Tiny Object Detection with Single Point Supervision

Chang Xu; Fang Xu; Gui-Song Xia; Haijian Zhang; Haoran Zhu; Ruixiang Zhang; Wen Yang

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 12 references

Tiny Object Detection with Single Point Supervision

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Point clicks alone can supervise tiny-object detection nearly as well as full boxes.

desk verdict Good method, honest ablations, but the robustness claim only holds for zero-mean uniform click noise, and the box-parity claim is a stretch. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05837 v1 pith:QYIDR5GT submitted 2024-12-08 cs.CV

Haoran Zhu , Chang Xu , Ruixiang Zhang , Fang Xu , Wen Yang , Haijian Zhang , Gui-Song Xia This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords pointsupervisiontinyobjectdetectionaerialimagesteacher-studentframeworkmultipleinstancelearningdenoisingweaklysupervised

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 a single click per tiny object, instead of a full bounding box, is enough supervision to train a tiny-object detector, and it introduces Point Teacher to make that work. Point Teacher is claimed to be the first end-to-end point-supervised detection framework for tiny objects, and it reports detection accuracy close to fully box-supervised detectors on aerial and person datasets. The method's key move is to treat point labels as noisy and to denoise them in two stages: first the network learns spatial scale from randomly masked image regions, then a teacher-student loop with dynamic multiple-instance learning and a jittered regression loss refines coarse boxes. If the claim holds, tiny-object detection can be labeled with far less annotation effort while retaining most of the accuracy of box-supervised models.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-phase denoising pipeline inside a teacher-student detector. Phase one, Spatial-aware Box Generation, randomly masks image regions and forces the regression head to predict the masked box, giving the network a scale-and-location prior without auxiliary data; Phase two, Noise-aware Label Evolution, matches teacher predictions to annotated points with a two-stage Top-K cost matrix (classification cost plus a term that penalizes boxes not containing the point), then refines the matched pseudo boxes through Dynamic Multiple Instance Learning (DMIL)—constructed proposal bags around each coarse box, extended, scored by classification and instance branches, and fused—and regularizes regression with Jittering IoU Loss, which minimizes against several slightly perturbed versions of the target box. The paper also replaces FPN and standard label assignment with Top-down FPN Aggregation and a scale-invariant one-to-one assignment so that no ground-truth scale information is needed.

What would settle it

Collect a set of human point annotations on AI-TOD-v2 or SODA-A (not generated by Eq. 15), measure the empirical offset distribution, and train Point Teacher on those annotations; if the mAP drops dramatically relative to the reported 31.6–35.5 range, or if deliberately biased clicks (all near the object boundary or outside the box) cause the DMIL point-matching cost to fail, the robustness claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Point Teacher establishes that point-level supervision alone can drive tiny object detection to performance comparable with box supervision: on AI-TOD-v2 it reports mAP 35.5 at AP0.25 with central clicks versus 41.2 for box-supervised FCOS, and under fully randomized point locations it degrades by only 3.9 mAP. The framework is end-to-end and orientation-agnostic (HBB and OBB), and it generalizes across detectors. It works by decoupling learning into Spatial-aware Box Generation, where the teacher learns to turn noisy points into coarse boxes with the help of random mask regression, and Noise-aware Label Evolution, where dynamic multiple instance learning and Jittering IoU Loss refine those boxes into clean pseudo-box supervision for the student. The paper contrasts this with prior MIL, class-probability-map, and auxiliary-knowledge methods, which collapse when point clicks shift.

Load-bearing premise

The main load-bearing premise is that real point annotations for tiny objects behave like points drawn uniformly at random inside the ground-truth box with a controllable maximum offset; all robustness experiments use this synthetic noise model, so systematically biased clicks (for example, always on a person's head or just outside the object) could break the pipeline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Point supervision is a viable low-cost substitute for box supervision on tiny objects, cutting annotation effort to roughly one click per object.
The two-phase denoising paradigm transfers to both horizontal and oriented bounding box detectors without architectural changes.
Existing point-supervised methods (MIL, CPM, and auxiliary-based) are insufficiently robust to off-center clicks for tiny objects.
The performance gap to box-supervised models is modest and the method retains most accuracy even at 100% randomization of click positions.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: If human annotators produce biased point distributions rather than uniform random offsets, the synthetic noise model may underestimate the difficulty; a human-in-the-loop study or annotation-bias analysis would clarify.
Editorial inference: The denoising approach could combine with semi-supervised or active learning, using point clicks as an inexpensive query primitive for tiny objects across large aerial scenes.
Editorial inference: The random-mask spatial awareness trick might extend beyond point supervision to other sparse or noisy label settings, such as weak labels in remote sensing.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Know this: Point Teacher is the first end-to-end point-supervised detector for tiny objects, and on its own terms it works—the ablations show each component earns its keep (21.0 → 35.5 mAP on AI-TOD-v2), and it beats the previous point-supervised baselines by a wide margin. But the two big claims in the abstract—robustness to noisy points and parity with box supervision—rest on shakier ground than the paper lets on.

What's genuinely good: the two-phase design is sensible and well-motivated. Random masking gives the model spatial awareness; the DMIL bag extension and refinement is a real improvement over static MIL (Table 5b); the jittering IoU loss is a cheap trick that adds a point. The robustness tables show consistent trends across three datasets under their noise protocol. The authors also state their own limitations clearly in Section 5, which I respect.

The soft spot is the noise model. All the robustness experiments use points drawn uniformly inside the GT box with zero-mean offsets (Eq. 15). The point-matching cost in Eq. 8 is exactly calibrated to that distribution: the spatial cost is 0 whenever the click is inside the predicted box. So the denoising has a fair shot of averaging out zero-mean shifts. Real human clicks on tiny objects are unlikely to be zero-mean and uniform—think of clicks consistently placed on a car's roof or a person's head, or just outside the boundary because the object is barely visible. Under systematic bias, the set of boxes containing the point is shifted, and the DMIL refinement in Eq. 10 still seeds from the biased coarse box; nothing in the pipeline removes a non-zero-mean error. The paper has no experiments with human point annotations at all. So the robustness claim is only established for one synthetic noise distribution.

Second, the abstract's 'comparable performance with box-supervised learning methods' is overgenerous. On AI-TOD-v2 with central clicks, Point Teacher gets 35.5 mAP vs FCOS's 41.2 at AP0.25—a 5.7-point gap. That's respectable for point supervision, but it's not parity. On SODA-A, the gap to FCOS-O is even larger (47.2 vs 74.6). And on TinyPerson it reaches 54.4% of box-supervised accuracy. The method is clearly the SOTA among point-supervised methods, but 'comparable' is doing a lot of work.

Minor: the implementation details mention RPN proposals while the main results use FCOS; the paper should settle on one detector. Also no code released yet, which makes the engineering hard to reproduce.

Who should read this: anyone working in weakly supervised detection or remote sensing annotation cost. It deserves a serious referee, but the revision needs to address the noise-model gap—either with human-annotation experiments or with biased-click simulations (head-biased, corner-biased)—and soften the parity claim. As it stands, I'd treat the results as a strong lower bound on what's possible under favorable click noise, not as evidence that real point clicks can replace boxes.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Point Teacher, an end-to-end point-supervised method for tiny object detection in aerial images. The method uses a teacher–student architecture with two denoising phases: Spatial-aware Box Generation, which combines random-mask region regression with a Dynamic Multiple Instance Learning (DMIL) module to obtain coarse pseudo boxes, and Noise-aware Label Evolution, which uses point matching, DMIL refinement, and a Jittering IoU loss to generate cleaner pseudo boxes for student supervision. Experiments are reported on AI-TOD-v2 (HBB), SODA-A (OBB), and TinyPerson under synthetic point noise generated by Eq. (15), with mAP gains over prior point-supervised baselines and relatively small degradation when point locations are randomized.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper demonstrates a practical low-cost annotation route for tiny object detection, avoiding auxiliary knowledge such as SAM or synthetic objects. The ablation study (Table 5a) clearly shows that each added component contributes to the final mAP (21.0 → 35.5), and the robustness tables show smaller degradation than comparison methods under the uniform-noise protocol. The method is also general across HBB and OBB detectors. However, the claimed significance is tempered by two issues: the robustness evaluation covers only zero-mean uniform point noise, so the transfer to real human annotation behavior is unverified, and the 'comparable performance with box-supervised learning methods' claim is stronger than the reported numbers support. The paper also does not provide the pseudo-label quality diagnostics that would substantiate the 'progressive denoising' mechanism.

major comments (4)

[§4.1, Eq. (15); Tables 2–3] The robustness evaluation is conducted solely under zero-mean uniform point noise, since Δx and Δy are sampled i.i.d. from U(−m/2, m/2) around the box center. Real point annotations for tiny objects are likely to contain systematic biases (e.g., clicks on the visible head or the most salient part). The point-matching cost in Eq. (8) assigns zero spatial cost to any predicted box that contains the annotated point, so a systematic bias would shift the selected boxes toward the biased location, and the DMIL refinement in Eq. (10) cannot remove a non-zero-mean offset because its bags are seeded by the biased coarse boxes. The small degradations in Tables 2–3 therefore validate robustness only under the synthetic uniform-noise model. Please add experiments with human-annotated points or with systematic bias injections (e.g., anisotropic or non-zero-mean noise) to support the claimed robustness for realistic annotation behavior.
[Abstract; Tables 1 and 4] The abstract claims that 'relying solely on point supervision, our Point Teacher already shows comparable performance with box-supervised learning methods.' This is not supported by the reported numbers: on AI-TOD-v2 (Table 1) Point Teacher achieves 35.5 mAP vs. 41.2 for FCOS; on SODA-A it achieves 47.2 vs. 74.6 for FCOS-O; and on TinyPerson (Table 4) it reaches 18.6 vs. 34.2 for FCOS, which the authors themselves describe as 54.4% of hbox-supervised accuracy. Moreover, all point-supervised comparisons are reported only at AP0.25, which is a lenient threshold. Please either revise the claim to 'approaching box-supervised performance' or 'substantially outperforming prior point-supervised methods' and discuss the remaining gap, or report results at stricter IoU thresholds to support the comparability claim.
[§3.1, Eq. (1); Figure 3] The paper describes a 'progressive denoising' mechanism, but the teacher network in Phase 2 is an EMA of the student, and the pseudo boxes that supervise the student are generated by this same teacher from the student's own predictions. This creates a self-training loop. Without external clean box labels, the observed mAP gain could stem from better feature learning even if the pseudo boxes do not become more accurate. The paper does not report pseudo-box precision/recall or agreement with GT boxes during training, nor does it compare with a variant where the teacher is frozen or where pseudo boxes are derived purely from point matching. Please add such diagnostics to substantiate the 'denoising' interpretation and to rule out confirmation bias.
[§3.2, Eq. (2); Table 5a] The Spatial-aware Box Generation phase relies on the assumption that predicting randomly masked regions transfers to object-box regression. The only direct evidence is the global ablation in Table 5a, where Phase 1 alone yields 21.0 mAP; this does not isolate the mask-prediction task from the DMIL regression branch that is simultaneously trained on masked regions. Please provide a more direct comparison, e.g., the same architecture with the mask-region regression term removed or with random mask targets, and an analysis of the learned spatial awareness, to support the claimed transfer from mask regression to object-box regression.

minor comments (8)

[§3.4, Eq. (14)] The indexing in Eq. (14) is confusing: the right-hand side uses P_{i-1} both as the accumulated layer and as the iteration variable, and the treatment of i=4 and i in {5,...,7} is inconsistent. Please rewrite with explicit loop indices.
[§3.3, Eq. (12)] The jittering list in Eq. (12) shows only three perturbations followed by '...'; please specify the full set of combinations of width and height perturbations to remove ambiguity.
[Table 5a] The checkmark layout in Table 5a is not self-explanatory; the column headers and row entries do not align visually. Please reformat to make it clear which components are active in each row.
[§4.1, Eq. (15)] It is not stated whether the sampled points are clipped to the image boundaries or to the object box; since m=100% allows points on the box boundary, please clarify the protocol.
[§3.3, Eq. (8)] The term L_cls(s_j^i, c_j) in the cost matrix is not defined in the text; please state which classification loss is used in the point-matching cost.
[§1, §2.2, Table 1] In Table 1, Point2Rbox-RC is listed with E2E = Y, yet the introduction claims that existing point-supervised methods adopt a two-step, non-end-to-end paradigm. Please resolve this inconsistency and qualify the 'first end-to-end' claim to refer specifically to a denoising-based end-to-end framework.
[§4.3] The statement that performance decreases by 'only 3.9% and 7.3%' should be worded as '3.9 and 7.3 mAP points' to avoid confusion with relative percentages.
[§5] The Discussion's limitation list does not mention the uniform-noise assumption underlying the robustness evaluation; please add an explicit statement that real annotation biases are not modeled and remain as future work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method's contributions are evaluated on external benchmarks, and no equation or fitted parameter reduces the central claim to its own inputs.

full rationale

Point Teacher's two-phase pipeline is an empirical training method, not a closed-form derivation. The teacher-student EMA loop is self-referential in the standard semi-supervised sense, but the final claim is assessed against held-out data (AI-TOD-v2, SODA-A, TinyPerson), so it is not a tautology. The only self-citation (Zhu et al., 2024) is used to justify that the fusion weight beta is a widely used hyperparameter, which is not a load-bearing argument. The robustness experiments use synthetic point locations generated by Eq. 15 with i.i.d. uniform offsets; this is a scope limitation (real annotator bias may differ) and a validity threat, but it is not circular because the robustness numbers are measurements under that explicit noise model, not quantities forced by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or prior ansatz is imported from the authors' own work. The paper's own limitations section explicitly acknowledges dense-scene failure modes, which further shows the evaluation is not rigged to confirm the method.

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

The central claim rests on several hand-set hyperparameters (alpha, beta, r, K, phase duration), a synthetic point-noise model, and an implicit transfer from masked-region regression to object regression. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

alpha1 = 0.01
Loss weight for DMIL regression loss in Eqs. 7 and 11; chosen by hand, no sensitivity analysis.
alpha2 = 0.25
Loss weight for DMIL classification loss; hand-set, not ablated.
beta = 0.25
Fusion coefficient in Eqs. 6 and 10; selected via Table 5e, range 0-1.
r (jittering ratio) = 0.2
Perturbation ratio in Jittering IoU Loss Eq. 12; selected via Table 5d.
K1, K2, K3 = 5, 3, 1
Proposal counts in point matching and instance selection; selected via Table 5c.
phase1 iterations = 4000 (5% of training)
Duration of Spatial-aware Box Generation phase; selected via Table 5f.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Uniform point-noise model represents real annotation noise
Eq. 15 defines synthetic points with delta_x, delta_y uniform in [-m/2, m/2]; the entire robustness evaluation uses this distribution. No real click study is presented.
ad hoc to paper Random-mask region regression transfers to object-box regression
Section 3.2 assumes that training the regressor to predict randomly masked rectangles (Eq. 2) gives a general spatial awareness useful for tiny objects. Only an indirect ablation (Table 5a) supports it.
domain assumption EMA teacher pseudo-labels converge to useful targets
Section 3.3 follows Soft Teacher (Xu et al., 2021b) with EMA momentum 0.999; the model assumes the teacher's noisy boxes, after DMIL refinement, are accurate enough to supervise the student. No convergence analysis is given.
domain assumption RPN proposals are available for box generation
Implementation Details state RPN generates 3000 proposals, but Table 1 says FCOS is the detector; the method relies on proposal-based machinery (RoIAlign, proposal bags) that is not part of FCOS. This inconsistency leaves the architecture assumption unclear.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tiny Object Detection with Single Point Supervision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYIDR5GT

@misc{pith2026241205837,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tiny Object Detection with Single Point Supervision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYIDR5GT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05837}
}

read the original abstract

Tiny objects, with their limited spatial resolution, often resemble point-like distributions. As a result, bounding box prediction using point-level supervision emerges as a natural and cost-effective alternative to traditional box-level supervision. However, the small scale and lack of distinctive features of tiny objects make point annotations prone to noise, posing significant hurdles for model robustness. To tackle these challenges, we propose Point Teacher--the first end-to-end point-supervised method for robust tiny object detection in aerial images. To handle label noise from scale ambiguity and location shifts in point annotations, Point Teacher employs the teacher-student architecture and decouples the learning into a two-phase denoising process. In this framework, the teacher network progressively denoises the pseudo boxes derived from noisy point annotations, guiding the student network's learning. Specifically, in the first phase, random masking of image regions facilitates regression learning, enabling the teacher to transform noisy point annotations into coarse pseudo boxes. In the second phase, these coarse pseudo boxes are refined using dynamic multiple instance learning, which adaptively selects the most reliable instance from dynamically constructed proposal bags around the coarse pseudo boxes. Extensive experiments on three tiny object datasets (i.e., AI-TOD-v2, SODA-A, and TinyPerson) validate the proposed method's effectiveness and robustness against point location shifts. Notably, relying solely on point supervision, our Point Teacher already shows comparable performance with box-supervised learning methods. Codes and models will be made publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05837 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (a) Effect of point location on accuracy: previous methods assume that the point location lies within the center region, and performance significantly degrades when the point location slights shifts around the center. (b) Comparison of point annotations for large and tiny objects: the limited scale and ambiguous boundaries make it challenging to annotate accurately on the main body of the tiny object. (c) An overvie… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** A comparison with existing point-supervised object detection methods, including (a) MIL-based methods; (b) CPM-based methods; (c) Auxiliary-based methods; (d) Denoising-based methods. (a), (b), and (c) paradigms adopt a two-step, non-end-to-end training process. (d) paradigm adopts a one-step, two-phase end-to-end training process. SAM denotes Segment Anything Model. thereby improving detection accuracy for tiny obj… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The framework of Point Teacher. The training process of Point Teacher consists of two phases: Spatial-aware Box Generation (phase1) and Noise-aware Label Evolution (phase2). During the Spatial-aware Box Generation phase, the masked image is used to train both the regression branch and the DMIL module, enabling the model to develop spatial awareness. In the Noise-aware Label Evolution phase, the teacher network, in c… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The workflow of Dynamic Multiple Instance Learning Module (DMIL). DMIL comprises four stages: Bag Construction, Bag Extension, Bag Classifier, and Instance Selection. The Bag Construction and Bag Extension stages ensure the creation of high-quality bags. The Bag Classi…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Visualization of pseudo boxes generated by the DMIL Module. Green boxes denote the gt boxes, yellow boxes denote the pseudo boxes generated by DMIL. As shown in Table 5b, our method outperforms existing MIL approaches, achieving the highest accuracy. {𝐾1 , 𝐾2 , 𝐾3 } fo…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Visualization results on AI-TOD-v2.0 with central annotated points. The first row is the result of FCOS, the second row is the result of PLUG, and the third row is the result of Point Teacher. Green boxes denote true positive predictions, red boxes denote false negativ…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[4]

IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62, pp

Learning remote sensing object detection with single point supervision. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62, pp. 1–16. Huang,Y.-X.,Liu,H.-I.,Shuai,H.-H.andCheng,W.-H.,2024. Dq-detr:Detr with dynamic query for tiny object detection. In: European Conference on Computer Vision, Springer, pp. 290–305. Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao,...

work page 2024
[5]

IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 35(6), pp

Positive-incentive noise. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 35(6), pp. 8708–8714. Li,Y.,Chen,Y.,Wang,N.andZhang,Z.,2019. Scale-awaretridentnetworks for object detection. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 6054–6063. Lin, T.-Y., Dollar, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Hariharan, B. and Belongie, S., 2017a. Feature p...

work page 2019
[7]

Polo – point- based, multi-class animal detection. H. Zhu, et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 13 of 14 ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Noh,J.,Bae,W.,Lee,W.,Seo,J.andKim,G.,2019. Bettertofollow,follow to be better: Towards precise supervision of feature super-resolution for small object detection. In: IEEE International Conferenc...

work page 2019
[8]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193

Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193. Papadopoulos,D.P.,Uijlings,J.R.,Keller,F.andFerrari,V.,2017. Training objectclassdetectorswithclicksupervision. In:ProceedingsoftheIEEE ConferenceonComputerVisionandPatternRecognition,pp.6374–6383. Paszke,A.,Gross,S.,Massa,F.,Lerer,A.etal.,2019.Pytorch:Animperati...

arXiv 2017
[2015]

Similarity Distance-Based Label Assignment for Tiny Object Detection

Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision 115(3), pp. 211–252. Shi,S., Fang, Q.,Zhao,T. andXu,X.,2024. Similaritydistance-based label assignment for tiny object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02394. Singh, B. and Davis, L. S.,

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[2018]

In:IEEEConferenceonComputerVisionand Pattern Recognition, pp

Path aggregation network forinstancesegmentation. In:IEEEConferenceonComputerVisionand Pattern Recognition, pp. 8759–8768. Luo,J.,Yang,X.,Yu,Y.,Li,Q.,Yan,J.andLi,Y.,2024. Pointobb:Learning oriented object detection via single point supervision. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 16730–16740. May, G.,...

work page 2024
[2019]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07155

MMDetection: Open mmlab detection toolbox and benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07155. Chen,P.,Yu,X.,Han,X.,Hassan,N.,Wang,K.,Li,J.,Zhao,J.,Shi,H.,Han, Z. and Ye, Q.,

arXiv 1906
[2020]

In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Efficientdet: Scalable and efficient object detection. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10781–10790. Tang,J.,Cheng,J.,Xiang,D.andHu,C.,2022. Large-difference-scaletarget detection using a revised bhattacharyya distance in sar images. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 19, pp. 1–5. Tian,Z.,Shen,C.,Chen,H.andHe,T.,...

work page 2022

Show all 12 references

[2021]

In: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, pp

Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, pp. 8748–8763. Ren,B.,Yang,X.,Yu,Y.,Luo,J.andDeng,Z.,2024. Pointobb-v2:Towards simpler, faster, and stronger single point supervised oriented object d...

2024
[2022]

In:Proceedingsofthe30thACMInternational Conference on Multimedia, pp

Mmrotate: A rotated object detection benchmarkusingpytorch. In:Proceedingsofthe30thACMInternational Conference on Multimedia, pp. 7331–7334. Zhu,H.,Xu,C.,Yang,W.,Zhang,R.,Zhang,Y.andXia,G.-S.,2024. Robust tiny object detection in aerial images amidst label noise. arXiv preprin...

2024 arXiv
[2023]

ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 195, pp

Manipal-uav person detection dataset: A step towards benchmarking dataset and algorithms for small object detection. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 195, pp. 77–89. Bai,Y.,Zhang,Y.,Ding,M.andGhanem,B.,2018. Sod-mtgan:Smallobject detection via multi-task gene...

2018 arXiv
[2024]

Applied Soft Computing 156, pp

End-to-end point supervised object detection with low-level instance features. Applied Soft Computing 156, pp. 111513. Cheng, G., Yuan, X., Yao, X., Yan, K., Zeng, Q., Xie, X. and Han, J., 2023.Towardslarge-scalesmallobjectdetection:Surveyandbenchmarks. IEEE Transactions on Pa...

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62, pp

Learning remote sensing object detection with single point supervision. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62, pp. 1–16. Huang,Y.-X.,Liu,H.-I.,Shuai,H.-H.andCheng,W.-H.,2024. Dq-detr:Detr with dynamic query for tiny object detection. In: European Conference on Computer Vision, Springer, pp. 290–305. Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao,...

work page 2024

[2] [5]

IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 35(6), pp

Positive-incentive noise. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 35(6), pp. 8708–8714. Li,Y.,Chen,Y.,Wang,N.andZhang,Z.,2019. Scale-awaretridentnetworks for object detection. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 6054–6063. Lin, T.-Y., Dollar, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Hariharan, B. and Belongie, S., 2017a. Feature p...

work page 2019

[3] [7]

Polo – point- based, multi-class animal detection. H. Zhu, et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 13 of 14 ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Noh,J.,Bae,W.,Lee,W.,Seo,J.andKim,G.,2019. Bettertofollow,follow to be better: Towards precise supervision of feature super-resolution for small object detection. In: IEEE International Conferenc...

work page 2019

[4] [8]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193

Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193. Papadopoulos,D.P.,Uijlings,J.R.,Keller,F.andFerrari,V.,2017. Training objectclassdetectorswithclicksupervision. In:ProceedingsoftheIEEE ConferenceonComputerVisionandPatternRecognition,pp.6374–6383. Paszke,A.,Gross,S.,Massa,F.,Lerer,A.etal.,2019.Pytorch:Animperati...

arXiv 2017

[5] [2015]

Similarity Distance-Based Label Assignment for Tiny Object Detection

Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision 115(3), pp. 211–252. Shi,S., Fang, Q.,Zhao,T. andXu,X.,2024. Similaritydistance-based label assignment for tiny object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02394. Singh, B. and Davis, L. S.,

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[6] [2018]

In:IEEEConferenceonComputerVisionand Pattern Recognition, pp

Path aggregation network forinstancesegmentation. In:IEEEConferenceonComputerVisionand Pattern Recognition, pp. 8759–8768. Luo,J.,Yang,X.,Yu,Y.,Li,Q.,Yan,J.andLi,Y.,2024. Pointobb:Learning oriented object detection via single point supervision. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 16730–16740. May, G.,...

work page 2024

[7] [2019]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07155

MMDetection: Open mmlab detection toolbox and benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07155. Chen,P.,Yu,X.,Han,X.,Hassan,N.,Wang,K.,Li,J.,Zhao,J.,Shi,H.,Han, Z. and Ye, Q.,

arXiv 1906

[8] [2020]

In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Efficientdet: Scalable and efficient object detection. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10781–10790. Tang,J.,Cheng,J.,Xiang,D.andHu,C.,2022. Large-difference-scaletarget detection using a revised bhattacharyya distance in sar images. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 19, pp. 1–5. Tian,Z.,Shen,C.,Chen,H.andHe,T.,...

work page 2022