Few-Shot Object Detection: A Survey
Abstract
Deep learning approaches have recently raised the bar in many fields, from Natural Language Processing to Computer Vision, by leveraging large amounts of data. However, they could fail when the retrieved information is not enough to fit the vast number of parameters, frequently resulting in overfitting and therefore in poor generalizability. Few-Shot Learning aims at designing models that can effectively operate in a scarce data regime, yielding learning strategies that only need few supervised examples to be trained. These procedures are of both practical and theoretical importance, as they are crucial for many real-life scenarios in which data is either costly or even impossible to retrieve. Moreover, they bridge the distance between current data-hungry models and human-like generalization capability. Computer vision offers various tasks that can be few-shot inherent, such as person re-identification. This survey, which to the best of our knowledge is the first tackling this problem, is focused on Few-Shot Object Detection, which has received far less attention compared to Few-Shot Classification due to the intrinsic challenge level. In this regard, this review presents an extensive description of the approaches that have been tested in the current literature, discussing their pros and cons, and classifying them according to a rigorous taxonomy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Existing FSL surveys do not touch upon the issue of FSCIL.
“Existing FSL surveys primarily focus on tackling ML problems with limited data. While they provide systematic classifications of FSL methods, they do not touch upon the issue of FSCIL.”
From Few-Shot Class-Incremental Learning for Classification and Object Detection: A Survey (2025) · cites this paper as [29]
There is a clear lack of systematic and comprehensive surveys specifically on FSCIL.
“Despite existing surveys on FSL [27, 28, 29, 30] and IL [5, 6, 7, 11, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35], there is a clear lack of systematic and comprehensive surveys specifically on FSCIL.”
From Few-Shot Class-Incremental Learning for Classification and Object Detection: A Survey (2025) · cites this paper as [29]
Cites
You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection
Redmon, J., Divvala, S., Girshick, R., & Farhadi, A. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.91 · Cited by 53,803 · see citing works
Feature Pyramid Networks for Object Detection
Lin, T.-Y., Dollar, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Hariharan, B., & Belongie, S. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.106 · Cited by 30,939 · see citing works
Wang, X., Girshick, R., Gupta, A., & He, K. (2018) · 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2018.00813 · Cited by 11,596 · see citing works
Deep Learning for Generic Object Detection: A Survey
Liu, L., Ouyang, W., Wang, X., Fieguth, P., Chen, J., Liu, X., & Pietikäinen, M. (2020) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-019-01247-4 · Cited by 2,965 · see citing works
LVIS: A Dataset for Large Vocabulary Instance Segmentation
Gupta, A., Dollar, P., & Girshick, R. (2019) · 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2019.00550 · Cited by 1,274 · see citing works
Low-Shot Learning with Imprinted Weights
Qi, H., Brown, M., & Lowe, D. G. (2018) · 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2018.00610 · Cited by 539 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Few-Shot Class-Incremental Learning for Classification and Object Detection: A Survey
Zhang, J., Liu, L., Silvén, O., Pietikäinen, M., & Hu, D. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2025.3529038 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
- Authors
- Antonelli, S., Avola, D., Cinque, L., Crisostomi, D., Foresti, G. L., Galasso, F., Marini, M. R., Mecca, A., & Pannone, D.
- Affiliations
- Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
- University of Udine (IT)
- ORCID
- Venue
- ACM Computing Surveys
- Published
- 2022-01-31
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 11s
- Pages
- 1-37
- ISSN
- 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7341
- OpenAlex
- W4213450898
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 7
- FWCI
- 7.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Computing Surveys (publishedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System (University of Udine) (submittedVersion)
- IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
- Keywords
- few-shot object detection, few-shot learning, overfitting, data scarcity, person re-identification, generalization, deep learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review