Skip to main content
Account

Table 1 Performance (%) of our method and state-of-the-art methods on the VG dataset

From: AMCA-SGG: Adaptive multi-prototype learning and cross-modal alignment for unbiased scene graph generation

Models

Predicate classification

Scene graph classification

Scene graph detection

 

mR@20

mR@50

mR@100

mR@20

mR@50

mR@100

mR@20

mR@50

mR@100

GPS-Net\(^\ddagger \) (Lin et al. 2020) CVPR’20

17.4

21.3

22.8

10.0

11.8

12.6

6.9

8.7

9.8

BGNN (Li et al. 2021) CVPR’21

–

30.4

32.9

–

14.3

16.5

–

10.7

12.6

Seq2Seq\(^\ddagger \) (Lu et al. 2021) ICCV’21

21.3

26.1

30.5

11.9

14.7

16.2

7.5

9.6

12.1

RelTR (Cong et al. 2023) TPAMI’22

20.0

21.2

–

7.7

11.4

–

6.8

10.8

–

SGTR\(^\ddagger \) (Li et al. 2022a) CVPR’22

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

15.8

20.1

HetSGG (Yoon et al. 2023) AAAI’23

–

32.3

34.5

–

15.8

17.7

–

11.5

13.5

HiKER\(^\ddagger \) (Zhang et al. 2024a) CVPR’24

33.4

39.3

41.2

18.2

20.3

21.4

–

–

–

RA-SGG (Yoon et al. 2025) AAAI’25

–

36.2

39.1

–

20.9

22.5

–

14.4

17.1

Motifs (Zellers et al. 2018) CVPR’18

11.6

15.1

16.4

7.7

9.4

10.0

5.1

6.9

8.2

+ BA-SGG (Guo et al. 2021) ICCV’21

24.8

29.7

31.7

14.0

16.5

17.5

10.7

13.5

15.6

+ HML (Deng et al. 2022) ECCV’22

30.1

36.3

38.7

17.1

20.8

22.1

10.8

14.6

17.3

+ NICE (Desai et al. 2021) CVPR’22

–

29.9

32.3

–

16.6

17.9

–

12.2

14.4

+ GCL (Dong et al. 2022) CVPR’22

30.5

36.1

38.2

18.0

20.8

21.8

12.9

16.8

19.3

+ RTPB (Chen et al. 2022) AAAI’22

28.8

35.3

37.7

16.3

19.4

20.6

9.7

13.1

15.5

+ CFA (Li et al. 2023a) ICCV’23

–

35.7

38.2

–

17.0

18.4

–

13.2

15.5

+ Inf (Biswas and Ji 2023) CVPR’23

–

24.7

30.7

–

14.5

17.4

–

9.4

11.7

+ NICEST (Li et al. 2024b) TPAMI’24

–

29.5

31.6

–

15.7

16.5

–

10.4

12.4

+ CAModule (Liu et al. 2025a) TPAMI’25

32.5

36.7

39.3

18.8

21.1

24.7

11.7

16.3

18.2

+ GCM (Zhang et al. 2025) TPAMI’25

–

37.7

40.1

–

21.0

22.4

–

14.2

16.5

+ SSC (Yang et al. 2025) AAAI’25

–

31.5

34.0

–

17.8

18.9

–

12.3

14.4

+ AMCA (Ours)

35.7

41.4

43.8

21.5

24.4

26.2

13.5

17.1

19.8

VCTree (Tang et al. 2019) CVPR’19

11.8

15.0

16.3

7.9

9.9

10.5

4.6

6.2

7.8

+ BA-SGG (Guo et al. 2021) ICCV’21

26.2

30.6

32.6

17.2

20.1

21.2

10.6

13.5

15.7

+ HML (Deng et al. 2022) ECCV’22

31.0

36.9

39.2

20.5

25.0

26.8

10.1

13.7

16.3

+ NICE (Desai et al. 2021) CVPR’22

–

30.7

33.0

–

19.9

21.3

–

11.9

14.1

+ GCL (Dong et al. 2022) CVPR’22

31.4

37.1

39.1

19.5

22.5

23.5

11.9

15.2

17.5

+ RTPB (Chen et al. 2022) AAAI’22

27.3

33.4

35.6

20.6

24.5

25.8

9.6

12.8

15.1

+ CFA (Li et al. 2023a) ICCV’23

–

34.5

37.2

–

19.1

20.8

–

13.1

15.5

+ Inf (Biswas and Ji 2023) CVPR’23

–

28.1

30.7

–

17.3

19.4

–

10.4

11.9

+ NICEST (Li et al. 2024b) TPAMI’24

–

30.6

32.9

–

18.9

20.0

–

10.2

11.9

+ CAModule (Liu et al. 2025a) TPAMI’25

35.2

38.4

40.5

21.7

23.2

25.9

12.3

16.4

19.6

+ GCM (Zhang et al. 2025) TPAMI’25

–

36.1

38.3

–

21.6

22.9

–

14.6

17.0

+ SSC (Yang et al. 2025) AAAI’25

–

31.1

33.4

–

21.7

23.2

–

12.7

14.6

+ AMCA (Ours)

37.2

42.8

44.5

26.0

28.5

29.2

13.3

17.0

18.8

  1. Note: Methods marked with \(\ddagger \) use different object detectors, visual backbones, or end-to-end SGG frameworks; the remaining methods use the same object detector and visual backbone as ours
  2. The best results are highlighted in bold, while the second-best results are underlined