CountZES: Counting via Zero-Shot Exemplar Discovery and Selection

Muhammad Ibraheem Siddiqui; Muhammad Haris Khan

cs.CVDec 18, 2025

CountZES: Counting via Zero-Shot Exemplar Discovery and Selection

Authors: Muhammad Ibraheem Siddiqui, Muhammad Haris Khan

Organizations: Mohamed Bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Abstract

Zero-shot object counting (ZOC) aims to count instances of unseen categories using only a class name. Existing exemplar-based methods discover candidate exemplars through random image patches or open-vocabulary detector proposals. However, random patch sampling often yields poorly delineated instances, while detector-based discovery may produce multi-instance regions and, in dense scenes, provide only a few or even no suitable single-instance candidates. Thus, exemplar selection is constrained by candidate quality and coverage, while counting itself remains highly sensitive to exemplar choice. To this end, we propose CountZES, an inference-only framework that jointly addresses candidate discovery and exemplar selection through density-guided candidate generation and complementary exemplar-selection mechanisms. Starting from a text-grounded anchor, CountZES progressively discovers and refines visual exemplars through three stages: Detection-Anchored Exemplar (DAE), Density-Guided Exemplar (DGE), and Feature-Consensus Exemplar (FCE). DAE establishes a reliable single-instance anchor, DGE leverages density responses to expand candidate discovery beyond the detector-constrained pool and select a statistically consistent exemplar, and FCE promotes representativeness through feature-level consensus. Together, they yield complementary exemplars balancing semantic grounding, count consistency, and feature representativeness. CountZES requires no ZOC-specific optimization and adopts a modular design that supports different pretrained components. Extensive evaluations across natural, aerial, and medical domains demonstrate strong cross-domain generalization and superior performance among inference-only ZOC methods.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: Motivation for CountZES. (a) Detector-driven exemplar selection is constrained by the initial candidate pool, as GroundingDINO [ 22 ] may provide few or no clean single-instance proposals in dense scenes. (b) Counting is sensitive to exemplar choice, with visually similar exemplars yielding different count estimates. (c) CountZES addresses both challenges through progressive discovery and selection, yielding complementary exemplars from semantic, count-driven, and feature cues. (Best viewed in zoom).

Figure 2: CountZES comparison with T2ICount [ 31 ] , GeCo [ 29 ] , and TFOC [ 35 ] across natural, aerial, and medical domains.

Figure 3: Overview of CountZES. Given an image and text prompt, CountZES progressively discovers and selects visual exemplars through three stages. DAE refines GroundingDINO proposals using CLIP similarity and SSES to obtain a text-aligned single-instance anchor. Conditioned on this anchor, DGE leverages the density response and P2P prompting to discover candidate instances, applies RoI-based single-instance filtering, and selects a statistically consistent exemplar through GGES. FCE further promotes visual representativeness by projecting density-guided candidates onto SAM’s feature space and selecting a representative exemplar through FRES. The exemplars selected across the three stages form a complementary set for final density estimation and counting.

Figure 4: Overview of GGES in DGE. Per-box counts from $\mathcal{B}_{\text{single}}$ estimate a pseudo-GT, while a SAM similarity map conditioned on $\mathbf{b}_{\text{DAE}}$ captures visual correspondence. A composite score combining pseudo-GT proximity and similarity-map entropy guides density-based exemplar selection.

Figure 5: Overview of FRES in the FCE stage. Single-instance boxes $\mathcal{B}_{\text{single}}$ are projected onto the upsampled SAM feature map $\Phi^{\text{up}}$ to obtain $\ell_{2}$ -normalized regional embeddings. These embeddings are grouped via binary clustering, and the box closest to the majority-cluster centroid is selected as the representative exemplar.

Method	Venue	Inference	MAE	RMSE
Method	Venue	only	MAE	RMSE
ZSOC † [ 39 ]	CVPR’23	✗	22.09	115.17
CLIP-Count [ 14 ]	ACM’23	✗	17.78	106.62
CounTX [ 1 ]	BMVC’23	✗	15.88	106.29
VLCounter [ 15 ]	AAAI’24	✗	17.05	106.16
PseCo [ 12 ]	CVPR’24	✗	16.58	129.77

Table 1: Comparison of CountZES with SOTA ZOC methods on FSC-147 dataset. Best results are in bold and second-best are underlined. † indicates ZOC methods based on exemplar discovery. * indicates that CountingDINO is not zero-shot (box prompts).

Method	Inference-only	MAE	RMSE
CLIP-Count [ 14 ]	✗	11.96	16.61
CounTX [ 1 ]	✗	8.13	10.87
G-DINO [ 22 ]	✗	29.72	31.60
VLCounter [ 15 ]	✗	6.46	8.68
VA-Count † [ 44 ]	✗	10.63	13.20
GeCo [ 29 ]	✗	10.34	14.73

Table 2: CountZES compared to SOTA on CARPK dataset.

	Density-based						Class-wise
Method (Inf-only)	Low		Med		High		Overall
	MAE	RMSE	MAE	RMSE	MAE	RMSE	MAE	RMSE
GeCo (✗)	11.63	17.84	10.30	20.61	12.38	24.13	13.12	28.36
T2ICount (✗)	30.04	122.91	25.16	76.95	20.62	52.23	24.95	88.21
TFOC (✓)	7.20	10.36	16.07	21.63	36.88	63.82	17.79	35.74
CountZES (✓)	6.86	19.22	10.26	14.44	20.36	43.65	12.29	28.32

Table 3: CountZES compared to SOTA on PerSense-D dataset.

Method (Inf-only)	VGG		MBM
	MAE	RMSE	MAE	RMSE
GeCo (✗)	67.32	77.53	92.59	104.52
T2ICount (✗)	151.35	162.81	30.01	44.44
CountSE (✗)	64.75	74.51	61.90	69.97
CountGD++ (✗)	173.70	183.74	121.50	125.76
TFOC (✓)	144.91	158.52	64.25	75.67

Table 4: Comparison of CountZES with SOTA ZOC methods on medical cell counting datasets VGG and MBM.

Setting	Parallel		Seq. 1		Seq. 2
Setting	MAE	RMSE	MAE	RMSE	MAE	RMSE
In-domain	17.12	92.57	16.58	91.90	15.77	91.40
Cross-domain	22.31	112.01	21.87	111.23	21.09	110.14

Table 5: Ablation on FSC-147. Left: Effect of stage interaction and ordering. Parallel independently conditions both DGE and FCE on DAE. Seq. 1 follows DAE

\rightarrow

FCE

\rightarrow

DGE, while Seq. 2 follows DAE

\rightarrow

DGE

\rightarrow

FCE, propagating the selected exemplar sequentially between stages. Right: Stage-wise contribution.

Configuration	MAE	RMSE
DAE only	21.73	118.03
DGE only	17.38	108.56
FCE only	19.42	116.53
CountZES	15.77	91.40

Table 6: Ablation studies of CountZES. (a) Advantage of cross-stage collaboration over single-stage exemplar selection. (b) Robustness to poor detector initialization. (c) Effect of the number of peaks

k

in SSES. (d) Effect of density-guided candidate discovery in DGE. (e) Flexible design with different segmentation backbones.

Figure 6: Qualitative comparison of CountZES with T2ICount [ 31 ] and GeCo [ 29 ] across diverse scenarios, including natural (FSC-147 and PerSense-D), aerial (CARPK), and medical cell-counting (VGG and MBM) images.

Figure 7: Left: For each stage, the top three exemplars are shown along with their predicted counts. One exemplar from each stage (arrows) provides complementary cues, and their combination in CountZES improves overall counting performance (last column). Right: Performance–runtime tradeoff among inference-only zero-shot counting methods. (best viewed in zoom).

Figure 8: Overview of SSES in the DAE stage. Starting from a detector-derived coarse box (green), CLIP similarity maps are used to extract high-confidence peaks. These peaks guide SAM to generate candidate masks, which are scored based on semantic alignment and spatial consistency. The highest-scoring mask is selected as the refined single-instance exemplar.

Figure 9: Overview of P2P prompting and single-instance filtering. Density peaks extracted from the density map serve as point prompts to SAM, whose masks are filtered via RoI-count to retain only single-instance regions before being passed to the GGES module for final selection in the DGE stage.

Appendix figures & tables5 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Box Descriptor Definition	FSC-147 (in-domain)
Box Descriptor Definition	MAE	RMSE
Avg pool + $\ell_{2}$ -norm	15.77	91.40
Max pool + $\ell_{2}$ -norm	15.89	91.63

Appendix

Table 7: Sensitivity analysis of descriptor definition in FRES on FSC-147 dataset.

$\alpha$	In-domain		Cross-domain
$\alpha$	MAE	RMSE	MAE	RMSE
0.25	16.36	92.22	21.48	110.96
0.5	15.77	91.40	21.09	110.14
0.75	16.18	92.35	21.44	111.15
1	17.82	94.61	22.97	113.37

Appendix

Table 8: Left: Sensitivity to weight value

\alpha

. Right: Effect of number of clusters in FRES.

Figure 10: Additional qualitative results of CountZES on FSC-147 dataset.

Figure 11: Failure case illustrating selection of incomplete exemplar boxes for the class “watches.” Due to SAM’s limited semantic awareness, point prompts from density peaks segment only the watch dial, excluding the wristband, which produces partial masks and incomplete boxes that lead to suboptimal exemplar selection.

Figure 12: Additional failure cases highlighting CountZES selection of incomplete boxes as exemplars. For “nail polishes,” SAM-based point prompt segmentation in CountZES captures only partial objects; for “comic books,” point prompts isolate characters or cover details instead of the full book; for “eggs,” SAM segments only the yolk region; and for “sauce bottles,” it segments only the label instead of the whole bottle. These examples show how imperfect masks can impair downstream exemplar selection in CountZES.

Object Counting

Object counting estimates the number and locations of target instances in images or video, from dense crowds to fine-grained categories.

See all 61 papers

Jul 2, 2026

AdaCount: Training-Free Similarity-Guided Spatial and Feature Adaptation for Zero-Shot Object Counting

Zero-shot object counting (ZOC) aims to count instances of arbitrary object categories specified only through textual prompts. Recent training-free approaches leverage foundation models such as SAM to reformulate counting as a prompt-driven segmentation task, eliminating the need for costly counting-specific training data with point-level annotations. More recently, SAM3 introduced promptable concept segmentation, enabling the zero-shot segmentation of all instances corresponding to a text-defined concept. However, SAM3 struggles in densely populated scenes containing numerous small objects, where limited image resolution and insufficient attention to target-relevant regions often lead to missed instances and poor instance separation, hindering accurate object counting. To address this limitation, we propose AdaCount, a training-free framework for ZOC based on similarity-guided spatial and feature adaptation. AdaCount first estimates a prototype-driven similarity map that identifies target-relevant regions. This similarity map subsequently guides two complementary adaptations: (i) similarity-guided spatial warping, which reallocates image resolution toward target instances, and (ii) feature modulation, which amplifies target-relevant encoder representations. Together, these adaptations enable SAM3 to devote greater representational capacity to target-relevant regions while preserving global image context, without requiring any model retraining. Extensive experiments across six diverse counting benchmarks establish AdaCount as a new SOTA among training-free ZOC approaches.

Muhammad Ibraheem Siddiqui, Muhammad Haris Khan

Mohamed Bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence

Test-Time Adaptation Vision Foundation Model Adaptation Object Counting

Ask PDF

Aug 20, 2026

RECOUNT: Reference-guided Counting with Synthetic Visual Exemplars

Text-guided zero-shot object counters excel at spatial localization but categorize poorly on novel or fine-grained classes: natural language is too coarse to fully specify visual identity, so they fail to separate visually similar distractors. Few-shot counters sidestep this with visual exemplars, but require manual annotations on every image. To resolve this dilemma, we introduce RECOUNT, a plug-and-play framework for image-guided zero-shot counting. Rather than specify a category with a text prompt, our key insight is to specify it visually, from a single off-scene reference image. However, we find that a lone reference image provides narrow coverage of a category's appearance and is unreliable across diverse scenes. We therefore repurpose a diffusion model as an automated contrastive data engine that expands the reference into a diverse exemplar gallery, supplying the discriminative detail that text cannot. RECOUNT preserves the class-agnostic proposals of any frozen counter and offloads categorization to a separate visual module (a frozen backbone with a lightweight head trained on this synthetic data) that matches each proposal against the target and distractor galleries. Applied to a frozen counter, RECOUNT attains the best zero-shot accuracy on both benchmarks, cutting counting error (MAE) by 55% on LookAlikes and 21% on PairTally relative to the strongest prior zero-shot counter.

Adriano D'Alessandro, Ali Mahdavi-Amiri, Ghassan Hamarneh

Simon Fraser University

Object Counting

Ask PDF

Mar 17, 2026

Boosting Quantitive and Spatial Awareness for Zero-Shot Object Counting

Zero-shot object counting (ZSOC) aims to enumerate objects of arbitrary categories specified by text descriptions without requiring visual exemplars. However, existing methods often treat counting as a coarse retrieval task, suffering from a lack of fine-grained quantity awareness. Furthermore, they frequently exhibit spatial insensitivity and degraded generalization due to feature space distortion during model adaptation.To address these challenges, we present QICA, a novel framework that synergizes quantity perception with robust spatial cast aggregation. Specifically, we introduce a Synergistic Prompting Strategy (SPS) that adapts vision and language encoders through numerically conditioned prompts, bridging the gap between semantic recognition and quantitative reasoning. To mitigate feature distortion, we propose a Cost Aggregation Decoder (CAD) that operates directly on vision-text similarity maps. By refining these maps through spatial aggregation, CAD prevents overfitting while preserving zero-shot transferability. Additionally, a multi-level quantity alignment loss (

\mathcal{L}_{MQA}

) is employed to enforce numerical consistency across the entire pipeline. Extensive experiments on FSC-147 demonstrate competitive performance, while zero-shot evaluation on CARPK and ShanghaiTech-A validates superior generalization to unseen domains.

Da Zhang, Bingyu Li, Feiyu Wang +2

Northwestern Polytechnical University · Institute of Artificial Intelligence (TeleAI), China Telecom · University of Science and Technology of China +1

Object Counting Zero-Shot Learning Prompt Learning

Ask PDF

Abstract

Object Counting

Explore similar work

AdaCount: Training-Free Similarity-Guided Spatial and Feature Adaptation for Zero-Shot Object Counting

RECOUNT: Reference-guided Counting with Synthetic Visual Exemplars

Boosting Quantitive and Spatial Awareness for Zero-Shot Object Counting