Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Pinwheel-shaped Convolution and Scale-based Dynamic Loss for Infrared Small Target Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Replacing standard convolutions with a pinwheel-shaped layer and re-weighting losses by target size improves infrared small-target detection.

desk verdict New benchmark is the real contribution; the PConv/SD gains are plausible but not yet statistically supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16986 v1 pith:ZAA42MCM submitted 2024-12-22 cs.CV

Jiangnan Yang , Shuangli Liu , Jingjun Wu , Xinyu Su , Nan Hai , Xueli Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords infraredsmalltargetdetectionpinwheel-shapedconvolutionscale-baseddynamiclossSIRST-UAVBdatasetreceptivefieldUAVdimsegmentation
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 two small, plug-and-play changes—a pinwheel-shaped convolution that replaces ordinary convolutions in the first two layers of a backbone, and a loss that re-weights scale versus location terms according to target size—make deep networks detect and segment dim infrared small targets more reliably. The authors argue that standard convolutions ignore the bell-shaped intensity profile of these targets, while their PConv concentrates computation along thin horizontal and vertical arms whose effective receptive field tapers outward, matching that profile while enlarging the field with little extra parameter cost. The SD loss counteracts the large, label-induced fluctuation of IoU-style losses on tiny targets by lowering the weight of the unstable scale term for small boxes and masks. They also release SIRST-UAVB, a 3,000-image benchmark of UAVs and birds, and report consistent gains in precision, recall, mAP50, IoU, probability of detection, and false-alarm rate on IRSTD-1K and SIRST-UAVB across several detection and segmentation models. If correct, the work offers a generic convolution replacement and loss reweighting that improve infrared small-target detection without architectural redesign.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pinwheel-shaped convolution (PConv), a plug-in replacement for a standard convolution layer: it runs four thin kernels ($1\times3$ and $3\times1$) in parallel with asymmetric padding, concatenates their outputs, and projects the concatenation with a $2\times2$ convolution, so the effective receptive field is a cross-shaped pattern whose weights are densest at the center and taper outward—the paper's claimed match to the Gaussian intensity profile of small infrared targets. The second carrying mechanism is the scale-based dynamic (SD) loss, defined by a target-size-dependent weight $\beta$ (clamped to a tunable $\delta$) that controls how much the scale term $L_{BS}$/$L_{MS}$ and the location term $L_{BL}$/$L_{ML}$ contribute; for bounding boxes $\beta$ is proportional to box area times the resolution-change ratio, and for masks it is proportional to mask area, with larger $\beta$ down-weighting location loss for small targets. Together these two devices convert two generic assumptions—Gaussian target appearance and label-noise asymmetry between scale and location—into concrete modifications of the convolution and the loss surface.

What would settle it

Replace PConv with a $3\times3$ convolution that has the same number of parameters and the same effective receptive field (e.g., via dilation) on the same YOLOv8n-p2 and MSHNet baselines. If the equal-receptive-field baseline matches PConv's mAP50 and IoU gains, then the pinwheel shape itself is not driving the improvement and the central 'Gaussian alignment' claim is refuted; if PConv still wins, the shape-specific mechanism is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the pixel intensity distribution of infrared small targets is approximately Gaussian, and that this shape should be reflected in the convolution itself. PConv replaces the first two standard $3\times3$ convolutions in a backbone with interleaved $1\times3$ and $3\times1$ kernels in four orientations, using asymmetric padding and grouped convolution; the resulting effective receptive field is a pinwheel whose weight tapers from the center outward, which the authors say matches the target's Gaussian spread and expands the receptive field by 178% (kernel length 3) or 444% (length 4) while roughly doubling parameters in the first two layers when channels quadruple. On the loss side, SD loss observes that IoU-based scale losses fluctuate severely on small targets—up to 86% for boxes and 62% for masks—while the centroid location error stays within about one pixel, so it scales the two loss terms by a factor $\beta$ computed from target area relative to the maximum IRST size, with separate schedules for boxes (SDB) and masks (SDM). Integrated into YOLOv5n, YOLOv8n-p2, EFLNet, DNANet, ISNet, and MSHNet, the combination yields higher mAP50, IoU, and probability of detection and lower false alarms than the corresponding baselines on IRSTD-1K and the new SIRST-UAVB dataset. The paper also introduces SIRST-UAVB itself, 3,000 real infrared images of UAVs and birds collected over a year, which it claims is the largest public single-frame IRST dataset with a high proportion of near-invisible targets.

Load-bearing premise

The method hinges on the assumption that the brightness profile of a dim infrared target is a single bell-shaped (Gaussian) peak and that a cross-shaped arrangement of thin convolution kernels is the right way to match that profile; the paper supports this with one illustrative 3D plot and no quantitative distribution test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Replacing the first two backbone convolutions with PConv should raise mAP50 and IoU over standard $3\times3$ convolutions on both IRSTD-1K and SIRST-UAVB, with the largest relative gains on very small targets (box area at most 16).
  • SDB and SDM losses should cut the fluctuation of scale loss on tiny targets and improve convergence stability; SDB with a larger $\delta$ is better suited to datasets with very small targets, while $\delta=0.5$ is a robust default for mask loss.
  • The combined PConv plus SD loss recipe generalizes across detection and segmentation architectures (YOLOv5n, YOLOv8n-p2, EFLNet, DNANet, ISNet, MSHNet) with no architectural change.
  • PConv kernel length should be set by target scale: larger kernels help larger targets, while smaller targets prefer a shorter second kernel to avoid over-expanding the receptive field.
  • SIRST-UAVB provides a harder benchmark with more small, dim targets than existing real-shot datasets, so future models can be compared on it for precision and recall under complex backgrounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because PConv is a drop-in convolution replacement, the same Gaussian-matching logic might transfer to other tiny-object detection domains such as aerial or remote-sensing imagery, provided the target's point spread is similarly bell-shaped; this is an extension the paper does not test.
  • The SD loss's $\beta$ schedule is a heuristic based on area; a natural next step, not in the paper, would be to measure the per-target IoU variance directly and set $\beta$ from that noise estimate, which could remove the need to tune $\delta$.
  • The paper's Gaussian premise could be validated or refuted by fitting actual target intensity profiles from SIRST-UAVB; if many targets are not single-peaked, the argument would reduce to 'a wider cross-shaped receptive field helps', which is a weaker but still testable claim.
  • The mask labels exclude birds because of annotation difficulty, so mask-based (SDM) conclusions depend entirely on UAV targets; adding bird masks or semi-automatic annotation would extend the method's evidentiary base.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes two plug-and-play components for infrared small target detection and segmentation: PConv, a pinwheel-shaped convolution intended to replace the first two standard convolution layers, and Scale-based Dynamic (SD) loss, which reweights scale and location loss terms according to target size for both bounding-box and mask supervision. The authors also release SIRST-UAVB, a new benchmark of 3,000 infrared images containing UAV and bird targets with box and (UAV-only) mask annotations. The experimental sections compare PConv with standard and alternative convolution modules and SD loss with CIoU/DIoU/GIoU/NWD/SAFit and SLS/Dice/IoU losses on IRSTD-1K and SIRST-UAVB, reporting that the proposed components improve mAP50, precision, recall, IoU, Pd, and Fa across several YOLO-style and U-Net-style architectures (Tables 1-4, with an additional target-scale ablation in Table 5).

Significance. If the reported gains are reproducible, the paper offers two easy-to-integrate components with a new public benchmark, which would be useful to the IRST community. The release of code and of a relatively large real-shot dataset are concrete strengths. However, the significance is currently limited by the lack of repeated-seed evaluation, by post-hoc selection of hyperparameters on the test benchmarks, and by unresolved quantitative support for the Gaussian-motivation and for the parameter-count claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Experiments, Tables 1-5] All performance comparisons are single-run point estimates, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Several headline differences are small relative to the run-to-run noise expected in YOLOv8n-p2 and MSHNet: for example, Table 1 shows SIRST-UAVB mAP50 of 93.2 (Conv) versus 93.8 (PConv(4,3)); Table 2 shows IRSTD-1K mAP50 of 87.4 (CIoU) versus 88.6 (SDB(0.3)); Table 3 shows IRSTD-1K IoU of 66.82 (SLS) versus 68.49 (SDM(0.5)). Moreover, the best PConv kernel lengths and delta values are selected from the same test sets on which improvement is claimed (PConv(4,4) is best on IRSTD-1K while PConv(4,3) is presented as the preferred configuration; delta=0.3 is preferred on IRSTD-1K while delta=0.5 is preferred on SIRST-UAVB). Please report multi-seed means and variances, and specify a fixed selection protocol so that the 'consistent improvements' conclusion is supported.
  2. [Methodology, Pinwheel-shaped Convolution, Eq. (7)] The parameter-count arithmetic is internally inconsistent. Eq. (7) gives PConv params = 7 c2 c1, which is only valid when c2 = c1. Under the stated architecture with c2 = 4 c1 (the YOLO setting in the next paragraph), the four first-layer 1x3/3x1 convolutions contribute 3 c1 c2 = 12 c1^2, and the final 2x2 convolution, whose input has c2 channels after concatenation, contributes 4 c2^2 = 64 c1^2, for a total of 76 c1^2. The text instead states 72 c1^2 and simultaneously says this is a 111% increase over 36 c1^2; 76/36 = 2.11, so the percentage corresponds to 76, not 72. Please correct the formula and the resulting parameter-overhead claims, and re-derive the receptive-field percentages in the same paragraph.
  3. [Methodology, Scale-based Dynamic Loss and Limitation] The loss definition in Eqs. (12)-(13) and the explanatory Figure 5 present beta_M as a function of the individual target's mask area Mgt, but the Limitation section states that SDM actually uses the average target size over the batch and therefore 'does not really assign Sloss and Lloss influence coefficients according to the target size.' This is a direct contradiction between the method description and the implementation. Because the claimed mechanism of SDM is per-target reweighting, please either implement true per-target coefficients (for example, by avoiding the batch-averaged SLS computation) or revise the equations and the interpretive claims, and report the effect of this discrepancy on the empirical results.
  4. [Methodology, Pinwheel-shaped Convolution, Figure 1] The core motivation—that infrared small targets have a Gaussian spatial intensity distribution and that a center-weighted pinwheel arrangement of thin 1x3/3x1 kernels is the matching inductive bias—is supported only by the illustrative 3D view in Figure 1. No quantitative fit, distribution test, or comparison across target appearances is provided, and the cited effective-receptive-field result (Luo et al. 2016) applies to any CNN, not specifically to pinwheel kernels. Please add quantitative evidence (for example, fitted Gaussian parameters and goodness-of-fit statistics over the datasets) or weaken the Gaussian-alignment claim in the abstract and Section 3 accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The dataset name appears as 'SIRST-UA VB' with an erroneous space in several places; unify to 'SIRST-UAVB' including in the repository name.
  2. [Tables 1 and 4] Tables 1 and 4 use symbols such as '%', check marks, and 'Fa' with only partial explanation; please spell out all column meanings in the captions and use explicit 'yes/no' columns for the ablation configurations.
  3. [Methodology, Eq. (9)] The parameter omega in Eq. (9) is only described verbally; give an explicit formula for omega and for the polar-coordinate terms, or cite the SLS paper precisely, since these quantities enter the SDM objective.
  4. [Appendix, Table 5] Table 5 reports per-scale-bracket results but does not state how the scale brackets are computed; please define the brackets (for example, whether area is in original-image pixels or feature-map pixels) in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims rest on external benchmark evaluations and the proposed design is tested empirically, not derived from its own definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: replacing the first two convolutional layers with PConv and using SD loss is reported to improve detection and segmentation metrics on IRSTD-1K and the authors' SIRST-UAVB. Those claims are supported by comparisons against external baselines (Conv, GConv, DSConv, DRConv, LSKConv, DConv, MixConv, AKConv; CIoU/DIoU/GIoU/IoU/NWD/SAFit/SLS/Dice/IoU) in Tables 1-5, not by deriving the improvement from the proposed equations. The Gaussian-distribution rationale for PConv is an inductive-bias assumption stated from Figure 1 and the effective-receptive-field literature (Luo et al. 2016); it motivates the design but is not claimed as a theorem, and the module is then tested on data. The SD loss formulas (Eqs. 8-17) explicitly define the dynamic coefficients, and the reported gains are evaluations, not predictions obtained by fitting those coefficients to the same quantity they are supposed to predict. I also flag the appended Limitation, which states that the implemented SDM loss uses batch-averaged target sizes and therefore "does not really assign Sloss and Lloss influence coefficients according to the target size" as Eqs. (12)-(13) describe; this is an internal-consistency and correctness weakness, not a circular reduction. Hyperparameter choices (delta and PConv kernel lengths) are selected after inspecting the test tables, which is a statistical-reproducibility concern about the strength of the reported gains, but it does not make any equation equal to its own input. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem appears in the paper. Hence the derivation chain is self-contained enough that no circularity step is identifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on two empirical observations (Gaussian intensity profile and 1-pixel centroid stability), one domain convention (81-pixel maximum target), and one standard result about effective receptive fields. No machine-checked formalization is supplied.

free parameters (2)
  • delta (δ) in SDB and SDM loss = 0.3, 0.5, 0.7; selected per dataset, e.g., 0.3 best on IRSTD-1K, 0.7 best on SIRST-UAVB, 0.5 for mask losses
    Chosen by running Tables 2 and 3 ablations on the same benchmarks used to claim improvement; no independent selection principle is given.
  • PConv fanleaf kernel lengths = (4,3), (4,4), and (3,3) variants; (4,3) is called the best balanced choice
    Selected from Table 1 and Supplementary Table 5 after observing performance; the choice is part of the empirical claim rather than a derived optimum.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Infrared small target pixel intensity distribution is approximately Gaussian
    Figure 1 shows selected examples, but no quantitative fit or dataset-wide statistics are supplied; used to justify the PConv design in the 'Pinwheel-shaped Convolution' section.
  • standard math Effective receptive fields in CNNs follow a Gaussian falloff, so a center-heavy pinwheel kernel arrangement is the correct inductive bias
    The paper cites Luo et al. 2016 for Gaussian effective receptive fields, but the leap from that result to the specific asymmetric kernel arrangement is not derived.
  • domain assumption Bounding-box centroid coordinates always deviate by no more than 1 pixel from the target center of gravity, regardless of target size
    Stated in the 'Scale-based Dynamic Loss' section without supporting measurements; used to keep the location-loss weight high for small targets.
  • domain assumption The maximum size of an infrared small target is 81 pixels, following the SPIE definition
    Used in Equations 12 and 13 to normalize target area; accepted domain convention, not fitted to data in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pinwheel-shaped Convolution and Scale-based Dynamic Loss for Infrared Small Target Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZAA42MCM

@misc{pith2026241216986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pinwheel-shaped Convolution and Scale-based Dynamic Loss for Infrared Small Target Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZAA42MCM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16986}
}
read the original abstract

These recent years have witnessed that convolutional neural network (CNN)-based methods for detecting infrared small targets have achieved outstanding performance. However, these methods typically employ standard convolutions, neglecting to consider the spatial characteristics of the pixel distribution of infrared small targets. Therefore, we propose a novel pinwheel-shaped convolution (PConv) as a replacement for standard convolutions in the lower layers of the backbone network. PConv better aligns with the pixel Gaussian spatial distribution of dim small targets, enhances feature extraction, significantly increases the receptive field, and introduces only a minimal increase in parameters. Additionally, while recent loss functions combine scale and location losses, they do not adequately account for the varying sensitivity of these losses across different target scales, limiting detection performance on dim-small targets. To overcome this, we propose a scale-based dynamic (SD) Loss that dynamically adjusts the influence of scale and location losses based on target size, improving the network's ability to detect targets of varying scales. We construct a new benchmark, SIRST-UAVB, which is the largest and most challenging dataset to date for real-shot single-frame infrared small target detection. Lastly, by integrating PConv and SD Loss into the latest small target detection algorithms, we achieved significant performance improvements on IRSTD-1K and our SIRST-UAVB dataset, validating the effectiveness and generalizability of our approach. Code -- https://github.com/JN-Yang/PConv-SDloss-Data

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16986 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Grayscale 3D view of IRST. (Karim and Andersson 2013). As the infrared radiation re￾ceived by the camera decreases with distance, targets often appear dim with low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal￾to-clutter ratio (SCR), and lack texture information. Addi￾tionally, varying distances alter target size and shape. Com￾plex backgrounds, such as buildings, clouds, or vegetation, further obscure targets (Kou et al. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of BBox and mask label errors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Architecture of the pinwheel-shaped convolutional module. Best viewed in color. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a), smaller targets receive lower attention weights for Sloss with BBox labels. Mask labels can improve detection accuracy, especially for small or irregularly shaped targets. However, the fuzzy boundaries of IRST, as shown in the bot￾tom left of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Result visualization of IRST detection models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Result visualization of IRST segmentation models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chen, J.; Wang, X.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, X.; and Sun, J. 2021. Dynamic region-aware convolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 8064--8073

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Chollet, F. 2017. Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1251--1258

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    $\textit{A Contrario}$ Paradigm for YOLO-based Infrared Small Target Detection

    Ciocarlan, A.; H \'e garat-Mascle, S. L.; Lefebvre, S.; Woiselle, A.; and Barbanson, C. 2024. A Contrario Paradigm for YOLO-based Infrared Small Target Detection. arXiv:2402.02288

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Dai, Y.; Li, X.; Zhou, F.; Qian, Y.; Chen, Y.; and Yang, J. 2023. One-Stage Cascade Refinement Networks for Infrared Small Target Detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61: 1--17

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Dai, Y.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, F.; and Barnard, K. 2021 a . Asymmetric contextual modulation for infrared small target detection. In 2021 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 949--958

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Dai, Y.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, F.; and Barnard, K. 2021 b . Attentional local contrast networks for infrared small target detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 59(11): 9813--9824

    2021

  7. [7]

    D.; Er, M

    Deshpande, S. D.; Er, M. H.; Venkateswarlu, R.; and Chan, P. 1999. Max-mean and max-median filters for detection of small targets. In Signal and Data Processing of Small Targets 1999, volume 3809, 74--83. SPIE

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Du, P.; and Hamdulla, A. 2019. Infrared small target detection using homogeneity-weighted local contrast measure. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 17(3): 514--518

    work page 2019

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Jocher, G.; Chaurasia, A.; Stoken, A.; Borovec, J.; Kwon, Y.; Michael, K.; Fang, J.; Wong, C.; Yifu, Z.; Montes, D.; et al. 2022. ultralytics/yolov5: v6. 2-yolov5 classification models, apple m1, reproducibility, clearml and deci. ai integrations. Zenodo

    2022

  2. [10]

    Karim, A.; and Andersson, J. Y. 2013. Infrared detectors: Advances, challenges and new technologies. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, volume 51, 012001. IOP Publishing

    2013

  3. [11]

    Kou, R.; Wang, C.; Fu, Q.; Yu, Y.; and Zhang, D. 2022. Infrared small target detection based on the improved density peak global search and human visual local contrast mechanism. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 15: 6144--6157

    2022

  4. [12]

    Kou, R.; Wang, C.; Peng, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Chen, Y.; Han, J.; Huang, F.; Yu, Y.; and Fu, Q. 2023. Infrared small target segmentation networks: A survey. Pattern Recognition, 143: 109788

    2023

  5. [13]

    Li, B.; Xiao, C.; Wang, L.; Wang, Y.; Lin, Z.; Li, M.; An, W.; and Guo, Y. 2022. Dense nested attention network for infrared small target detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 32: 1745--1758

    2022

  6. [14]

    Li, R.; and Shen, Y. 2023. YOLOSR-IST: A deep learning method for small target detection in infrared remote sensing images based on super-resolution and YOLO. Signal Processing, 208: 108962

    2023

  7. [15]

    Li, Y.; Hou, Q.; Zheng, Z.; Cheng, M.-M.; Yang, J.; and Li, X. 2023. Large selective kernel network for remote sensing object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 16794--16805

    2023

  8. [16]

    Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, J.-G.; Tan, Y.; Tian, J.; and Ma, J. 2016. A novel spatio-temporal saliency approach for robust dim moving target detection from airborne infrared image sequences. Information Sciences, 369: 548--563

    2016

  9. [17]

    Liu, Q.; Liu, R.; Zheng, B.; Wang, H.; and Fu, Y. 2024. Infrared Small Target Detection with Scale and Location Sensitivity. arXiv:2403.19366

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Liu, T.; Yin, Q.; Yang, J.; Wang, Y.; and An, W. 2023 a . Combining deep denoiser and low-rank priors for infrared small target detection. Pattern Recognition, 135: 109184

    2023

  11. [19]

    Liu, Y.; Liu, X.; Hao, X.; Tang, W.; Zhang, S.; and Lei, T. 2023 b . Single-Frame Infrared Small Target Detection by High Local Variance, Low-Rank and Sparse Decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing

    2023

  12. [20]

    Luo, W.; Li, Y.; Urtasun, R.; and Zemel, R. 2016. Understanding the effective receptive field in deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 29

    2016

  13. [21]

    Ma, T.; Yang, Z.; Wang, J.; Sun, S.; Ren, X.; and Ahmad, U. 2022. Infrared small target detection network with generate label and feature mapping. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19: 1--5

    2022

  14. [22]

    Rezatofighi, H.; Tsoi, N.; Gwak, J.; Sadeghian, A.; Reid, I.; and Savarese, S. 2019. Generalized intersection over union: A metric and a loss for bounding box regression. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 658--666

    2019

  15. [23]

    Rivest, J.-F.; and Fortin, R. 1996. Detection of dim targets in digital infrared imagery by morphological image processing. Optical Engineering, 35(7): 1886--1893

    1996

  16. [24]

    H.; Li, W.; Vercauteren, T.; Ourselin, S.; and Jorge Cardoso, M

    Sudre, C. H.; Li, W.; Vercauteren, T.; Ourselin, S.; and Jorge Cardoso, M. 2017. Generalised dice overlap as a deep learning loss function for highly unbalanced segmentations. In Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support: Thi...

    2017

  17. [25]

    Sun, H. 2024. Ultra-High Resolution Segmentation via Boundary-Enhanced Patch-Merging Transformer. arXiv:2412.10181

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Sun, Y.; Yang, J.; and An, W. 2020. Infrared dim and small target detection via multiple subspace learning and spatial-temporal patch-tensor model. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 59(5): 3737--3752

    2020

  19. [27]

    Tan, M.; and Le, Q. V. 2019. Mixconv: Mixed depthwise convolutional kernels. arXiv:1907.09595

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Wang, J.; Xu, C.; Yang, W.; and Yu, L. 2021. A normalized Gaussian Wasserstein distance for tiny object detection. arXiv:2110.13389

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Yang, B.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, J.; Luo, J.; Zhou, M.; and Pi, Y. 2024. EFLNet: Enhancing Feature Learning Network for Infrared Small Target Detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 62: 1--11

    2024

  22. [30]

    Ying, X.; Xiao, C.; Li, R.; He, X.; Li, B.; Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Hu, M.; Xu, Q.; Lin, Z.; et al. 2024. Visible-Thermal Tiny Object Detection: A Benchmark Dataset and Baselines. arXiv:2406.14482

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Yu, F.; and Koltun, V. 2015. Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions. arXiv:1511.07122

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zhang, M.; Zhang, R.; Yang, Y.; Bai, H.; Zhang, J.; and Guo, J. 2022. ISNet: Shape matters for infrared small target detection. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 867--876

    2022

  25. [33]

    Zhang, T.; Qi, G.-J.; Xiao, B.; and Wang, J. 2017. Interleaved group convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 4373--4382

    2017

  26. [34]

    Zhang, W.; Cong, M.; and Wang, L. 2003. Algorithms for optical weak small targets detection and tracking. In International Conference on Neural Networks and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceedings of the 2003, volume 1, 643--647. IEEE

    2003

  27. [35]

    Zhang, X.; Song, Y.; Song, T.; Yang, D.; Ye, Y.; Zhou, J.; and Zhang, L. 2023. AKConv: Convolutional kernel with arbitrary sampled shapes and arbitrary number of parameters. arXiv:2311.11587

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Zhao, M.; Li, W.; Li, L.; Hu, J.; Ma, P.; and Tao, R. 2022. Single-frame infrared small-target detection: A survey. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 10(2): 87--119

    2022

  29. [37]

    Zheng, Z.; Wang, P.; Liu, W.; Li, J.; Ye, R.; and Ren, D. 2020. Distance-IoU loss: Faster and better learning for bounding box regression. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, 12993--13000

    2020

  30. [38]

    Zhou, X.; Li, P.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, X.; and Hu, Y. 2023. Deep Low-Rank and Sparse Patch-Image Network for Infrared Dim and Small Target Detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61: 1--14

    2023

  31. [39]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  32. [40]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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