesses", "limitations": "There are no discernible negative societal impacts related to this work.", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "1. The paper is generally easy-to-follow.\n\n2. The proposed method makes interesting use of Q-learning to select important regions to retrain an object detector.\n\n3. The experiments cover a wide range of different datasets\n\n4. The method displays good performance across most of evaluation metrics over state-of-the-art methods.\n\n5. The authors consider a number of different ablations to better understand the proposed method.", "weaknesses": "1. One of my most important concerns is that AIRS should be used along with a well-trained detector. In this study, the authors use an detector, equipped with FPN and pre-trained by GFocal. As a result, it is not an easy-to-use framework, and it is also unfair to compare the training time with other end-to-end methods in D.5. Does AIRS can be used for end-to-end training of a dense object detector? How much time will be cost by the end-to-end training?\n\n2. My second concern is that AIRS is similar to the region proposal network, but uses a different network (RNN v.s. MLP), training strategy (RL v.s. Standard Training) to select important regions for detection. However, RPN can be integrated into a detector to form a 2-stage detector. In fact, the masked region step can also be treated as a method of proposing regions. Therefore, it should compare AIRS and RPN in depth in this study, including presentation, experiments, etc. As I see, changing several hyper-parameters in RPN can also produce high recall as the main claim in AIRS.\n\n3. I'm also wondering what kind of insights this work could bring to the community. I will be more interested in seeing which kinds of patches (locations) should be used for training and testing. Are patches used similar among different detectors (different training strategies, losses, backbones, etc.) ? Answering these questions would help the paper go beyond engineering success in standard detection benchmarks.\n\n4. No limitation parts.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "**Q1: It is not an easy-to-use framework. Can AIRS be used for end-to-end training of dense detector and how much is the training time.**\n\nThank you for the insightful question. We would like to clarify  that our goal is to remove the false positive (fp) bounding boxes, which is orthogonal to any FPN-based pre-trained detectors. As these pre-trained detectors are off-the-shelf and using them has been a common trend in the community, integration of our proposed technique with these detectors is straightforward, making our framework relatively easy to use.  Since our method works on top of the pre-trained object detectors to eliminate the false positive cases, we agree with the reviewer that the AIRS training time is not directly comparable to those underlying detectors. Instead, we can train them in an iterative way by further leveraging AIRS to fine-tune the detectors, which makes the whole training process end-to-end. The added training time of the detectors should be similar to those well established frameworks since we only add the RL filtering masks in the training. We would also like to clarify that the training time comparison shown in Table 9 is fair as all RL techniques start from the same the pre-trained  FPN environment.  \n\n\n**Q2: Comparison with RPN**\n\nPlease refer to the answer to **Q3** in General Response for the detailed discussion on the difference from RPN. \n\n\n**Q3: Changing several hyper-parameters in RPN can produce high recall**\n\nWe would like to clarify that we have compared with a good number of two-stage detectors that leverage RPN (see the Two-stage section of Table 1). For each of these baselines, we consider the optimal set of hyperparameters resulting into the highest AP. Therefore, changing hyperparameter may not be able to further enhance the recall.\n\n**Q4: What kind of insights this work could bring to the community? Which kinds of patches (locations) should be used for training and testing? Similarity of RL selected patches for training and testing among different detectors (different training strategies, losses, backbones, etc.)**\n\nThank you for these comments. The design of our adaptive important region selection with reinforced hierarchical search framework is inspired by the human visual attention, which usually conducts object search in a top-down hierarchical fashion. Such a mechanism makes the search very efficient as the RL agent moves down to a fine-grained level in the hierarchy only when it is likely to contain a object of interest. Furthermore, the epistemic uncertainty guided exploration plays a central role that ensures the RL agent will not miss any important regions (i.e., those with a high uncertainty) while avoiding visiting the unnecessary ones (i.e., those with a low uncertainty). Both our theoretical analysis and empirical results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed design strategy, which shows its potential to benefit similar dense object detection scenarios. \n\nRegarding which kinds of batches should be used, there is no explicit control on selection of the patches during training and testing phases. As our AIRS is based on FPN coupled with adaptive hierarchical search strategy guided by evidential Q-learning, it looks for informative patches that are likely to have objects in different granularity. As such, during training process, our RL agent learns to effectively find the patches containing objects of different sizes and and different types. This capability will transferred to the inference process. For the same image, RL selected patches display similar patterns across different backbone detectors. As shown in Table 8 in Appendix D.4, different pre-trained detectors (RetinaNet-Trans, FCOS-Trans, ATSS-Trans) with same GFocal generated RL mask and different RL agent generated masks (RetinaNet, RetinaNet-RL, RetinaNet-Trans) with the same backbone detector (RetinaNet) both display similar Average Precision (AP) on COCO in the inference step, which is a clear evidence that the RL selected patches generated from different agents and applied among different detectors should be similar and transferable to each other in some extent. Furthermore, we have provided an additional evidence of having similar patches among different agents and backbone detectors in Figure 2 of the attached PDF.\n\n\n**Q5: No limitation part**\n\nWe have included a discussion of limitations in  Appendix E.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "tDZnSXHH9G", "reviewer": "Reviewer_mhHL", "summary": "This article presents the method AIRS (Adaptive Important Region Selection) based on reinforcement learning paradigm to improve the performance of dense object detection in images.\nIt is highlighted that best SOTA object detectors either provide too many false positive detections in complex scenes, or fail at proposing positive candidates to detect all small objects.\nThe proposed method aims at searching for image patches containing detections in a top-down hierarchical (multi-scale) fashion. To this aim, it balances between exploration of unknown patches (by using evidential Q-learning to encode epistemic uncertainty) and exploitation of patches containing detections.\nA theoretical analysis of fast convergence of the proposed algorithm is given. The method is evaluated on 3 object detection datasets, compared with SOTA models. An ablation study about backbones and loss choice is given.", "questions": "- As dense object detection and, specifically, small object detection are the goals of the proposed method, why only general object detection datasets were used for evaluation?\nPascalVOC have mostly images with a unique big object, MSCOCO images have a bit more objects per image and at most, OpenImage images have only 8 objects/images on average.\nTo draw conclusions about the capacity of AIRS to detect smaller objects and better detect all objects in images with a high density of object, other datasets should be used for evaluation (e.g. the many aerial images datasets like DOTA, xview...).\n\n- Regarding the performance results on MS COCO (Table1), how do you explain AIRS has poor performance in detecting large objects (54.3% vs 62.5% for best SOTA) and only outperforming FasterRCNN?\nFor medium object, it is not so bad but still does not outperform SOTA (48.5% vs 50.4%).\nFor challenging subset, it is slightly better than SOTA (+0.4pp).\nFor small objects, it outperforms SOTA by +2pp.\nThus, it seems the AIRS has specialized in smaller objects but is less effective for bigger objects in the MS COCO. It is rather unexpectable if we compare with the other datasets VOC and OpenImages.\nWhat would be your explanation of this unexpected poor performance?\n\n- Is there a link between the top-down hierachical strategy of AIRS and the cases of small object boxes that are fully contained in other bigger ones?\nHow does the top-down method handle these cases? Is it observable on a challenging subset dedicated to \"included boxes\"?\n\n- Hyper-parameter $\\lambda$ (line 156) seems to be important for a good balance. How to choose it? Do you have any sensitiviy study about it? It would be interesting to see how $\\lambda$ actually affects the final performance on the different types of objects through the exploration-exploitation trade-off.\n\n- The definition of challenging subset (line 273) is surprising. Why using only the images with ratio of large and medium over small objects ranging from 1 to 1/2? Why not simply <1 to have complex scenes with both large and tiny objects?\nCriterion (b) is not clear. What is the measure and threshold of overlap used to select the images?\nCriterion (c) is not clear. What is the measure and threshold of object inclusion used to select the images?\nIt is not clear if the union or intersection of these criteria is used to define the subset. \nIt would be interesting to separate in several subsets in order to draw more precise conclusions about the ability of the proposed detector in managing each case better than the SOTA methods.\n\n- \"DIoU is the most effective\" (l.355-356). The results from Tab.4 show exactly the contrary. DIoU is the less effective. According to Tab.4, GIoU is the best choice. So, logically, I would expect AIRS combine GIoU and Uncertainty. Why didn't you use this combination? This result should be added in the ablation study.\n\n\nHere are some other comments, typos or lack of clarity in some phrasing that should be corrected or clarified:\n- All references to section/equation/... should have the word Section/Equation before the number. (e.g. lines 43, 62, 64, 115, 117...). Please check them all.\n- l.22: \"The diverse nature of images, such as shadow/occlusion\" sounds awkward. Please rephrase it.\n- l.29: \"number of candidate object\". typo.\n- l.36: \"inconsistency in localization quality estimation between training and testing\". The idea behind this statement is not clear.\n- Fig.1: The same image should be used for the qualitative comparison of the 4 methods.\n- Fig.1: The name of the method GFocal+LQE in the subcaption c) should match with the name in the caption.\n- l.42: \"generating too many false positive predictions on small objects\" It is not clear in this sentence whether the problem is about duplicated predictions on small objects (then, some post-processing, like NMS, can leverage this issue) or about false positive predictions on small areas (which are not objects).\n- l.96: \"leverages the latest Feature Pyramid Network structure\" Please clarify the meaning of 'latest' (FPN was proposed at CVPR'2017).\n- l.110: \"each of the key component\". typo.\n- l.121: Please define the acronym NIG.\n- Fig.2: Please add the layer scale (0 to L-1) on the diagram for better link with the main text.\n- l.135-l.143: Please avoid using the same variable d for two different usages.\n- l.140-160: Please define all variables (e.g. $\\alpha, \\beta, \\gamma, \\nu$)\n- Eq.7: Please define $\\gamma$.\n- Eq.8, l.201: Typo $n_{epcoh}$\n- l.242: \"leveraging the FPN structure of the pre-trained backbones.\" Which type of pre-training was used? Is it the same for all compared methods? What is its influence on the performance results?\n- l.251: \"As can be seen, the training is more efficient comparing to other RL based methods, and the inference speed is also competitive w.r.t. the latest baselines (see Appendix D.5).\" Please be more specific than \"more\" (adding some figures illustrating these statements).\n- l.266: \"It contains 20 categories partitioned into three subsets\" Please rephrase as it appears the categories are partitioned.\n- l.268: typo\n- l.272: CH subset should be made available for comparison with future work in the community.\n- l.274: add unit\n- l.275: typo\n- l.286: Detail which supervision and dataset were used for the pre-trained models, and if it is identical to compared methods.\n- l.289: Please detail the bounds of search.\n- l.292: \"We gradually shrink λ\" Please clarify if it is done for the hyper-parameter search only or during the training also? Please be more specific on the shrinkage process for reproducibility purpose.\n- l.294: Which criteria were exactly used to stop the training?\n- l.296: SOTA methods are not so recent, exept Co-DETR and EVA (2023). Have you checked more recent detectors?\n- Tab.1: Add % for AP results in all tables.\n- I was curious about the training time (then found it in the appendix). It would be beneficial to add a synthetic sentence about it in the main paper.\n- Table2: Please specify which scale version of DINO was used.\n- Table2: Please add the resnet variants in the same table for comparison.\n- l.309: Please specify which pre-training was used.\n- l.312: A short sentence summing up the results on the YOLO series should be added, even if all the details are in appendix.\n- l.322: Please use pp (percentage points) instead of %.\n- l.340-341: Please rephrase.\n- Fig.3: a)b) Please correct the vertical axis name (number of...)\n- Fig.3: Please add the statistics of the ground truth for a complete comparison.\n- Section4.5: It is awkward to use MSCOCO for the ablation study, as AIRS gives unexpected results for medium/large objects.\n- l.364: Please rephrase.\n- l.370-371: Please define the acronym EL (only EU was defined).", "limitations": "As detailed before, evaluation on relevant datasets are missing to support the main claim of dense and small object detection capacity.", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "- The limitation of current object detectors in presence of possibly small objects in dense and complex scenes is a problem of utmost importance in the computer vision domain. Solutions to the problem would be very useful for many applications.\n\n- The method seems original to me, with a good idea of using RL to explore and exploit the different regions of the image for potential presence of objects.\n\n- A theoretical analysis is provided with the proposed RL method.\n\n- The results outperform SOTA methods.\n\n- In general, the paper is well written and clear.", "weaknesses": "- My main concern is about the general claim of better managing small objects and dense complex scenes. It is not clearly demonstrated.\nThe datasets used are quite general to evaluate object detection. The most complex is OpenImages with about 8.4 objects per image, which is not so dense. \nTo demonstrate the effect of the proposed method, it would be better to use other datasets like aerial/satellite datasets with a big amount of small objects in each image.\nEven if the method seems interesting and overall well-performing, it is not clear that it is more efficient for dense scenes or small objects.\n\n- Besides, the subset for the $AP_{CH}$ computation does not separate the most challenging images considering these aspects. Evaluation should be done on other subsets of challenging cases.\n\n- Some poor results about large objects are unexpected. Why does the exploration/exploitation mecanism decrease the performance in detecting such objects? Does the method focus too much on objects of smaller scales?\n\n- The role and effect of hyper-parameter $\\lambda$ is not studied. However, it seems to be important.\n\n- The ablation study for choosing DIoU instead of GIoU is not convincing. Conclusions should have been the opposite.\n\n- Some quality and clarity check should improve the paper, as detailed in the following section.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "**Q1: Use other datasets with a big amount of small objects.**\n\nThank you for the great suggestion! First, we would clarify that COCO, Pascal VOC, and Open Images V4 are commonly used benchmark datasets to evaluate dense object detection models such as GFocal, DINO, FCOS etc. Therefore, we choose same set of datasets in our evaluation. To explicitly show the effectiveness of our technique, we further create a challenging subset, where large, medium and small objects are mixed and embedded with each other. This mixing strategy makes the detection highly challenging because such scenarios require a good balance of exploitation and exploration in RL training to achieve high precision and recall for all large, medium and small objects. Second, following the reviewer's suggestion for using datasets with more smaller objects, we redefine our criteria to select subsets that contain those images where the ratio of large and medium objects (area $\\ge$ 322) to small objects (area $<$ 322) $\\leq$ 1/2. We additionally conduct experiments on an aerial park lot dataset with a large amount of small objects in each image. The quantitative results on the new challenging subset and an aerial dataset are summarized in Table 1 in the attached PDF. We also provide detection visualization of these two new challenge data sets in Figure 1 of the attached PDF.\n\n\n**Q2: Poor performance on large objects and impact of  exploration/exploitation**\n\nPlease refer to the answer to **Q1** in the General Response. In fact, the lower performance on large object setting of MSCOCO primarily comes from the one-stage detectors and the nature of the MSCOCO dataset not because of our exploration-exploitation technique. Due to exploration/exploitation mechanism, our approach effectively discovers small objects in addition to the larger ones. However, if our approach focuses too much on small objects, then we would consistently see the lower larger object performance across all datasets. The comparable or even better performance on other datasets except for MS COCO further justifies the effectiveness of the exploration/exploitation mechanism.  \n\n\n\n\n**Q3: Handle small objects embedded within large objects cases and challenging subset dedicated to \"included boxes\"?**\n\nFor this first part of the question, please refer to our answer to  **Q4** in the General Response. Regarding the second part, we would like to clarify that our challenging dataset measured by $AP^{CH}$ already covers these situations through criterion c, which is also illustrated in Figure 9 of Appendix D.6.\n\n**Q4: Hyper-parameter $\\lambda$**\n\n $\\lambda$ is changed dynamically. In the early stage, it is set  to be high ($\\lambda = 1$) so the focus is on exploring the unknown patches. As training progresses, it decreases as $\\lambda = \\left(1-\\frac{N_c}{N_{epoch}}\\right)$, where $N_c$ is the current epoch.  Exact exploration-exploitation balancing also depends on complexity of dataset. For instance, for easy dataset, the model may quickly focus on the exploitation part as epistemic uncertainty may reduce quickly whereas for difficult dataset, the model may stay longer to explore the patches. We also conduct an additional experiment to test sensitivity of $\\lambda$. As shown in the table below, the performance is relatively robust for different $\\lambda$ values. However, the adaptive $\\lambda$ achieves a better performance.  \n\n| **Hyper-parameter $\\lambda$**           | **COCO AP** |\n|-----------------|-----------------------|\n| 1 | 46.8                  |\n| 0.8      | 46.7                    |\n| 0.6         | 46.9                   |\n| 0.4     | 46.5                   |\n| 0.2    | 46.1                 |\n| **AIRS**   | **48.3**              |\n\n\n\n\n\n**Q5: The definition of challenging subset.**\n\nIn case of criteria (a), we consider images where the ratio of larger/medium objects (area $\\geq$ 322) to small objects (area $<$ 322) ranging from 1 to 1/2 to ensure all sized objects coexist. This mixing strategy makes the detection really challenging because such scenarios require a good balance to achieve high precision and recall for all objects. We did not consider the ratio less than 1/2 because the selected objects are very small ones that are even hard for human to detect. Following the suggestion, we conducted an additional experiment by considering objects where ratio is less than 1/2. Please refer to our answer to **Q1** for the results. In case of (b), we consider the case where images with multiple objects overlap with each other. In case of (c), we consider the case where multiple small objects are embedded into a bigger one. In both cases, we consider the threshold of 0.4. This means, in case of (b), if the IOU between overlapping objects is more than 0.4 then we consider those samples. In case of (c), if the IOU of smaller objects with the bigger ones is higher than 0.4, we consider those samples. Apart from the IOU threshold, in both cases, in order for given image to be qualified for (b) or (c), the minimum number of small objects should be at least 3. \n\n\n\n**Q6: DIoU vs. GIoU**\n\nThanks for pointing out this inconsistency. We re-checked our experiment results and found that row numbers are shifted in the paper. Below, we include GIoU with uncertainty performance and will update it accordingly in revised paper.\n\n\n| **Model Design Choice**           | **AP** | **$AP^{S}$** | **$AP^{M}$** | **$AP^{L}$** | **$AP^{CH}$** |\n|-----------------|------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|\n| GIoU | 44.3 | 28.5 | 45.6 | 51.5 | 25.4 |\n| GIoU+Uncertainty | 46.7 | 30.2 | 47.5 | 53.4 | 28.1 |\n| DIoU | 45.4 | 29.5 | 46.8 | 52.4 | 26.7 |\n| DIoU+Uncertainty | 47.6 | 31.0 | 48.5 | 54.3 | 28.9 |\n\n\n \n**Q7. Typos or lack of clarity**\n\nThanks for carefully checking our paper! We highly appreciate your suggestions and will follow them to fix the issues and improve the presentation of the revised paper.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "QQpecZ84t0", "reviewer": "Reviewer_Q21q", "summary": "The paper presents an innovative framework for dense object detection, called Adaptive Important Region Selection (AIRS). It introduces a method guided by Evidential Q-learning, which strategically identifies important regions within an image in a hierarchical manner. The method aims to reduce false positives commonly produced by current dense object detection techniques by dynamically balancing exploration and exploitation during the model training phase.", "questions": "1.\tHow does AIRS handle extremely cluttered scenes where objects are not only dense but also partially occluded?\n2.\tCan you explain why AIRS significantly underperforms in detecting large objects in the COCO dataset compared to DINO, yet shows better performance on the other two datasets?", "limitations": "The authors have adequately discussed the limitations in terms of the potential negative impacts of low-quality uncertainty quantification and the challenges of extending to a transformer-based backbone.", "rating": 6, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "1.\tIntroducing Evidential Q-learning into the hierarchical selection process for object detection is novel.\n2.\tThe paper is well-written, with a clear motivation and a well-defined methodology. The theoretical analysis is comprehensive.\n3.\tExtensive experimental validation across multiple datasets shows the framework's effectiveness against state-of-the-art techniques.", "weaknesses": "1.\tIt would be beneficial to visualize and analyze some intermediate results, such as the RL masks in the test phase. \n2.\tThe proposed AIRS involves searching for region masks before making predictions, aligning more closely with two-stage approaches. Conversely, the DETR series of models directly predict bounding boxes in an end-to-end manner, eliminating the need to obtain candidate regions beforehand. This characteristic classifies them as one-stage methods.\n3.\tThe citation for DINO seems incorrect; reference [21] actually cites DN-DETR.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "**Q1: Intermediate results of RL masks during testing phase**\n\nThank you for the suggestion. Figure 1 in the attached PDF shows the RL masks that are projected to the removed  false positive bounding boxes in the detection result. For more detailed description of the masking process, please refer to the answer to **Q2** in the General Response.  \n\n\n**Q2: The proposed AIRS involves searching for region masks before making predictions, aligning more closely with two-stage approaches. Conversely, the DETR series of models directly predict bounding boxes in an end-to-end manner, eliminating the need to obtain candidate regions beforehand. This characteristic classifies them as one-stage methods.**\n\nThank you for the insightful comment. First of all, we would like to clarify that we do not claim our approach to be One-stage detector. As our technique leverages the FPN which is indeed one-stage detector, therefore our technique is based on one-stage detector. We agree with the reviewer that our technique can be interpreted as a two stage detector as we perform the RL training and inference on the top of one-stage FPN pre-trained network. \n\nRegarding, DEtection TRansformer or DETR, we believe that it leverages a set-based global loss that forces unique predictions via bipartite matching and it leverages a transformer encoder-decoder architecture for that. Given a fixed small set of learned object queries, DETR reasons about the relations of the objects and the global image context in order to directly output\nthe final set of predictions in parallel. As such, our understanding is that it is different from existing two-stage detectors (e.g., RPN) as well as one-stage detector (FPN) as it does not rely on anchor generation, selective search and post-processing. However, considering its nature, we can regard it more closely related to the one-stage detector rather than two-stage detector. We will make this clear in the revised paper. \n\n\n**Q3: DINO Citation.**\n\nThanks for pointing our this typo. We will correct the citation as DN-DETR in our revised paper. \n\n\n**Q4: Handling partially occluded in extremely cluttered scenes**\n\nPlease refer to the answer to **Q4** in the General Response. \n\n\n**Q5: AIRS inferior performance on large objects in MS COCO**\n\nPlease refer to the answer to **Q1** in the General response.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "ZbqSij0IdL", "reviewer": "Reviewer_A3eZ", "summary": "The paper presents a novel RL-driven object detector guided by Evidential Q-learning. The main contributions are: \n1. an adaptive hierarchical object detection paradigm supported by an RL agent to mimic human visual attention that performs searching in the top-down fashion;\n2. an evidential Q-learning method driven by a unique reward function, covering both potentially positive and highly uncertain patches \n3. theoretical guarantee on the fast convergence of the proposed evidential Q-learning algorithm.\n\nExperimental results show the effectiveness of their method.", "questions": "See Weaknesses.", "limitations": "The authors discussed limitations thoroughly.", "rating": 7, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "1. The motivation and the proposed method are interesting and technically sound. \n2. Most part of the manuscript is clearly written and easy to understand. \n3. Enough ablation study experiments to show the effectiveness of the proposed method.", "weaknesses": "1. This paper does not include comparison with the latest works in dense object detection , as the proposed modules are simply tested using a few weakness baselines. I am wondering if those techniques can be used to improve accuracy of state-of-the- art models? For example, [1] [2] .\n\n[1] Xu D, Deng J, Li W. Revisiting ap loss for dense object detection: Adaptive ranking pair selection[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2022: 14187-14196.\n\n[2] Hou X, Liu M, Zhang S, et al. Salience DETR: Enhancing Detection Transformer with Hierarchical Salience Filtering Refinement[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024: 17574-17583.\n\n2. My concern is whether the RL baseline comparisons should also be included in the main experiments (Table 1 and Table 2)..", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "**Q1: Performance comparison with [1] [2]**\n\nThank you for providing the references for these baselines. We would like to clarify that we focus primarily on improving the dense object detection performance by effectively discovering all objects (including the smaller ones) through leveraging the FPN structure and filtering out false positive cases using our novel evidence guided exploration-exploitation strategy coupled with adaptive hierarchical searching. The first baseline uses a novel adaptive Pairwise Error (APE) loss that focusing on ranking pairs in both positive and negative samples. The second is more like a refinement built upon the DETR model. It proposes hierarchical salience filtering refinement, which performs transformer encoding only on filtered discriminative queries, for a better trade-off between computational efficiency and precision. As such, both methods don't leverage the FPN structure for soliciting enough positive anchors as the candidate pool and may suffer in the dense scenario, where many smaller objects coexist with, overlap with or are included in the large objects. As experimental evidence shown in table below, both methods' AP performance is worse than our proposed technique, especially for small objects $AP^{S}$. We conduct comparison experiment with MSCOCO data set and use the same backbone ResNet-50-FPN and epoch number in the first baseline for a fair comparison. For the second baseline which is orthogonal to ours, we re-run their pre-trained model to get the reported performance.\n\n\n| **Model**           | **AP** | **$AP^{S}$** | **$AP^{M}$** | **$AP^{L}$** | **$AP^{CH}$** |\n|-----------------|------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|\n| Adaptive Pairwise Error | 41.5 | 23.5 | 45.7 | 52.6 | 22.4 |\n| Salience DETR | 46.5 | 15.4 | 46.8 | 53.5 | 15.5 |\n| AIRS | 47.6 | 31.0 | 48.5 | 54.3 | 30.2 |\n\n**Q2: RL Baseline Comparisons in Table 1 and Table 2**\n\nThank you for the suggestion! We will add selected RL baselines as part of Tables 1 and 2 in the revised paper.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:
**General Response**

We would like to thank all the reviewers for their constructive suggestions and comments. Here, we summarize our responses to some common questions raised by multiple reviewers:

**Q1: Poor performance of AIRS in MS COCO Large Objects (Reviewers mhHL and Q21q)**

In this work, we aim to improve the detection performance by having a good balance between objects of different sizes and the $AP$ metric is designed to assess the overall effectiveness in terms of detecting objects in all granularities. Compared to competitive baselines, AIRS is superior on all datasets. We agree that placing more focus on smaller and more difficult objects lowers the performance of AIRS on $AP^{L}$ and $AP^{M}$ in MS COCO. However, this is an expected behavior as MS COCO has most of the objects being very large and therefore, the cost of missing smaller objects in the existing two-stage detectors seem to be very low. As  such, many two-stage detectors have superior performance (see Table 1 of the paper). In contrast, as our technique leverages a one-stage detector to better cover dense objects, it is relatively less effective to detect very large objects (which is evidenced by the lower performance by all one-stage detectors in Table 1). It is worth mentioning that in other datasets, AIRS outperforms all baselines even on the large objects. In the case of Pascal VOC 2012, it is relatively easier and does not contain very large objects. As such, one-stage detectors perform comparable or even better than the two-stage detectors.  As for Open Image V4, despite being challenging, it contains a good amount of training samples with larger objects, which provides enough supervision for models to detect these large objects. As such, all single-detectors including our technique perform comparable or even better compared to two-stage detectors. 


**Q2: Clarification on use of masks to generate final bounding boxes (Reviewers 4PiS and Q21q)**

We run the trained RL agent on the test image's FPN to generate RL masks. Based on the masked evidential Q-value estimate, the agent selects the next action, which would be either a downward or upward movement. Then, the agent moves to the next patch and continues the process until receiving an upward movement in layer $L$ or reaches the maximum time step i.e. $T$. After the hierarchical searching process, we can have a binary RL mask by recording which patches are visited by RL agent through it actions (denoted as 1 in RL mask), and which are not visited by the RL agent (denoted as 0 in RL mask). Given the RL mask, which is a three-level binary mask covering the feature pyramid network (FPN), each pixel in the FPN will be assigned a confidence score in the quality evaluation branch to decide if it is a positive anchor or not by (comparing with a threshold). Those pixels covered by zero RL masks will have their confidence score reset by 0, and other pixels will maintain the same confidence score. In that way, RL masks serve as an additional filter to further eliminate the "false positive" predicted bounding boxes. We show an illustration of RL masks in Figure 1 of the attached PDF.


**Q3: Comparison with two stage detectors like RPN (Reviewer 8nSu)**

There are key differences between two stage detectors and AIRS. 
The former usually relies on a Region Proposal Network (RPN), which is less effective to capture all targeted objects especially in a dense scenario. This is because, RPN selects anchors from the candidate anchors provided by the region proposal network based on the confidence score resulting into missing many true positive object anchors with a low confidence. In contrast, FPN in AIRS is based on multi-scale feature representations. Thus, the number of selected anchors in all layers is far more than the ones proposed by RPN and therefore avoiding the missing of important object anchors. To tackle the many false positive anchors in the FPN based approaches, we propose a novel hierarchical search coupled with an effective exploration-exploitation strategy leveraging evidential Q-learning. As a result, AIRS effectively removes the false positive bounding boxes without removing the less confident true positive objects. This phenomenon is also demonstrated in Table 1 of the paper, where two-stage detectors result in a lower performance compared to AIRS in dense object detection. 


**Q4: How does the binary RL mask help reduce unnecessary bounding boxes in inference step (Reviewers 4Pis, mhHL, and Q21q)**

We are handling two different types of false positive bounding boxes. The first category involves bounding boxes that capture only background with no targeted object. To remove those patches, our novel exploration-exploitation strategy plays a major role. Specifically, during the adaptive hierarchical search in the top-down fashion, exploration of the higher layer quickly discovers that there is no object in the lower-level granularity. Specifically, both Q-value as well  as epistemic uncertainty (see Eq. 4) remains low, leading to removing  bounding boxes on backgrounds. The second category involves bounding boxes that cover only a part of a given object and are embedded in the larger bounding box that covers the whole object. As our approach works in the top-down fashion, once the RL agent explores the bigger bounding box covering the full object, the model assigns a very low epistemic uncertainty for partially covering bounding boxes. As such, the model avoids going downward in a lower level granularity in the action space resulting removing unnecessary partially covered bounding boxes.

Meta-review: This paper presents a novel approach to dense object detection called Adaptive Important Region Selection (AIRS). The method utilizes evidential Q-learning and a hierarchical search strategy to identify important regions in images, aiming to reduce false positive detections while improving performance on small object detection. 

Initially, the paper garnered mixed reviews, with reviewers acknowledging its innovative aspects but also raising concerns about certain claims and comparisons, e.g., poor performance on large objects, comparison with two-stage detectors like RPN. After the rebuttal stage, most of the concerns have been addressed, but the claim between AIRS and RPN still deserves further clarification, as commented by Reviewer 8nSu.

Overall, the paper presents an interesting and potentially impactful approach to dense object detection. The overall consensus is that the work is technically sound and makes valuable contributions to the field. 

The AC is happy to recommend the paper for acceptance. Congratulations! Please be aware that the authors are still strongly recommended to incorporate the response in the rebuttal and adequately address the raised issues in the final camera-ready version.
Decision: Accept (poster)