Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 55 references

A Cascaded Dilated Convolution Approach for Mpox Lesion Classification

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 A cascaded dilated-attention module claims top accuracy on three Mpox lesion datasets while cutting parameters by over a third.

desk verdict A modest, honestly assembled architecture with one clean dataset result; the MSLD claim is undermined by augmentation-before-split leakage, and the MCSI 'SOTA' gap is not statistically significant. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10106 v4 pith:VFVTGLPN submitted 2024-12-13 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Ayush Deshmukh This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords Mpoxclassificationskinlesionvisiontransformerdilatedconvolutionatrousattentionself-attentionEfficientViTmedicalimage
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 tries to show that a carefully designed attention module, called Cascaded Atrous Group Attention (CAGA), can make Mpox skin-lesion classification more accurate and more efficient at the same time. The module combines dilated convolutions at multiple rates with a cascaded multi-head attention design, and it is attached to the EfficientViT-L1 backbone. On three benchmark datasets the paper reports state-of-the-art accuracy, including 98% on the MCSI dataset, while cutting parameters by roughly 37.5% compared to the backbone alone. If true, the work would give clinicians an accurate model that is light enough to run on modest hardware, and it would provide a reusable attention block for other skin-lesion tasks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Cascaded Atrous Group Attention (CAGA) module, which stacks two mechanisms. The Cascaded Atrous Attention (CAA) part applies dilated convolutions (rates 1, 2, 3) to each attention head, runs self-attention per dilated map, and adds each map's output to the next to create multi-scale context. The Cascaded Group Attention (CGA) part splits the input into heads and gives each head the previous head's output added to it, so information flows across heads and head redundancy is reduced. This module replaces the standard self-attention in the EfficientViT-L1 backbone, turning it into EfficientViT-CAGA; the cascade and the atrous rates are what carry the multi-scale argument.

What would settle it

Split the original 228 MSLD images into train, validation, and test sets first, then apply data augmentation only to the training partition, retrain EfficientViT-CAGA, and measure test accuracy; if it drops substantially from 0.9969, the cross-dataset SOTA claim loses the MSLD pillar.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that CAGA, a module that nests Cascaded Atrous Attention (CAA) inside Cascaded Group Attention (CGA), lets an EfficientViT-L1 model beat all compared CNN and vision-transformer baselines on three Mpox lesion datasets. CAA runs dilated convolutions with rates 1, 2, 3 on each attention head, computes self-attention on each dilated feature map, then cascades the attention outputs across scales, while CGA adds each processed head's output to the next head to cut redundancy. Integrated with the EfficientViT-L1 backbone, the model reaches 98% accuracy on the MCSI dataset, outperforms baselines on MSID and MSLD, and uses 36.8M parameters and 4.86G FLOPs, about 37.5% fewer parameters than the backbone. The paper also reports balanced per-class accuracy on MSID and near-perfect Mpox recall on MSLD, and it offers an ablation study showing that the cascade and the CGA wrapper each contribute to the gain.

Load-bearing premise

The reported state-of-the-art accuracy assumes each benchmark's split is clean, and in particular that the augmented MSLD images used for training do not reappear in the test set; if they do, the 99.69% accuracy on that dataset would measure memorization, not generalization to new patients.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the accuracy numbers hold, the model could run on edge devices for Mpox screening, since it uses only 4.86G FLOPs and 36.8M parameters, less than most compared architectures.
  • The balanced class-wise accuracy on MSID suggests the module counteracts the class-specific overfitting that the compared CNNs and ViTs show, which would be valuable in real-world triage where all lesion types must be recognized.
  • The module is defined independently of the task head, so it could be dropped into other vision-transformer backbones for skin-lesion classification or other fine-grained medical image tasks.
  • The paper's ablation attributes part of the gain to the cascading and the CGA wrapper, implying that the hierarchy itself, not just enlarged receptive fields, is responsible for the improvement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The MSLD evaluation splits the data after augmentation, so the test set can contain near-duplicates of training images; re-running the comparison with augmentation applied only after splitting would show whether the reported 99.69% accuracy reflects real generalization or memorization of augmented variants.
  • The dilation rates are fixed per dataset, so the module's success may depend on those specific rates; testing other rate schedules or making the rates learnable could separate the effect of the cascade structure from the effect of the chosen receptive fields.
  • Because the parameter counts given for the same baseline models differ slightly across tables (e.g., ResNet-101 has 43.5M parameters in the MSID table but 47.4M in the MCSI table), the exact 37.5% reduction depends on reproducible parameter counting, which an independent re-count could verify.
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. This paper proposes a Cascaded Atrous Group Attention (CAGA) module that combines a cascaded atrous attention (CAA) mechanism with cascaded group attention (CGA), and integrates it with the EfficientViT-L1 backbone for Mpox lesion classification. The authors report state-of-the-art accuracy on three datasets (MCSI, MSID, MSLD) with reduced parameters and FLOPs relative to several baseline ViT and CNN models, and provide an ablation study and Grad-CAM visualizations. The central claim is that EfficientViT-CAGA achieves higher accuracy than existing methods across all evaluated datasets while being computationally efficient.

Significance. If the claims are validated, the CAGA module would be a lightweight, accurate alternative for Mpox classification, which is clinically useful given the need for fast and reliable screening. The paper's strengths include evaluation on three public datasets, comparison with a reasonable set of modern baselines, an ablation study, and an explicit efficiency analysis. However, the supporting evidence for the central SOTA claim is weakened by methodological concerns in the MSLD evaluation, a lack of statistical significance testing on the MCSI result, and inconsistencies in reported parameter counts. The architecture itself is a plausible incremental improvement over existing attention mechanisms, but the empirical validation currently does not meet the bar for a definitive SOTA claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV.C.2] Section IV.C.2 states that for MSLD the dataset was first expanded by augmentation and then divided into training, validation, and testing sets using a 70:20:10 split. Augmentations of the same original image (rotation, translation, reflection, shear, etc.) can therefore appear in both training and test partitions, creating near-duplicate leakage. The near-perfect MSLD accuracy (0.9969, 1.0 for the Mpox class) and the claimed consistent outperformance on MSLD are not reliable evidence of generalization under this protocol. A split-before-augmentation protocol is required before MSLD can support the central claim.
  2. [Table II] On the MCSI dataset, EfficientViT-CAGA achieves 0.98 ± 0.0229 accuracy, while the EfficientViT-L1 backbone achieves 0.9725 ± 0.018. The difference of 0.0075 is well within one standard deviation of either result, so the reported improvement is not statistically significant. The manuscript should provide a paired significance test (e.g., a paired t-test or Wilcoxon test across the 10 folds) or confidence intervals before claiming improved accuracy over the backbone.
  3. [Tables I, II, and IV] The parameter counts for the same architectures are inconsistent across tables: EfficientViT-L1 is reported as 58.9M in Tables I and II but 42M in Table IV, and EfficientViT-CAGA is reported as 37.8M in Table I but 36.8M in Tables II and IV. These inconsistencies (also affecting the stated 37.5% and 35.8% parameter reductions) make the efficiency claims difficult to verify. The authors should state the exact parameter counting method and ensure all tables use consistent model configurations.
  4. [Tables I and IV] Results on MSID (Table I) and MSLD (Table IV) are reported as point estimates with no standard deviations or confidence intervals, even though MCSI uses 10-fold cross-validation. Without error bars, the claimed 'consistent outperformance' over DeiT3-Medium (0.9545 vs 0.9481 on MSID; 0.9969 vs 0.9938 on MSLD) cannot be assessed for statistical significance. The authors should report variance across multiple splits or folds for these datasets as well.
  5. [IV.B] The manuscript states that dilation rates are 'adjusted for each dataset' and that focal loss uses 'class-specific weights (alpha),' implying per-dataset tuning of these hyperparameters on the same benchmark test sets. Reporting tuned results as SOTA without external validation or a nested cross-validation procedure risks selection bias. The authors should either fix hyperparameters a priori, provide sensitivity analyses, or validate on a held-out external dataset.
minor comments (6)
  1. [V] The conclusion says 'the approach highlighted state-of-the-art results,' which is awkward phrasing; consider rewording to 'achieved state-of-the-art results.'
  2. [IV.B] The implementation details state that the learning rate is 'on the order of 10^-5,' which is imprecise; the exact value should be reported for reproducibility.
  3. [III.A] Equation (2) uses the index i in the left-hand side but the cascading in d is not fully defined; clarify the indexing of heads and dilations to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'reducing model parameters by 37.5% compared to the original EfficientViT-L1' is only accurate for the MCSI configuration (58.9M vs 36.8M); the percentages differ for MSID and MSLD, so state the specific comparison.
  5. [IV.C.1] The statement that 'runtime data augmentation techniques were applied to the training set' and caused 'a marginal decrease in performance' is vague; specify which augmentation techniques were used and how this was applied consistently across models.
  6. [I] The code availability line says 'The code will be available here' but no link is provided; please include a URL or state a clear availability plan.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

MSLD split-after-augmentation makes the reported 99.69% accuracy a near-duplicate recognition result; otherwise the paper is empirical and not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.C.2 (MSLD) and Table IV]
    "These augmentations expanded the dataset to over 1,428 images for the Mpox class and 1,764 images for the Others class. The augmented dataset was then divided into training, validation, and testing sets using a 70:20:10 split ratio... Notably, EfficientViT-CAGA is the only model to achieve 100% accuracy on the Mpox class."

    Because the split occurs after augmentation, augmented copies of the same original images appear in both the training and test partitions. The test predictions are therefore made on near-duplicates of training images, so the 0.9969 accuracy and 1.0 Mpox-class recall on MSLD measure memorization of augmented variants rather than generalization to new lesions. The paper uses MSLD as one of the three datasets supporting the abstract's claim that the model 'consistently outperforms existing approaches,' so this particular prediction is forced by the evaluation construction rather than by independent generalization. Comparing all baselines under the same leaky protocol does not neutralize the problem, because different models memorize augmented duplicates to different degrees.

full rationale

No analytic derivation is offered; the CAGA module is an empirical combination of dilated convolutions (after ASPP) and cascaded group attention (after EfficientViT's CGA). I found no self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The only circular step is the MSLD evaluation: splitting after augmentation places augmented copies of the same originals on both sides of the train/test boundary, so the reported MSLD accuracy is not independent evidence for the SOTA claim. The MCSI and MSID evaluations, while possibly affected by per-dataset hyperparameter adjustment, are not circular under the strict standard used here. Overall, one prediction (MSLD) reduces by construction, giving partial circularity; the central architecture claim still retains independent empirical content on the other two datasets.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard deep learning assumptions (ImageNet transfer, benchmark representativeness) plus a set of hyperparameters tuned per dataset. No new physical entities are introduced, so the invented-entity ledger is empty.

free parameters (3)
  • Dilation rates d in CAA = d ∈ {1,2,3}, adjusted per dataset
    Section IV-B states dilation rates are adjusted for each dataset, without reporting which values per dataset or sensitivity analysis. The model's multi-scale behavior depends on these choices.
  • Focal loss alpha (class-specific weights) = not reported
    Section IV-C.1 says focal loss with class-specific weights (alpha) was used; no values are given, and alpha is tuned by hand.
  • Number of heads, head dimension, and dqkv = 3 heads, embedding dim 16, dqkv=8
    These architectural hyperparameters are chosen by hand (Section IV-B) and affect the parameter count and the redundancy-reduction claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ImageNet pretraining transfers to medical skin lesion images
    All baselines and the backbone are ImageNet-pretrained (Section IV); the paper assumes this transfer is valid for Mpox lesion classification.
  • domain assumption The three public datasets (MCSI, MSID, MSLD) are representative of real-world Mpox presentations
    The paper's SOTA claim depends on these small datasets (400, 770, 228 images) capturing the distribution relevant to clinical diagnosis.
  • standard math Standard scaled dot-product attention (Eq. 1) is accepted
    Section III-A.1 uses the standard attention formulation without proof, relying on prior work.
  • domain assumption MSLD augmentation before split creates independent test samples
    Section IV-C.2 splits after augmentation; this assumes augmented copies in train and test are independent, which they are not if the same source image appears in both.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Cascaded Dilated Convolution Approach for Mpox Lesion Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFVTGLPN

@misc{pith2026241210106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Cascaded Dilated Convolution Approach for Mpox Lesion Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFVTGLPN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10106}
}
read the original abstract

The global outbreak of the Mpox virus, classified as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization, presents significant diagnostic challenges due to its visual similarity to other skin lesion diseases. Traditional diagnostic methods for Mpox, which rely on clinical symptoms and laboratory tests, are slow and labor intensive. Deep learning-based approaches for skin lesion classification offer a promising alternative. However, developing a model that balances efficiency with accuracy is crucial to ensure reliable and timely diagnosis without compromising performance. This study introduces the Cascaded Atrous Group Attention (CAGA) framework to address these challenges, combining the Cascaded Atrous Attention module and the Cascaded Group Attention mechanism. The Cascaded Atrous Attention module utilizes dilated convolutions and cascades the outputs to enhance multi-scale representation. This is integrated into the Cascaded Group Attention mechanism, which reduces redundancy in Multi-Head Self-Attention. By integrating the Cascaded Atrous Group Attention module with EfficientViT-L1 as the backbone architecture, this approach achieves state-of-the-art performance, reaching an accuracy of 98% on the Mpox Close Skin Image (MCSI) dataset while reducing model parameters by 37.5% compared to the original EfficientViT-L1. The model's robustness is demonstrated through extensive validation on two additional benchmark datasets, where it consistently outperforms existing approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10106 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Parameter and accuracy comparison (Left) and FLOPs and accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Integration of CAGA within the Network Architecture (left) and detailed structure of Cascaded Group Attention with Cascaded Atrous Attention [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cascaded Atrous Attention. A. Datasets To evaluate the performance of the proposed method, I selected three benchmark datasets. All images in the datasets are resized to 224 × 224. The Mpox Close Skin Image Dataset (MCSI) [17] comprises four classes: Mpox, Chickenpox, Acne, and Normal, with each class containing 100 images. The Monkeypox Skin Images Dataset (MSID) [21] contains 770 total images distributed across fo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Original images and their corresponding Grad-CAM visualizations for Mpox and Others from the MSLD. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multi-country monkeypox outbreak in non- endemic countries, May 2022

    World Health Organization. Multi-country monkeypox outbreak in non- endemic countries, May 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Mpox outbreak in the netherlands, 2022: public health response, characteristics of the first 1,000 cases and protection of the first-generation smallpox vaccine

    Catharina E van Ewijk, Fuminari Miura, Gini van Rijckevorsel, Henry JC de Vries, Matthijs RA Welkers, Oda E van den Berg, Ingrid HM Friesema, Patrick R van den Berg, Thomas Dalhuisen, Jacco Wallinga, Diederik Brandwagt, Brigitte AGL van Cleef, Harry Vennema, Bettie V oordouw, Marion Koopmans, Annemiek A van der Eijk, Corien M Swaan, Margreet JM te Wierik,...

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Overview of mpox outbreak in greece in 2022–2023: Is it over? Viruses, 15(6), 2023

    Kassiani Mellou, Kyriaki Tryfinopoulou, Styliani Pappa, Kassiani Gkolfinopoulou, Sofia Papanikou, Georgia Papadopoulou, Evangelia Vas- sou, Evangelia-Georgia Kostaki, Kalliopi Papadima, Elissavet Mouratidou, Maria Tsintziloni, Nikolaos Siafakas, Zoi Florou, Antigoni Katsoulidou, Spyros Sapounas, George Sourvinos, Spyridon Pournaras, Efthymia Petinaki, Mar...

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Duque, Joana V

    Vítor Borges, Maria P. Duque, Joana V . Martins, Paula Vasconcelos, Rita Ferreira, Duarte Sobral, Ana Pelerito, Isabel L. de Carvalho, Marta S. Núncio, Maria J. Borrego, Cornelia Roemer, Richard A. Neher, Megan O’Driscoll, Raquel Rocha, Sofia Lopo, Ricardo Neves, Patricia Palminha, Liliana Coelho, Andreia Nunes, Joana Isidro, and João Paulo Gomes. Viral g...

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Mpox outbreak in france: epidemiological characteristics and sexual behaviour of cases aged 15 years or older, 2022

    Catarina Krug, Arnaud Tarantola, Emilie Chazelle, Erica Fougère, Annie Velter, Anne Guinard, Yvan Souares, Anna Mercier, Céline François, Katia Hamdad, Laetitia Tan-Lhernould, Anita Balestier, Hana Lahbib, Nicolas Etien, Pascale Bernillon, Virginie De Lauzun, Julien Durand, Myriam Fayad, Investigation Team, Henriette De Valk, François Beck, Didier Che, Br...

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Edouard Mathieu, Fiona Spooner, Saloni Dattani, Hannah Ritchie, and Max Roser. Mpox. Our World in Data , 2022. https://ourworldindata.org/mpox

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Shania J. R. D. Silva, Alain Kohl, Luis Pena, and Keith Pardee. Clinical and laboratory diagnosis of monkeypox (mpox): Current status and future directions. iScience, 26(6):106759, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Barboza, Bijaya Kumar Padhi, and Ranjit Sah

    Shriyansh Srivastava, Sachin Kumar, Shagun Jain, Aroop Mohanty, Neeraj Thapa, Prabhat Poudel, Krishna Bhusal, Zahraa Haleem Al-qaim, Joshuan J. Barboza, Bijaya Kumar Padhi, and Ranjit Sah. The global monkeypox (mpox) outbreak: A comprehensive review. Vaccines, 11(6), 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Strahan, Lloyd C

    Surbhi Prasad, Claudia Galvan Casas, Andrew G. Strahan, Lloyd C. Fuller, Kathryn Peebles, Alessandra Carugno, Kenneth S. Leslie, Jen- nifer L. Harp, Tudor Pumnea, David E. McMahon, Michael Rosenbach, Jonathan E. Lubov, George Chen, Lynn P. Fox, Allison McMillen, Hyun W. Lim, A...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks

    Andre Esteva, Brett Kuprel, Roberto A Novoa, Justin Ko, Susan M Swetter, Helen M Blau, and Sebastian Thrun. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. nature, 542(7639):115–118, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Man against machine: diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for dermoscopic melanoma recognition in comparison to 58 dermatologists

    Holger A Haenssle, Christine Fink, Roland Schneiderbauer, Ferdinand Toberer, Timo Buhl, Andreas Blum, Aadi Kalloo, A Ben Hadj Hassen, Luc Thomas, Alexander Enk, et al. Man against machine: diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for dermoscopic m...

    2018

  4. [12]

    Systematic review of machine learning for diagnosis and prognosis in dermatology

    Kenneth Thomsen, Lars Iversen, Therese Louise Titlestad, and Ole Winther. Systematic review of machine learning for diagnosis and prognosis in dermatology. Journal of Dermatological Treatment , 31(5):496–510, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Skin lesion classification from dermoscopic images using deep learning techniques

    Adria Romero Lopez, Xavier Giro-i Nieto, Jack Burdick, and Oge Marques. Skin lesion classification from dermoscopic images using deep learning techniques. In 2017 13th IASTED International Conference on Biomedical Engineering (BioMed) , pages 49–54, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Chadaga, S

    K. Chadaga, S. Prabhu, N. Sampathila, S. Nireshwalya, S. S. Katta, R. S. Tan, and U. R. Acharya. Application of artificial intelligence techniques for monkeypox: A systematic review. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) , 13(5):824, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    S. Asif, M. Zhao, Y . Li, et al. Ai-based approaches for the diagnosis of mpox: Challenges and future prospects. Arch Computational Methods in Engineering, 31:3585–3617, August 2024. Received: 28 October 2023; Accepted: 04 February 2024; Published: 26 March 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Jaradat, R.E

    A.S. Jaradat, R.E. Al Mamlook, N. Almakayeel, N. Alharbe, A.S. Almuflih, A. Nasayreh, H. Gharaibeh, M. Gharaibeh, A. Gharaibeh, and H. Bzizi. Automated monkeypox skin lesion detection using deep learning and transfer learning techniques. International Journal of Environmental ...

    2023

  9. [17]

    A transfer learning and explainable solution to detect mpox from smartphones images

    Mattia Giovanni Campana, Marco Colussi, Franca Delmastro, Sergio Mascetti, and Elena Pagani. A transfer learning and explainable solution to detect mpox from smartphones images. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 98:101874, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Mehedi Hassan, Anupam Kumar Bairagi, and Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam

    Avi Deb Raha, Mrityunjoy Gain, Rameswar Debnath, Apurba Adhikary, Yu Qiao, Md. Mehedi Hassan, Anupam Kumar Bairagi, and Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam. Attention to monkeypox: An interpretable monkeypox detection technique using attention mechanism. IEEE Access, 12:51942–51965, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Thieme, Y

    A.H. Thieme, Y . Zheng, G. Machiraju, et al. A deep-learning algorithm to classify skin lesions from mpox virus infection. Nature Medicine, 29:738–747, March 2023. Received: 05 August 2022; Accepted: 19 January 2023; Published: 02 March 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Efficientvit: Multi-scale linear attention for high-resolution dense prediction, 2024

    Han Cai, Junyan Li, Muyan Hu, Chuang Gan, and Song Han. Efficientvit: Multi-scale linear attention for high-resolution dense prediction, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Monkeynet: A robust deep convolutional neural network for monkeypox disease detection and classification

    Diponkor Bala, Md Shamim Hossain, Mohammad Alamgir Hossain, Md Ibrahim Abdullah, Md Mizanur Rahman, Balachandran Manavalan, Naijie Gu, Mohammad S Islam, and Zhangjin Huang. Monkeynet: A robust deep convolutional neural network for monkeypox disease detection and classification...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Tazuddin Ahmed, Joydip Paul, Tasnim Jahan, S

    Shams Nafisa Ali, Md. Tazuddin Ahmed, Joydip Paul, Tasnim Jahan, S. M. Sakeef Sani, Nawshaba Noor, and Taufiq Hasan. Monkeypox skin lesion detection using deep learning models: A preliminary feasibility study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.03342 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Tazuddin Ahmed, Tasnim Jahan, Joydip Paul, S

    Shams Nafisa Ali, Md. Tazuddin Ahmed, Tasnim Jahan, Joydip Paul, S. M. Sakeef Sani, Nawshaba Noor, Anzirun Nahar Asma, and Taufiq Hasan. A web-based mpox skin lesion detection system using state-of- the-art deep learning models considering racial diversity. arXiv preprint arXi...

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Going deeper with convolutions, 2014

    Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolutions, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In F. Pereira, C.J. Burges, L. Bottou, and K.Q. Weinberger, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 25. Curran Associates, Inc., 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks, 2017

    Saining Xie, Ross Girshick, Piotr Dollár, Zhuowen Tu, and Kaiming He. Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition, 2015

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions, 2017

    François Chollet. Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Mingxing Tan and Quoc V . Le. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, 2021

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weis- senborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition ...

    2021

  24. [32]

    Do vision transformers see like convolutional neural networks?, 2022

    Maithra Raghu, Thomas Unterthiner, Simon Kornblith, Chiyuan Zhang, and Alexey Dosovitskiy. Do vision transformers see like convolutional neural networks?, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    How do vision transformers work?, 2022

    Namuk Park and Songkuk Kim. How do vision transformers work?, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    When vision transformers outperform resnets without pre-training or strong data augmentations, 2022

    Xiangning Chen, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and Boqing Gong. When vision transformers outperform resnets without pre-training or strong data augmentations, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Cmt: Convolutional neural networks meet vision transformers, 2022

    Jianyuan Guo, Kai Han, Han Wu, Yehui Tang, Xinghao Chen, Yunhe Wang, and Chang Xu. Cmt: Convolutional neural networks meet vision transformers, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    A convnet for the 2020s, 2022

    Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao-Yuan Wu, Christoph Feichtenhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. A convnet for the 2020s, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Levit: a vision transformer in convnet’s clothing for faster inference, 2021

    Ben Graham, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Hugo Touvron, Pierre Stock, Armand Joulin, Hervé Jégou, and Matthijs Douze. Levit: a vision transformer in convnet’s clothing for faster inference, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows, 2021

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Le, and Mingxing Tan

    Zihang Dai, Hanxiao Liu, Quoc V . Le, and Mingxing Tan. Coatnet: Marrying convolution and attention for all data sizes, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Shannon Wongvibulsin and Adewole S. Adamson. Deep learning for mpox: Advances, challenges, and opportunities. Med, 4(5):283–284, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Metaheuristics optimization-based ensemble of deep neural networks for mpox disease detection

    Sohaib Asif, Ming Zhao, Fengxiao Tang, Yusen Zhu, and Baokang Zhao. Metaheuristics optimization-based ensemble of deep neural networks for mpox disease detection. Neural Networks, 167:342–359, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks, 2019

    Mark Sandler, Andrew Howard, Menglong Zhu, Andrey Zhmoginov, and Liang-Chieh Chen. Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift, 2015

    Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    Efficientvit: Memory efficient vision transformer with cascaded group attention, 2023

    Xinyu Liu, Houwen Peng, Ningxin Zheng, Yuqing Yang, Han Hu, and Yixuan Yuan. Efficientvit: Memory efficient vision transformer with cascaded group attention, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Murphy, and Alan L. Yuille. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 40(4):834–...

    2018

  38. [46]

    Rep- resentation degeneration problem in training natural language generation models, 2019

    Jun Gao, Di He, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Liwei Wang, and Tie-Yan Liu. Rep- resentation degeneration problem in training natural language generation models, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Going deeper with image transformers, 2021

    Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Gabriel Synnaeve, and Hervé Jégou. Going deeper with image transformers, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Deepvit: Towards deeper vision transformer, 2021

    Daquan Zhou, Bingyi Kang, Xiaojie Jin, Linjie Yang, Xiaochen Lian, Zihang Jiang, Qibin Hou, and Jiashi Feng. Deepvit: Towards deeper vision transformer, 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    Refiner: Refining self- attention for vision transformers, 2021

    Daquan Zhou, Yujun Shi, Bingyi Kang, Weihao Yu, Zihang Jiang, Yuan Li, Xiaojie Jin, Qibin Hou, and Jiashi Feng. Refiner: Refining self- attention for vision transformers, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    The principle of diversity: Training stronger vision transformers calls for reducing all levels of redundancy, 2022

    Tianlong Chen, Zhenyu Zhang, Yu Cheng, Ahmed Awadallah, and Zhangyang Wang. The principle of diversity: Training stronger vision transformers calls for reducing all levels of redundancy, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Le, and Hartwig Adam

    Andrew Howard, Mark Sandler, Grace Chu, Liang-Chieh Chen, Bo Chen, Mingxing Tan, Weijun Wang, Yukun Zhu, Ruoming Pang, Vijay Vasudevan, Quoc V . Le, and Hartwig Adam. Searching for mobilenetv3, 2019

    2019

  44. [52]

    Deit iii: Revenge of the vit, 2022

    Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, and Hervé Jégou. Deit iii: Revenge of the vit, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library, 2019

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Köpf, Edward Yang, Zach DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fan...

    2019

  46. [54]

    Pytorch image models

    Ross Wightman. Pytorch image models. https://github.com/rwightman/ pytorch-image-models, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Focal loss for dense object detection, 2018

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollár. Focal loss for dense object detection, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

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