CAGE-SGG: Counterfactual Active Graph Evidence for Open-Vocabulary Scene Graph Generation
arXiv:2604.22274
Abstract
Open-vocabulary scene graph generation (SGG) aims to describe visual scenes with flexible and fine-grained relation phrases beyond a fixed predicate vocabulary. While recent vision-language models greatly expand the semantic coverage of SGG, they also introduce a critical reliability issue: predicted relations may be driven by language priors or object co-occurrence rather than grounded visual evidence. In this paper, we propose an evidence-rounded open-vocabulary SGG framework based on counterfactual relation verification. Instead of directly accepting plausible relation proposals, our method verifies whether each candidate relation is supported by relation-pecific visual, geometric, and contextual evidence. Specifically, we first generate open-vocabulary relation candidates with a vision-language proposer, then decompose predicate phrases into soft evidence bases such as support, contact, containment, depth and state. A relation-conditioned evidence encoder extracts predicate-relevant cues, while a counterfactual verifier tests whether the relation score decreases when necessary vidence is removed and remains stable under irrelevant perturbations. We further introduce contradiction-aware predicate learning and graph-level preference optimization to improve fine-grained discrimination and global graph consistency. Experiments on conventional, open-vocabulary, and panoptic SGG benchmarks show that our method consistently improves standard recall-based metrics, unseen predicate generalization, and counterfactual grounding quality. These results demonstrate that moving from relation generation to relation verification leads to more reliable, interpretable, and evidence-grounded scene graphs.
This manuscript has been withdrawn by the authors because we found a methodological flaw in the formulation and evaluation of the proposed approach. The issue affects the reliability of the experimental results and the conclusions drawn from them. Therefore, the authors consider the current version unsuitable for citation or further use