mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Does Your VFM Speak Plant? The Botanical Grammar of Vision Foundation Models for Object Detection

arXiv 2604.09920 ↗First posted 10 Apr 2026cs.CVcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Vision foundation models (VFMs) offer the promise of zero-shot object detection without task-specific training data, yet their performance in complex agricultural scenes remains highly sensitive to text prompt construction. We present a systematic prompt optimization framework evaluating four open-vocabulary detectors -- YOLO World, SAM3, Grounding DINO, and OWLv2 -- for cowpea flower and pod detection across synthetic and real field imagery. We decompose prompts into eight axes and conduct one-factor-at-a-time analysis followed by combinatorial optimization, revealing that models respond divergently to prompt structure: conditions that optimize one architecture can collapse another. Applying model-specific combinatorial prompts yields substantial gains over a naive species-name baseline, including +0.357 [email protected] for YOLO World and +0.362 [email protected] for OWLv2 on synthetic cowpea flower data. To evaluate cross-task generalization, we use an LLM to translate the discovered axis structure to a morphologically distinct target -- cowpea pods -- and compare against prompting using the discovered optimal structures from synthetic flower data. Crucially, prompt structures optimized exclusively on synthetic data transfer effectively to real-world fields: synthetic-pipeline prompts match or exceed those discovered on labeled real data for the majority of model-object combinations (flower: 0.374 vs. 0.353 for YOLO World; pod: 0.429 vs. 0.371 for SAM3). Our findings demonstrate that prompt engineering can substantially close the gap between zero-shot VFMs and supervised detectors without requiring manual annotation, and that optimal prompts are model-specific, non-obvious, and transferable across domains.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Apr 2026.

Builds on

14 of 24 references.

References · 14

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  2. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
  3. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  4. 2023Grounding DINO: Marrying DINO with Grounded Pre-Training for Open-Set Object Detectioncited by 3,332
  5. 2021Learning to Prompt for Vision-Language Modelscited by 2,281
  6. 2022Conditional Prompt Learning for Vision-Language Modelscited by 1,433
  7. 2025SAM 3: Segment Anything with Conceptscited by 906
  8. 2024YOLO-World: Real-Time Open-Vocabulary Object Detectioncited by 503
  9. 2023Scaling Open-Vocabulary Object Detectioncited by 343
  10. 2023Hard Prompts Made Easy: Gradient-Based Discrete Optimization for Prompt Tuning and Discoverycited by 336
  11. 2023Prompting Hard or Hardly Prompting: Prompt Inversion for Text-to-Image Diffusion Modelscited by 40
  12. 2025Prompt Repetition Improves Non-Reasoning LLMscited by 27
2 more
  1. 2024Open-Vocabulary Calibration for Fine-tuned CLIPcited by 15
  2. 2025Few-Shot Adaptation of Grounding DINO for Agricultural Domaincited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.