Evaluates a model's ability to ground natural language queries to specific regions within images by scoring candidate bounding boxes. It probes spatial reasoning, contextual understanding, and cross-modal alignment between text and visual features. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ReferIt, Kitchen, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports P@1.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill nl-object-retrieval-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Nl Object Retrieval Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-nl-object-retrieval-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: nl-object-retrieval-eval
description: Evaluates a model's ability to ground natural language queries to specific regions within images by scoring candidate bounding boxes. It probes spatial reasoning, contextual understanding, and cross-modal alignment between text and visual features. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ReferIt, Kitchen, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports P@1.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 1511.04164
bibtex_key: hu2015natural
confidence: high
---
# nl-object-retrieval-eval
> Natural Language Object Retrieval — Hu et al. (2015) (arXiv:1511.04164, 2015)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates a model's ability to ground natural language queries to specific regions within images by scoring candidate bounding boxes. It probes spatial reasoning, contextual understanding, and cross-modal alignment between text and visual features.
## Datasets
- **ReferIt** — total 20000; splits: trainval (10000), test (10000)
- **Kitchen** — total 606; splits: trainval (300), test (306)
## Metrics
- `P@1` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Top-1 precision: the percentage of queries where the highest-scoring candidate region overlaps with the ground truth bounding box by at least 50% IoU.
- `R@1` — range: percent
- Recall@1: the percentage of queries where the highest-scoring candidate region overlaps with the ground truth by at least 50% IoU.
- `R@10` — range: percent
- Recall@10: the percentage of queries where at least one of the top-10 highest-scoring candidates overlaps with the ground truth by at least 50% IoU.
## Input / output format
**Input**: An image, a set of candidate bounding boxes (either all annotated regions or object proposals), and a natural language query string.
**Output**: A scalar score for each candidate bounding box, used to rank them. The top-ranked box is returned as the retrieval result.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(scores_list, gt_boxes, iou_thresh=0.5):
correct_top1 = 0
correct_top10 = 0
for scores, gt in zip(scores_list, gt_boxes):
ranked = np.argsort(scores)[::-1]
top1_box = boxes[ranked[0]]
top10_boxes = [boxes[i] for i in ranked[:10]]
if iou(top1_box, gt) >= iou_thresh: correct_top1 += 1
if any(iou(b, gt) >= iou_thresh for b in top10_boxes): correct_top10 += 1
return correct_top1 / len(scores_list), correct_top10 / len(scores_list)
```
## Common pitfalls
- P@1 includes non-informative queries where bag-of-words baselines fail, while P@1-NR excludes them; mixing these up skews comparison.
- IoU threshold is strictly 50% overlap, not the more common 0.75 or 0.5 for detection.
- Kitchen dataset evaluation uses image-level features instead of bounding boxes due to dataset characteristics, requiring model adaptation.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Similar to [10], we evaluate with "P@1-NR" corresponding to non-random top-1 precision computed on the those informative results and "P@1" corresponding to top-1 precision on all cases including non-informative results, where random guess is used.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{hu2015natural,
title={Natural Language Object Retrieval},
author={Hu et al. (2015)},
year={2015},
note={arXiv:1511.04164}
}
```
- arXiv: 1511.04164
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!