SetOPD: From Few Visual Exemplars to Multimodal Candidate Sets for Remote-Sensing Open-Prompt Detection
Organizations: Wuhan University · Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake Administration
Abstract
Open-prompt detectors allow users to specify targets with text, visual exemplars, or both. We argue that existing designs underuse the visual modality in two ways. First, multiple exemplars are commonly compressed into a single class-level embedding. This textualizes visual prompting: the resulting vector plays the role of another class name, is often aligned to or injected into the text pathway, and may be suboptimal when only a few heterogeneous exemplars are available. Second, existing methods interact primarily in prompt or representation space, before modality-specific detection states are formed. We address both issues from a set perspective: \setopd preserves modality-specific decoding states from a shared prompt-conditioned initialization and performs explicit multimodal collaboration at the candidate-state level. For the first issue, we introduce \br prompting, which reads every boxed exemplar in its full scene context and decomposes the pooled support evidence into a Base anchor and a learned Residual correction; the resulting prompt has fixed capacity regardless of the number of examples and drives its own visual detection pathway. For the second, we recast text--visual collaboration from representation-level fusion into a candidate-set modeling problem. Paired-Query Arbitration (\pqa) then performs explicit cross-modal state arbitration only after modality-specific candidate states have been formed. The two readers share query initialization so their candidates are paired by index; a learned gate arbitrates within each pair, followed by a permutation-equivariant module that reasons over the fused set.
Figures & tables
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Setting | DOTA AP | AP |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic ablations | ||
| PQA checkpoint | 48.25 | – |
| continued optimization | 48.33 | 0.08 |
| Text-reader localization | 48.67 | 0.34 |
| preservation loss | 48.71 | 0.04 |
| QFL classification (Final SetOPD) | 49.01 | 0.30 |
| Dataset | Text-only GT | Visual-only GT | Common GT | Exclusive GTs | PQA retained |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DIOR | 698 | 1,716 | 116,758 | 2,414 | 1,763 / 2,414 (73.03%) |
| DOTA-v2.0 | 1,876 | 2,196 | 134,463 | 4,072 | 2,191 / 4,072 (53.81%) |
| HRSC2016 | 1 | 18 | 1,209 | 19 | 19 / 19 (100.00%) |
| RSOD | 12 | 71 | 7,103 | 83 | 70 / 83 (84.34%) |
| Dataset | Same-GT given both TP | Same-index box IoU | Index retained after Hungarian |
|---|---|---|---|
| DIOR | 99.90% | 0.854 | 94.03% |
| DOTA-v2.0 | 99.86% | 0.857 | 93.97% |
| HRSC2016 | 100.00% | 0.767 | 83.94% |
| Method | DIOR AP | DIOR AP50 | DOTA-v2.0 AP | DOTA-v2.0 AP50 |
| Grounding DINO ( Liu et al., 2024 ) (Text) | – | 78.7 | – | 71.8 |
| LAE-DINO ( Pan et al., 2025 ) (Text) | – | 85.5 | 46.8 | – |
| OpenRSD ( Huang et al., 2025 ) (Text) | – | 76.7 | – | 71.8 |
| OpenRSD ( Huang et al., 2025 ) (Visual) | – | 76.7 | – | 69.8 |
| Hi-OPD ( Hu et al., 2026 ) (Text) | – | 79.7 | 48.2 | 72.3 |
| Hi-OPD ( Hu et al., 2026 ) (Visual) | – | 75.2 | 46.1 | 69.5 |
| Method | DIOR | DOTA | HRSC | RSOD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sparse Query Fusion ( Carion et al., 2020 ) | 18.85 | 11.59 | 42.79 | 13.14 |
| MS-DETR Adaptation ( Xing et al., 2024 ) | 27.94 | 25.37 | 30.92 | 37.62 |
| DeepInteraction Adaptation ( Yang et al., 2022 ) | 53.04 | 43.66 | 70.45 | 38.72 |
| SetOPD (Ours) | 59.97 | 49.01 | 79.89 | 41.91 |