IntRec: Intent-based Retrieval with Contrastive Refinement
Pourya Shamsolmoali, Masoumeh Zareapoor, Eric Granger, Yue Lu
No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
Retrieving user-specified objects from complex scenes remains a challenging task, especially when queries are ambiguous or involve multiple similar objects. Existing open-vocabulary detectors operate in a one-shot manner, lacking the ability to refine predictions based on user feedback. To address this, we propose IntRec, an interactive object retrieval framework that refines predictions based on user feedback. At it ...
s core is an Intent State (IS) that maintains dual memory sets for positive anchors (confirmed cues) and negative constraints (rejected hypotheses). A contrastive alignment function ranks candidate objects by maximizing similarity to positive cues while penalizing rejected ones, enabling fine-grained disambiguation in cluttered scenes. Our interactive framework provides substantial improvements in retrieval accuracy without additional supervision. On LVIS, IntRec achieves 35.4 AP, outperforming OVMR, CoDet, and CAKE by +2.3, +3.7, and +0.5, respectively. On the challenging LVIS-Ambiguous benchmark, it improves performance by +7.9 AP over its one-shot baseline after a single corrective feedback, with less than 30 ms of added latency per interaction.
Results & Benchmarks
Benchmark evidence drill-down
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retrieval / indexing | COCO | AP | 50 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Retrieval / indexing | IntRec (Turn-0) | AP on LVIS-Ambiguous. | 14.8 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
Retrieving user-specified objects from complex scenes remains a challenging task, especially when queries are ambiguous or involve multiple similar objects.
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Reproduction readiness
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
No verified implementation available
- · No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Research context
Tasks
Retrieval / indexing
Methods
Retrieval-augmented generation
Domains
Information Retrieval
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.