Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Interpretable Dynamic Graph Neural Networks for Small Occluded Object Detection and Tracking

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read DGNN-YOLO claims that coupling YOLO11 with a dynamically updated graph of detections raises small, occluded traffic-object detection and tracking above current detectors while keeping the system real-time and interpretable.

desk verdict A reasonable engineering combo, but the reported numbers don't agree with each other, so the headline result is unverifiable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17251 v8 pith:5Q7RS2J3 submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CV cs.LG

Shahriar Soudeep , Md Abrar Jahin , M. F. Mridha This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords dynamicgraphneuralnetworksmallobjectdetectiontrackingocclusionYOLO11explainableAItrafficsurveillanceinterpretability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that adding a dynamic graph neural network to YOLO11 makes small, occluded traffic objects easier to detect and track. The framework, DGNN-YOLO, treats each detected object as a node and updates edges from proximity, velocity, and appearance similarity, allowing the graph to follow objects as they move and occlude one another. On the i2 traffic dataset, the authors report precision of 0.8382, recall of 0.6875, and mAP@0.5:0.95 of 0.6476, above the YOLO11 baseline and other detectors, at roughly 60 frames per second. If this holds, a single camera-only pipeline could improve surveillance and intelligent-transportation monitoring in dense urban scenes. The paper also claims Grad-CAM, Grad-CAM++, and Eigen-CAM make the model's decisions visible and therefore more trustworthy in practice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dynamic graph construction and update loop. Each detected object becomes a node with feature vector $x_i=[F_s,F_t]$, and edges are inserted or removed by thresholds on distance, velocity difference, and appearance similarity; the adjacency matrix $A_t$ is recomputed every frame so the graph follows objects entering, leaving, occluding, and moving. A multi-layer graph convolution propagates information through neighboring nodes, refining embeddings that the paper says are used to assign tracking IDs. The second support is the combined loss, which explicitly ties detection to temporal identity consistency and is inspired by detection-plus-re-identification tracking losses.

What would settle it

Run the same DGNN-YOLO pipeline on MOTChallenge or KITTI with ground-truth track IDs and compute MOTA, IDF1, and HOTA against a simple baseline of YOLO11 detections matched by a nearest-neighbor tracker. If the graph module does not reduce identity switches relative to that baseline, or if removing the DGNN from the training loss leaves tracking metrics unchanged, the claimed tracking improvement is unsupported. A more direct check is to inspect gradient flow from $L_{\text{track}}$ back to graph construction, which the paper leaves unspecified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that detection and tracking improve when they are coupled through a continuously updated graph rather than treated as separate frame-by-frame stages. DGNN-YOLO builds one graph per frame: nodes are YOLO11 detections carrying spatial, motion, and appearance features, and edges encode Euclidean proximity, velocity similarity, and cosine appearance similarity. At each frame the graph adds or removes nodes and edges, then a graph convolution layer $H^{(l+1)}=\sigma(A_t H^{(l)} W^{(l)})$ refines node embeddings and assigns stable tracking IDs. Training minimizes a combined loss $L=\lambda_{\text{det}}L_{\text{det}}+\lambda_{\text{track}}L_{\text{track}}$, where the tracking term penalizes inconsistency between connected nodes and between the same object across consecutive frames. The reported improvements are measured with detection metrics, and the paper presents the same pipeline as delivering tracking plus interpretability in real time.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the DGNN module is genuinely trained to refine identity associations across frames, but the paper never specifies how the dynamic graph is built during training, how the tracking loss is backpropagated through threshold-based graph construction, how tracking IDs are assigned, or how the DGNN, trained from scratch, receives gradients from YOLO11 detections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, detection and tracking can be handled by one graph-based pipeline instead of separate stages, since the per-frame graph supplies both detections and identity associations.
  • Recall is the largest reported gain over plain YOLO11 (0.6875 versus 0.5248), so the main benefit would come from not missing small occluded objects rather than from avoiding false positives alone.
  • The ablation results indicate that temporal features are the most critical component, so the framework's advantage depends on using frame-to-frame motion rather than appearance alone.
  • At roughly 60 fps in the authors' setup, the framework stays within real-time operation for surveillance cameras on the hardware tested.
  • The XAI heatmaps would allow operators to see which image regions drive each detection, supporting human review of automated traffic monitoring.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the reported evaluation uses detection metrics (precision, recall, mAP) rather than tracking metrics such as MOTA, IDF1, or HOTA, the claimed tracking improvement is not yet directly measured; a fair test would require ground-truth track IDs and identity-switch counts.
  • A clean way to isolate the graph module's contribution would be to hold YOLO11 fixed and vary only edge thresholds or edge features; if the precision and mAP shifts match the ablation trends, the graph module is responsible, and if not, the gains may come from the detector re-training.
  • The reported training time for the full model is about seven times that of YOLO11 alone, so practical deployment would need to verify whether the gains survive pruning or quantization, which the authors list as future work.
  • The conclusion concedes that visual-only input fails in heavy rain and fog; this implies the claimed robustness is bounded to clear-weather urban scenes, and sensor fusion would be the natural extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DGNN-YOLO, a pipeline that combines YOLO11 object detection with a dynamic graph neural network for detecting and tracking small, occluded traffic objects, and adds Grad-CAM, Grad-CAM++, and Eigen-CAM for interpretability. The central claim is that DGNN-YOLO achieves precision 0.8382, recall 0.6875, and mAP@0.5:0.95 0.6476, "significantly outperforming existing methods," while running in real time. The experiments use the i2 Object Detection Dataset with an 80/20 train/validation split, and report detection metrics, an ablation study, FPS, error metrics, and qualitative XAI comparisons.

Significance. If the claims were supported, the paper would offer a practically relevant integration of dynamic graph reasoning with a real-time detector, plus an interpretability layer, for a realistic traffic-surveillance setting. The paper also contains useful elements: an explicit algorithm sketch, a defined combined loss, a quantified ablation, and a comparison of three XAI methods. However, the central performance claim is not verifiable from the manuscript as written. The reported numbers are mutually inconsistent, no held-out test set is used, tracking is never evaluated with multi-object-tracking metrics, and the DGNN training loop is not specified. These are load-bearing issues because the paper's headline contributions—significant outperformance and robust tracking—rest on exactly this evidence. The manuscript in its current form does not provide a sound basis for accepting those claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.4.1 (Table 2), Section 4.4.3, Section 4.4.5, Section 4.4.4 (Table 3)] The central numerical claim is internally inconsistent. Table 2 reports the final DGNN-YOLO as precision 0.8382, recall 0.6875, mAP@0.5 0.7830, and mAP@0.5:0.95 0.6476, and the abstract repeats these values. Section 4.4.5, however, states that the model reaches mAP@0.5 = 0.716 and mAP@0.5:0.95 = 0.575 by the final epoch. The ablation study in Table 3 gives the full framework mAP = 0.716, precision = 0.776, and recall = 0.636. A third set appears in Section 4.4.3, where the average mAP@0.5 is reported as 0.812. These numbers cannot all describe the same trained model on the same validation split. Because the headline claim of significant outperformance rests entirely on these metrics, the inconsistency is load-bearing: the reader cannot determine which result is real, and the claimed detection advantage is unverifiable without a single reproducible evaluation pass or released checkpoints.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Section 4.2] The experimental protocol does not support the reported generalization claim. Section 4.1 defines only an 80/20 train/validation split with no held-out test set, and Section 4.2 says training hyperparameters such as learning rate and batch size were "dynamically adjusted" during the experiment. This implies model selection was performed on the very split used to report the final numbers. With no separate test set and no fixed protocol, the reported precision/recall/mAP values cannot be interpreted as an unbiased estimate of performance on new data, and comparisons to baselines are confounded by whatever selection procedure was used.
  3. [Section 3.6 and Algorithm 1] The tracking component is not specified as a trainable system. Section 3.6 defines a tracking loss L_track, but the paper never explains how the dynamic graph is constructed during training, how L_track is backpropagated through the threshold-based edge insertion/removal in Algorithm 1 (lines 18–23), how tracking IDs are assigned and maintained, or how the "DGNN module trained from scratch" (Section 4.2) receives gradients from YOLO11 detections. Without this training loop, the claimed tracking improvement is unsupported. The paper must specify the full forward/backward path or clarify that the DGNN is used only as a post-processing association heuristic.
  4. [Section 4.3 and Section 4.4] Tracking is never evaluated with tracking metrics. The evaluation section defines precision, recall, mAP, and interpretability metrics, and the results tables report detection metrics, FPS, and error metrics. There is no MOTA, IDF1, HOTA, or identity-switch count. Since the abstract and introduction explicitly claim "adaptive and robust tracking" and the framework's contribution is presented as detection plus tracking, the absence of any standard multi-object-tracking evaluation makes the tracking claim untestable.
  5. [Section 4.4.1, Table 2] Baseline training details are missing. Table 2 compares Faster R-CNN, YOLO5, YOLO8, YOLO9, YOLO10, and YOLO11, but the paper does not state the training epochs, learning rates, batch sizes, input resolutions, data augmentation, or any other protocol for these baselines. Without matching training conditions, the reported margin of DGNN-YOLO over YOLO11 (for example, mAP@0.5 rising from 0.6107 to 0.7830) cannot be attributed to the proposed DGNN component rather than to different training choices.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The model name is used inconsistently as YOLO11, YOLOv11, and YOLO11-DGNN; the same notation should be used throughout.
  2. [Equation (2)] The tracking loss uses f^{t+1}_i and f^t_i, but these feature vectors are not defined in Section 3.1.3; the notation should be introduced explicitly.
  3. [Section 2.3] The related work refers to "the approaches developed by Zhang et al." without a citation, and the description of the proposed graph pruning algorithm does not appear in the methodology.
  4. [Section 2.1] The sentence about YOLOv3 and YOLOv4 has an empty citation; the reference list should be completed.
  5. [Section 4.4.1, Table 2] The DGNN-YOLO training time of 118,344 seconds is roughly seven times larger than that of YOLO11 (17,040 seconds), but the paper still claims real-time operation based only on inference FPS; the distinction between training cost and inference speed should be stated explicitly.
  6. [Section 4.4.4 and Table 4] Table 4 uses a configuration "DGNN w/o Spatial," but Table 3's ablation removes appearance embeddings, velocity similarity, temporal features, or edge-weight adaptivity; the relationship between these ablations should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identified: the paper reports empirical performance measurements with no derived constants, no fitted-input-as-prediction step, and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: DGNN-YOLO is trained on the i2 dataset and evaluated with precision, recall, and mAP metrics. There is no derivation chain in which an output quantity is shown to be equal, by construction, to an input quantity. The tracking loss L_track (Eq. 2) is defined as a training objective over graph node features and temporal feature differences; it is not presented as a prediction derived from fitted parameters. The framework adopts YOLO11 and DGNN components from cited prior work, but none of the load-bearing citations are self-citations by the authors, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior publications to force a result. The reported performance numbers are measurements on a validation split, not predictions generated from a fitted equation, so the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern does not apply. The manuscript does contain serious internal inconsistencies: Table 2 and the abstract report mAP@0.5:0.95 of 0.6476, Section 4.4.5 reports 0.575, and Table 3 reports the full framework mAP as 0.716. These inconsistencies undermine the verifiability of the headline outperformance claim, but they are a correctness or reproducibility problem, not circularity. Likewise, the underspecified DGNN training loop in Section 3.6 and Algorithm 1 raises a support concern for the tracking claims, but it does not make any result equivalent to its own input by definition. Therefore no circular step is established under the required standard of quoting a specific reduction, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central performance claim depends mainly on unreported hyperparameters and on several domain assumptions about the graph representation and validation procedure. None of these are introduced entities; the only components are standard YOLO11, a vanilla graph convolution update, and off-the-shelf XAI methods. The ledger shows that the claimed improvement over baselines is sensitive to unspecified tuning choices and to the assumption that validation-set metrics generalize.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_det, lambda_track = not reported
    Loss weighting coefficients in Equations 3 and 5 that balance detection and tracking; no values are given, so the reported result depends on unspecified tuning.
  • Edge construction thresholds (distance and velocity difference) = not reported
    Algorithm 1 lines 18-19 add or remove edges when distance or velocity difference is below a threshold; the thresholds are not specified and directly determine graph connectivity and tracking behavior.
  • Detection confidence threshold tau = not reported
    Table 1 defines tau as the threshold for object detection confidence, but its value is never given; it controls which detections become graph nodes.
  • ROI settings = not reported
    Section 3.1.6 and Algorithm 1 require a predefined region of interest, but no concrete coordinates or update rule are provided.
  • DGNN architecture dimensions = not reported
    Figure 2 shows a schematic, but the number of graph convolution layers, hidden units, and attention heads is not stated.
  • Learning rate and batch size = not reported
    Section 4.2 says these were dynamically adjusted during training without reporting the values or schedule.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Validation set performance is an unbiased estimate of generalization.
    The model is tuned and evaluated on the same 20% validation split (Sections 4.1 and 4.4) with no independent test set; if hyperparameters were chosen on this split, the reported metrics overstate expected performance.
  • domain assumption YOLO11 detections provide sufficient node features for the DGNN to learn identity associations.
    Section 3.4.1 constructs nodes from bounding box coordinates, velocities, and embeddings, but the paper provides no evidence that these features are discriminative across occlusions.
  • ad hoc to paper The threshold-based edge heuristic captures meaningful object interactions.
    Algorithm 1 adds an edge when distance or velocity difference is below a threshold; this heuristic is not justified and its thresholds are unreported.
  • domain assumption The detection and tracking losses can be optimized jointly.
    Section 3.6 defines L_total = lambda_det L_det + lambda_track L_track, but the paper never explains gradient flow through the threshold-based graph construction, so joint training is assumed rather than demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interpretable Dynamic Graph Neural Networks for Small Occluded Object Detection and Tracking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5Q7RS2J3

@misc{pith2026241117251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interpretable Dynamic Graph Neural Networks for Small Occluded Object Detection and Tracking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5Q7RS2J3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17251}
}
read the original abstract

The detection and tracking of small, occluded objects such as pedestrians, cyclists, and motorbikes pose significant challenges for traffic surveillance systems because of their erratic movement, frequent occlusion, and poor visibility in dynamic urban environments. Traditional methods like YOLO11, while proficient in spatial feature extraction for precise detection, often struggle with these small and dynamically moving objects, particularly in handling real-time data updates and resource efficiency. This paper introduces DGNN-YOLO, a novel framework that integrates dynamic graph neural networks (DGNNs) with YOLO11 to address these limitations. Unlike standard GNNs, DGNNs are chosen for their superior ability to dynamically update graph structures in real-time, which enables adaptive and robust tracking of objects in highly variable urban traffic scenarios. This framework constructs and regularly updates its graph representations, capturing objects as nodes and their interactions as edges, thus effectively responding to rapidly changing conditions. Additionally, DGNN-YOLO incorporates Grad-CAM, Grad-CAM++, and Eigen-CAM visualization techniques to enhance interpretability and foster trust, offering insights into the model's decision-making process. Extensive experiments validate the framework's performance, achieving a precision of 0.8382, recall of 0.6875, and mAP@0.5:0.95 of 0.6476, significantly outperforming existing methods. This study offers a scalable and interpretable solution for real-time traffic surveillance and significantly advances intelligent transportation systems' capabilities by addressing the critical challenge of detecting and tracking small, occluded objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A snapshot of an urban traffic environment illustrating challenges in detecting and tracking small, occluded objects. Green bounding boxes highlight rickshaws and small vehicles; red boxes mark motorcycles; yellow boxes indicate pedestrians; pink boxes correspond to larger vehicles, such as trucks. Occlusion, congestion, and unpredictable movements of small objects complicate reliable detection and tracking, empha￾s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Overview of the proposed DGNN-YOLO framework for small object detection and tracking in traffic videos, (b) YOLO11 architecture for small object detection, and (c) DGNN architecture for object tracking. across frames, ensuring that the objects are consistently tracked, even under complex conditions such as occlusions or rapid movements. This integration of detection and tracking into a single pipeline provides a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Class-wise distribution of the i2 Object Detection Dataset. Data augmentation techniques such as flipping, scaling, and brightness adjustments have been applied to address class imbalance. The class distribution, illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance metrics across epochs for the proposed DGNN-YOLO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Validation results of DGNN-YOLO showing small object detection and tracking. 4.4.2. Validation Analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Precision-recall curve of DGNN-YOLO for class-wise evaluation. higher counts, reflecting better performance. The off-diagonal entries represent misclassifications, with lighter shades of blue highlighting lower error frequencies. For example, the model performs well in…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Class-wise confusion matrix for DGNN-YOLO framework. pronounced impact, leading to the lowest mAP (0.680) and recall (0.600), demonstrating the critical role of temporal dynamics in tracking moving objects. Using constant edge weights reduces the adaptive capability of…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative results of the DGNN-YOLO model showing real-world detection scenarios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative results of the DGNN-YOLO model showing real-world detection scenarios. 4.4.5. mAP Improvements over Epochs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: visually compares Grad-CAM, Grad-CAM++, and Eigen-CAM, illustrating each algorithm’s focus regions when interpreting small object detection and tracking in traffic surveillance. Grad-CAM provides a broader view of the areas DGNN-YOLO attends to, showing a more general…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    YOLOv11 for Vehicle Detection : Advancements , Performance , and Applications in Intelligent Transportation Systems , October 2024

    Mujadded Al Rabbani Alif. YOLOv11 for Vehicle Detection : Advancements , Performance , and Applications in Intelligent Transportation Systems , October 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.22898. arXiv:2410.22898 [cs]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Sah Bin Haji Salam, Usman Ullah Sheikh, and Sara Ayub

    Lubna Aziz, Md. Sah Bin Haji Salam, Usman Ullah Sheikh, and Sara Ayub. Exploring Deep Learning - Based Architecture , Strategies , Applications and Current Trends in Generic Object Detection : A Comprehensive Review . IEEE Access, 8: 0 170461--170495, 2020. ISSN 2169-3536. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3021508. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9186021/

    work page arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Efficient Visual Tracking With Exemplar Transformers

    Philippe Blatter, Menelaos Kanakis, Martin Danelljan, and Luc Van Gool. Efficient Visual Tracking With Exemplar Transformers . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 1571--1581, 2023. doi:10.1109/WACV56688.2023.00162

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Brais Bosquet, Manuel Mucientes, and Víctor M. Brea. Stdnet-st: Spatio-temporal convnet for small object detection. Pattern Recognition, 116: 0 107929, 2021. ISSN 0031-3203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2021.107929. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031320321001163

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    3d multi-object tracking using graph neural networks with cross-edge modality attention

    Martin Büchner and Abhinav Valada. 3d multi-object tracking using graph neural networks with cross-edge modality attention. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7 0 (4): 0 9707--9714, 2022. doi:10.1109/LRA.2022.3191558

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    End-to-End Object Detection with Transformers

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End-to-End Object Detection with Transformers . In Computer Vision – ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I, page 213–229, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2020. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-030-58451-1. doi:10...

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58452-8_13 2020

  7. [7]

    Object Detection in Remote Sensing Images Based on a Scene - Contextual Feature Pyramid Network

    Chaoyue Chen, Weiguo Gong, Yongliang Chen, and Weihong Li. Object Detection in Remote Sensing Images Based on a Scene - Contextual Feature Pyramid Network . Remote Sensing, 11 0 (3): 0 339, February 2019. ISSN 2072-4292. doi:10.3390/rs11030339. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/3/339

    work page doi:10.3390/rs11030339 2019

  8. [8]

    Transformer Tracking

    Kai Chen, Jiangmiao Wang, Shuo Yang, Xiangyu Zhang, and Jian Sun. Transformer Tracking . In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8126--8135, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, June 2021. IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.00803. URL https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.00803

    arXiv 2021

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Online Multi - Object Tracking Using CNN - Based Single Object Tracker With Spatial - Temporal Attention Mechanism

    Qi Chu, Wanli Ouyang, Hongsheng Li, Xiaogang Wang, Bin Liu, and Nenghai Yu. Online Multi - Object Tracking Using CNN - Based Single Object Tracker With Spatial - Temporal Attention Mechanism . In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4836--...

    2017

  2. [10]

    Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection

    Navneet Dalal and Bill Triggs. Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05), volume 1, pages 886--893. IEEE, 2005. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2005.177

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    A Survey on Artificial Intelligence ( AI ) and eXplainable AI in Air Traffic Management : Current Trends and Development with Future Research Trajectory

    Augustin Degas, Mir Riyanul Islam, Christophe Hurter, Shaibal Barua, Hamidur Rahman, Minesh Poudel, Daniele Ruscio, Mobyen Uddin Ahmed, Shahina Begum, Md Aquif Rahman, Stefano Bonelli, Giulia Cartocci, Gianluca Di Flumeri, Gianluca Borghini, Fabio Babiloni, and Pietro Aricó. A...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Bifpn-yolo: One-stage object detection integrating bi-directional feature pyramid networks

    John Doherty, Bryan Gardiner, Emmett Kerr, and Nazmul Siddique. Bifpn-yolo: One-stage object detection integrating bi-directional feature pyramid networks. Pattern Recognition, 160: 0 111209, 2025. ISSN 0031-3203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2024.111209. URL https://w...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Intelligent transportation systems for sustainable smart cities

    Mohamed Elassy, Mohammed Al-Hattab, Maen Takruri, and Sufian Badawi. Intelligent transportation systems for sustainable smart cities. Transportation Engineering, 16: 0 100252, June 2024. ISSN 2666-691X. doi:10.1016/j.treng.2024.100252. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Handcrafted and Deep Trackers : Recent Visual Object Tracking Approaches and Trends

    Mustansar Fiaz, Arif Mahmood, Sajid Javed, and Soon Ki Jung. Handcrafted and Deep Trackers : Recent Visual Object Tracking Approaches and Trends . ACM Comput. Surv., 52 0 (2): 0 43:1--43:44, April 2019. ISSN 0360-0300. doi:10.1145/3309665. URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3309665

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Enabling Safe Autonomous Driving in Real - World City Traffic Using Multiple Criteria Decision Making

    Andrei Furda and Ljubo Vlacic. Enabling Safe Autonomous Driving in Real - World City Traffic Using Multiple Criteria Decision Making . IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 3 0 (1): 0 4--17, 2011. doi:10.1109/MITS.2011.940472

    2011

  8. [16]

    Graph neural based end-to-end data association framework for online multiple-object tracking

    Xiaolong Jiang, Peizhao Li, Yanjing Li, and Xiantong Zhen. Graph neural based end-to-end data association framework for online multiple-object tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.05315, 2019. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1907.05315

    1907 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Graph convolution neural network-based data association for online multi-object tracking

    Jimi Lee, Mira Jeong, and Byoung Chul Ko. Graph convolution neural network-based data association for online multi-object tracking. IEEE Access, 9: 0 114535--114546, 2021. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3105118

    2021

  10. [18]

    SwinTrack: A Simple and Strong Baseline for Transformer Tracking

    Liting Lin, Heng Fan, Zhipeng Zhang, Yong Xu, and Haibin Ling. SwinTrack: A Simple and Strong Baseline for Transformer Tracking . In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35 of NIPS '22, pages 16743--16754, Red Hook, ...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Focal loss for dense object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollár. Focal loss for dense object detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 42 0 (2): 0 318--327, 2020. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2858826

    2020

  12. [20]

    SSD : Single Shot MultiBox Detector

    Wei Liu, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Christian Szegedy, Scott Reed, Cheng-Yang Fu, and Alexander C Berg. SSD : Single Shot MultiBox Detector . In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 21--37, Cham, 2016. Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46448-0_2

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    OD - XAI : Explainable AI - Based Semantic Object Detection for Autonomous Vehicles

    Harsh Mankodiya, Dhairya Jadav, Rajesh Gupta, Sudeep Tanwar, Wei-Chiang Hong, and Ravi Sharma. OD - XAI : Explainable AI - Based Semantic Object Detection for Autonomous Vehicles . Applied Sciences, 12 0 (11): 0 5310, January 2022. ISSN 2076-3417. doi:10.3390/app12115310. URL ...

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Deep Learning for Visual Tracking : A Comprehensive Survey

    Seyed Mojtaba Marvasti-Zadeh, Li Cheng, Hossein Ghanei-Yakhdan, and Shohreh Kasaei. Deep Learning for Visual Tracking : A Comprehensive Survey . IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23 0 (5): 0 3943--3968, May 2022. ISSN 1558-0016. doi:10.1109/TITS.2020.304...

    2022

  15. [23]

    You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection

    Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection . In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 779--788, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, June 2016. IEEE Computer Society. doi:10....

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Faster R - CNN : Towards Real - Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. Faster R - CNN : Towards Real - Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks . IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 39 0 (6): 0 1137--1149, June 2017. ISSN 1939-3539. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.201...

    2017

  17. [25]

    Zezhi Shao, Zhao Zhang, Wei Wei, Fei Wang, Yongjun Xu, Xin Cao, and Christian S. Jensen. Decoupled dynamic spatial-temporal graph neural network for traffic forecasting. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 15 0 (11): 0 2733–2746, July 2022. ISSN 2150-8097. doi:10.14778/3551793....

    2022

  18. [26]

    RSOD : Real -time small object detection algorithm in UAV -based traffic monitoring

    Wei Sun, Liang Dai, Xiaorui Zhang, Pengshuai Chang, and Xiaozheng He. RSOD : Real -time small object detection algorithm in UAV -based traffic monitoring. Applied Intelligence, 52 0 (8): 0 8448--8463, June 2022. ISSN 1573-7497. doi:10.1007/s10489-021-02893-3. URL https://doi.o...

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Rapid object detection using a boosted cascade of simple features

    Paul Viola and Michael Jones. Rapid object detection using a boosted cascade of simple features. In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. CVPR 2001, volume 1, pages I--I. IEEE, 2001. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2001.990517

    2001

  20. [28]

    Yolo-anti: Yolo-based counterattack model for unseen congested object detection

    Kun Wang and Maozhen Liu. Yolo-anti: Yolo-based counterattack model for unseen congested object detection. Pattern Recognition, 131: 0 108814, 2022. ISSN 0031-3203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2022.108814. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031320...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Fast online object tracking and segmentation: A unifying approach

    Qiang Wang, Li Zhang, Luca Bertinetto, Weiming Hu, and Philip HS Torr. Fast online object tracking and segmentation: A unifying approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1328--1338, 2019. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2019.00142

    2019

  22. [30]

    Towards Real-Time Multi-Object Tracking

    Zhongdao Wang, Liang Zheng, Yixuan Liu, Yali Li, and Shengjin Wang. Towards Real-Time Multi-Object Tracking . In Computer Vision – ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XI, page 107–122, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2020. Springer-Verla...

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Gnn3dmot: Graph neural network for 3d multi-object tracking with 2d-3d multi-feature learning

    Xinshuo Weng, Yongxin Wang, Yunze Man, and Kris M Kitani. Gnn3dmot: Graph neural network for 3d multi-object tracking with 2d-3d multi-feature learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6499--6508, 2020. doi:10.1109/CV...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Advances in Convolutional Neural Networks for Object Detection and Recognition

    Dhananjay Kumar Yadav, Neeraj Kumari, and Syed Harron. Advances in Convolutional Neural Networks for Object Detection and Recognition . In 2024 International Conference on Optimization Computing and Wireless Communication (ICOCWC), pages 1--6, 2024. doi:10.1109/ICOCWC60930.202...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Camouflaged Object Detection via Dual-branch Fusion and Dual Self-similarity constraints

    Haozhe Yang, Yuan Zhu, Ke Sun, Haoyang Ding, and Xianming Lin. Camouflaged Object Detection via Dual-branch Fusion and Dual Self-similarity constraints . Pattern Recognition, 157: 0 110895, 2025. ISSN 0031-3203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2024.110895

    2025

  26. [34]

    Temporal dynamic graph lstm for action-driven video object detection

    Yuan Yuan, Xiaodan Liang, Xiaolong Wang, Dit-Yan Yeung, and Abhinav Gupta. Temporal dynamic graph lstm for action-driven video object detection. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1819--1828, 2017. doi:10.1109/ICCV.2017.200

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    SCGTracker : Spatio-temporal correlation and graph neural networks for multiple object tracking

    Yajuan Zhang, Yongquan Liang, Jiaxu Leng, and Zhihui Wang. SCGTracker : Spatio-temporal correlation and graph neural networks for multiple object tracking. Pattern Recognition, 149: 0 110249, 2024. ISSN 0031-3203. doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2023.110249. URL https://www.sciencedirect...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Fairmot: On the fairness of detection and re-identification in multiple object tracking

    Yifu Zhang, Chunyu Wang, Xinggang Wang, Wenjun Zeng, and Wenyu Liu. Fairmot: On the fairness of detection and re-identification in multiple object tracking. International Journal of Computer Vision, 129 0 (11): 0 3069--3087, 2021. doi:10.1007/s11263-021-01513-4

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    Dehazing & Reasoning YOLO: Prior knowledge-guided network for object detection in foggy weather

    Fujin Zhong, Wenxin Shen, Hong Yu, Guoyin Wang, and Jun Hu. Dehazing & Reasoning YOLO: Prior knowledge-guided network for object detection in foggy weather . Pattern Recognition, 156: 0 110756, 2024. ISSN 0031-3203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2024.110756

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.