Is There Really a Camouflaged Object? Towards Realistic Camouflaged Object Detection

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Camouflaged object detection (COD) aims to segment objects that are visually concealed in their surroundings and has attracted increasing attention in recent years. However, most existing COD methods are developed under a closed-world assumption, where each input image is assumed to contain a camouflaged object. This assumption ignores realistic scenarios with pure backgrounds or non-camouflaged objects, causing existing models to produce severe false positives when deployed in open-world environments. To address this limitation, we propose OPC16K, a large-scale benchmark for realistic COD. OPC16K contains 16,245 images from 14 sources and is carefully organized into camouflaged-object images, pure background images, and non-camouflaged-object images, enabling comprehensive evaluation of both segmentation quality and negative-sample rejection. Based on this benchmark, we further propose OPCNet, a presence-aware camouflage network that reformulates COD from a pure segmentation task into a joint problem of object localization and camouflage existence reasoning. Specifically, OPCNet introduces hierarchical existence reasoning to distinguish CO, BG, and NOCOD scenarios, similarity-aware camouflage relation modeling to capture foreground-background camouflage cues, and existence-aware feature refinement to regulate segmentation features with existence predictions. Extensive experiments on OPC16K demonstrate that OPCNet achieves superior performance under the proposed realistic COD evaluation protocol, significantly reducing false positives on negative samples while maintaining accurate camouflaged-object segmentation. Code and dataset will be released at https://github.com/2231122/OPCOD.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page
• PDF from original source

Comments