mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Differences in Detection: Explainability Where it Matters

arXiv 2606.07503 ↗First posted 5 Jun 2026cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We propose Differences in Detection (DnD), an intuitive method to compare two object detection models. Based on the same matching algorithm, it complements the standard metrics of mean Average Precision (mAP) and TIDE error analysis with the ability to compare two models directly. More specifically, we calculate the intersection of ground truth labels that are recognized by both models, followed by the corresponding difference sets and the complement set of ground truth labels that are missed by both models. The resulting comparison is more direct and intuitive than a comparison of independent summary statistics. It reveals individual and shared mistakes and becomes particularly interesting when combined with error types. In this case, the differences in detection errors can be analyzed naturally in a standard confusion matrix. While valuable in itself, we believe that one of the best applications of DnD is to guide explainability methods such as ODAM towards metric-relevant examples, grounded in structured subsets. The code for our method is available here: https://github.com/JohannesTheo/differences-in-detection

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jun 2026.

Builds on

19 of 23 references.

References · 19

  1. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  2. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
  3. 2017Mask R-CNNcited by 7,277
  4. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
  5. 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,877
  6. 2017Grad-CAM++: Improved Visual Explanations for Deep Convolutional Networkscited by 939
  7. 2022Exploring Plain Vision Transformer Backbones for Object Detectioncited by 724
  8. 2023ConvNeXt V2: Co-designing and Scaling ConvNets with Masked Autoencoderscited by 712
  9. 2020Simple Copy-Paste is a Strong Data Augmentation Method for Instance Segmentationcited by 596
  10. 2019Benchmarking Robustness in Object Detection: Autonomous Driving when Winter is Comingcited by 336
  11. 2021Boundary IoU: Improving Object-Centric Image Segmentation Evaluationcited by 188
  12. 2022Understanding The Robustness in Vision Transformerscited by 144
7 more
  1. 2020TIDE: A General Toolbox for Identifying Object Detection Errorscited by 114
  2. 2020Black-box Explanation of Object Detectors via Saliency Mapscited by 76
  3. 2024Benchmarking Object Detectors with COCO: A New Path Forwardcited by 23
  4. 2019Empirical Upper Bound in Object Detection and Morecited by 12
  5. 2023ODAM: Gradient-based instance-specific visual explanations for object detectioncited by 12
  6. 2024Trapped in texture bias? A large scale comparison of deep instance segmentationcited by 10
  7. 2023Benchmarking a Benchmark: How Reliable is MS-COCO?cited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.