Self-Aware Object Detection via Degradation Manifolds
Organizations: Fraunhofer Institute of Optronics, System Technologies and Image Exploitation IOSB Gutleuthausstraße 1, 76275 Ettlingen
Abstract
Object detectors achieve strong performance under nominal imaging conditions but can fail silently when exposed to blur, noise, compression, adverse weather, or resolution changes. In safety-critical settings, it is therefore insufficient to produce predictions without assessing whether the input remains within the detector's nominal operating regime. We refer to this capability as self-aware object detection. We introduce a degradation-aware self-awareness framework based on degradation manifolds, which explicitly structure a detector's feature space according to image degradation rather than semantic content. Our method augments a standard detection backbone with a lightweight embedding head trained via multi-layer contrastive learning. Images sharing the same degradation composition are pulled together, while differing degradation configurations are pushed apart, yielding a geometrically organized representation that captures degradation type and severity without requiring degradation labels or explicit density modeling. To anchor the learned geometry, we estimate a pristine prototype from clean training embeddings, defining a nominal operating point in representation space. Self-awareness emerges as geometric deviation from this reference, providing an intrinsic, image-level signal of degradation-induced shift that is independent of detection confidence. Extensive experiments on synthetic corruption benchmarks, cross-dataset zero-shot transfer, and natural weather-induced distribution shifts demonstrate strong pristine-degraded separability, consistent behavior across multiple detector architectures, and robust generalization under semantic shift. These results suggest that degradation-aware representation geometry provides a practical and detector-agnostic foundation.
Figures & tables
| Severity levels AUROC | |||||
| Model | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Image Quality Assessment (IQA) | |||||
| MANIQA Yang et al. (2022) (score-based) | 52.88 | 54.49 | 55.27 | 56.67 | 61.56 |
| MANIQA Yang et al. (2022) (embedding-based; prototype anchored) | 65.87 | 71.55 | 73.42 | 76.97 | 77.30 |
| QualiCLIP Agnolucci et al. (2025) (score-based) | 53.17 | 56.77 | 66.28 | 70.60 | 72.53 |
| QualiCLIP Agnolucci et al. (2025) (embedding-based; prototype anchored) | 45.36 | 41.53 | 46.77 | 49.79 | 56.16 |
| Degradation Manifold (Ours) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Severity levels AUROC | |||||
| Dataset | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| VISDRONE Zhu et al. (2021) | 83.66 | 89.15 | 92.08 | 95.85 | 96.79 |
| KITTI Geiger et al. (2012) | 94.19 | 96.37 | 97.16 | 97.25 | 98.52 |
| DETRAC Wen et al. (2020) | 94.65 | 97.05 | 98.87 | 99.69 | 99.81 |
| FLIR (VIS) FLIR (2022) (V2) | 82.83 | 91.39 | 92.72 | 95.11 | 96.66 |
| Degradation Manifold (Ours) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Severity levels AUROC | |||||
| Datasets | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| COCO Lin et al. (2014) & VISDRONE Zhu et al. (2021) | 83.54 | 89.91 | 90.03 | 95.06 | 95.95 |
| COCO Lin et al. (2014) & KITTI Geiger et al. (2012) | 89.27 | 92.44 | 93.86 | 96.40 | 97.21 |
| COCO Lin et al. (2014) & DETRAC Wen et al. (2020) | 92.26 | 93.29 | 94.92 | 98.62 | 98.97 |
| COCO Lin et al. (2014) & FLIR (VIS) FLIR (2022) (V2) | 82.45 | 88.92 | 89.32 | 94.32 | 95.97 |
| Degradation Manifold (Ours) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Severity levels AUROC | |||||
| Variant | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Full model (multi-layer + attention + hard neg.) | 88.64 | 89.70 | 89.75 | 95.28 | 97.14 |
| Last backbone layer only | 81.87 | 85.13 | 87.56 | 89.13 | 92.75 |
| Global average pooling (no attention) | 85.51 | 88.44 | 89.49 | 95.01 | 96.30 |
| Without hard negative mining | 86.00 | 87.17 | 87.58 | 90.41 | 91.54 |
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Severity levels AUROC | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detector | Model | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Top- Detection Uncertainties | FasterRCNN DMM | Trace | 51.22 | 53.49 | 54.84 | 57.75 | 62.91 |
| Determinant | 48.63 | 47.15 | 47.18 | 47.42 | 51.31 | ||
| Entropy (Regression) | 50.71 | 52.55 | 53.85 | 57.77 | 62.40 | ||
| Confidence Score | 53.51 | 59.04 | 60.50 | 67.91 | 71.23 | ||
| Entropy (Classification) | 55.82 | 59.30 | 63.76 | 70.17 | 74.93 | ||
| Severity Levels AUROC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degradation Function Agnolucci et al. (2024) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| ’Gaussian Blur’ | 48.15 | 61.56 | 85.20 | 99.84 | 99.89 |
| ’Lens Blur’ | 98.02 | 98.45 | 98.90 | 99.20 | 99.50 |
| ’Motion Blur’ | 48.93 | 93.43 | 99.62 | 99.92 | 99.95 |
| ’White Noise’ | 98.38 | 99.28 | 99.60 | 99.75 | 99.85 |
| ’White Noise in Color Component’ | 85.23 | 98.72 | 99.36 | 99.70 | 99.85 |
| Severity Levels AUROC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degradation Function Hendrycks and Dietterich (2019) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| ’Gaussian Noise’ | 99.91 | 99.94 | 99.93 | 99.94 | 99.92 |
| ’Shot Noise’ | 99.63 | 99.74 | 99.83 | 99.81 | 99.85 |
| ’Impulse Noise’ | 99.96 | 99.94 | 99.92 | 99.91 | 99.90 |
| ’Speckle Noise’ | 99.70 | 99.72 | 99.73 | 99.72 | 99.71 |
| ’Defocus Blur’ | 99.86 | 99.87 | 99.88 | 99.87 | 99.86 |
Object Detection
Object detection locates and classifies objects in images or video, balancing localization accuracy, robustness, and inference speed.
See all 624 papers