Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 55 references

MRC-DETR: An Adaptive Multi-Residual Coupled Transformer for Bare Board PCB Defect Detection

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lightweight Transformer detects bare-board PCB defects at 0.956 mAP

desk verdict Solid engineering paper with a real efficiency win, but the central accuracy claim rests on a private dataset with an ambiguous split and single-run metrics. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03386 v1 pith:I4UGQZOW submitted 2025-07-04 cs.CV

Jiangzhong Cao , Huanqi Wu , Xu Zhang , Lianghong Tan , Huan Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords PCBdefectdetectionDETRRT-DETRmulti-residualblockadaptivefeaturefusionbareboarddatasetobjectreal-timeinspection
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 establish that a lightweight Transformer-based detector, MRC-DETR, can find bare-board PCB defects more accurately and far more efficiently than a range of recent detectors, and that two new architectural modules plus a new industrial dataset make this possible. The reported result is an mAP of 0.956 at 117.1 FPS with only 17.0M parameters and 48.2G FLOPs, beating the RT-DETR baseline by 0.9 points while using roughly a third of the compute. The paper also introduces AOI-BarePCB, an 800-image dataset of real production-line boards with three defect types and 4,364 manually labeled instances, to fill an acknowledged gap in public bare-board data. A sympathetic reader would care because the combination of accuracy, speed, and model size is what determines whether defect detection can be deployed in real-time industrial inspection.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing components are the Multi-Residual Directional Coupled Block (MRDCB) and the Adaptive Screening Pyramid Network (ASPN). MRDCB wraps a multi-scale residual unit around a Directional Coupled Attention module that pools features along height and width and re-weights channels, designed to keep small, directionally distributed defects (strip-like shorts, local hole offsets) from being washed out. ASPN uses a Lightweight Spatial Screening Module followed by Selective Feature Aggregation, which up-samples high-level features and uses them as attention weights to gate low-level features before pixel-wise fusion, aiming to keep detail while suppressing redundant computation. The third carrier is the new AOI-BarePCB dataset: 800 images, three defect classes, 4,364 instances, manually annotated with rectangles.

What would settle it

Train MRC-DETR and the comparison methods on the AOI-BarePCB training split and evaluate on a held-out set of images from a different production line or on a public PCB defect set; if the mAP gap over YOLO11 or RT-DETR narrows to within noise or reverses, the claimed superiority would be shown to be dataset-specific.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that MRC-DETR, a detector built on RT-DETR with a Multi-Residual Directional Coupled Block (MRDCB) in the backbone and an Adaptive Screening Pyramid Network (ASPN) for cross-scale fusion, achieves an mAP of 0.956, Precision of 0.937, Recall of 0.941, at 117.1 FPS, with 17.0M parameters and 48.2G FLOPs, outperforming all ten comparison methods on the authors' AOI-BarePCB dataset. Ablations support that MRDCB and ASPN each contribute and that together they raise mAP above the RT-DETR baseline while cutting parameters from 42.0M to 17.0M and FLOPs from 129.6G to 48.2G. The paper also claims the new dataset is closer to real production conditions than existing public PCB datasets because it captures the bare-board stage before soldering and component mounting.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of superior performance rests on the assumption that 800 images from a single AOI production line, with manually labeled instances and an informal 80/20 split, fairly represent bare-board PCB defects and support a reliable ranking of detectors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, MRC-DETR is deployable in real-time AOI systems at 117 FPS on industrial hardware such as a TITAN RTX, with a memory footprint of 17.0M parameters that suits edge devices.
  • The 48.2G FLOPs is roughly 37% of RT-DETR's 129.6G while improving mAP by 0.9 points, so the efficiency gain comes without an accuracy penalty in this setting.
  • The ablation results imply that the ASPN's Lightweight Spatial Screening Module is a better attention choice inside ASPN than SE, SGE, or CAA, giving both higher mAP and lower or comparable computational cost.
  • The new dataset provides a benchmark for bare-board inspection, where the authors argue existing public datasets (finished boards, synthetic defects) are insufficient.
  • Since MRDCB alone lowers recall despite raising mAP, the combined model's recall gain from 0.931 to 0.941 suggests ASPN compensates for MRDCB's missed detections.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: because evaluation is on 800 images from a single production line with an informal 80/20 split, the 0.956 mAP and the ranking over YOLO11 and RT-DETR may be specific to this dataset; a natural test is to evaluate on an independent bare-board set or a public PCB dataset.
  • The reported gains may be dominated by efficiency rather than accuracy: the mAP gap to the next-best method, YOLO11 at 0.953, is only 0.3 points, while the FLOPs gap is roughly 1.4 times smaller, so the practical contribution could be as much about cost reduction as about detection quality.
  • The directional pooling in DCA is tailored to elongated defects like shorts, so the architecture could transfer to other inspection domains with directional flaw patterns, such as rail surface, fabric, or metal strip defects; a cross-domain test would show whether that inductive bias generalizes.
  • The dataset has only three classes and 800 images, so it likely supports model comparison but not fine-grained class diagnostics; replicating the study with per-class average precision and across multiple production lines would reveal whether the average mAP hides weak classes such as hole deviation, which has only 571 instances.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MRC-DETR, an RT-DETR-based detector for bare-board PCB defect detection, with two new modules: the Multi-Residuals Directional Coupled Block (MRDCB) and the Adaptive Screening Pyramid Network (ASPN). It also introduces a private AOI-BarePCB dataset of 800 images with 4,364 manually labeled defects (short circuit, open circuit, hole deviation). On this dataset the authors report mAP 0.956, Precision 0.937, Recall 0.941, 117.1 FPS, 17.0M parameters, and 48.2G FLOPs, and claim that MRC-DETR outperforms nine baselines (DETR, Deformable-DETR, DAB-DETR, DINO, YOLOv8, RT-DETR, YOLO11, D-FINE, DEIM). Ablations show that MRDCB and ASPN each reduce FLOPs and that the full model improves mAP, with LSSM outperforming SE/SGE/CAA within ASPN.

Significance. If the empirical results are reproducible, the paper demonstrates a meaningful efficiency-accuracy trade-off for an industrial PCB inspection setting and provides a new dataset for a neglected stage (bare boards). The experimental structure is a strength: comparisons against multiple modern detectors, ablations of both modules, and an attention-module replacement study. However, the central claim currently rests on single-run metrics on a private dataset with an ambiguous split, and neither code nor data availability is confirmed; the contribution is therefore conditional rather than established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-A, Table II] The split used for the reported results is not uniquely defined. Section IV-A states 'we use 80% as the training set and 20% as the validation set and test set'; if the same 20% is used for both validation and testing, the headline mAP can be optimistically biased by validation-based tuning, while if the intended split is 80/10/10 this should be stated explicitly. Since the differences among the top rows of Table II are 0.003-0.009 mAP, the exact split materially affects the ranking claim. Please define a held-out test split and report results on it.
  2. [Section IV-B, Tables II and III] All accuracy numbers are single-run point estimates. The test set is 20% of 800 images (about 160 images and roughly 873 defects), and the top-performing methods differ by mAP margins of 0.003-0.009, which is within the range of seed and split variation for a test set this size. The absence of confidence intervals, repeated runs, or cross-validation makes the central claim 'outperforming all comparison methods' unsupported. Please provide mean plus/minus standard deviation over multiple seeds or splits, or a statistical test, and ideally evaluate on a public PCB defect benchmark (e.g., PKU PCB, DeepPCB) to check generalization.
  3. [Section III-A/B] The proposed architecture is not sufficiently specified for reproduction. The text says MRC-DETR is based on RT-DETR with ResNet-50 as the backbone, but later says MRDCB replaces the original heavy backbone structure; it is unclear whether the ResNet-50 backbone is replaced, augmented, or only partially modified, and how feature maps S3/S4/S5 are produced from the MRDCB stages. Equations (9) and (13) involve element-wise multiplication, outer-product-like operations, and transposes whose dimensions are not defined, so the Directional Coupled Attention module cannot be reconstructed from the text.
  4. [Section II-C, IV-A, Table I] The new AOI-BarePCB dataset is a claimed contribution, but its description is incomplete and its availability is not confirmed. Table I lists 'No. of Images' per defect type as 541, 660, and 228, whose sum (1429) exceeds the stated total of 800, without explaining that a single image may contain multiple defect types. No inter-annotator agreement, cropping criterion, or labeling protocol is reported, and the project page is given but code/data availability is not stated. Please clarify the dataset statistics and release status.
  5. [Section IV-B, Table II] The comparison protocol is under-specified. The paper does not state whether all baselines were trained from scratch under matched schedules (epochs, learning rate, input resolution, augmentation) or initialized from published weights, and the FPS measurement procedure (batch size, warm-up, TensorRT/FP16 usage) is not reported. Since the claimed advantage over YOLO11 and RT-DETR is only 0.003-0.009 mAP, these details are necessary to establish a fair comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the ungrammatical phrase 'demonstrate that MRC-DETR achieving superior detection performance'; it should read 'achieves'.
  2. [Section IV-A] The sentence 'Each image has been manually annotated, and the annotation format uses a rectangular frame.' is duplicated.
  3. [Equations (14)-(15)] 'Conν' should be 'Conv', and 'P ool' should be 'Pool'.
  4. [Section IV-B, Eq. (22)] The metric should be named AP@0.5 or mAP50, not mAP, to avoid confusion with COCO-style mAP averaged over IoU thresholds.
  5. [Table I] The third defect type is called 'hole deviation' in the text but 'circle' in the table; please harmonize the terminology.
  6. [Related Work] The related work includes references to underwater image enhancement ([22], [39]) and 3D video quality ([41], [43]) that are not connected to PCB defect detection; these should be replaced or their relevance explained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical claims are evaluated against external baselines on a dedicated dataset, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

MRC-DETR's central claims are empirical performance numbers measured against external baselines (DETR, Deformable-DETR, DAB-DETR, DINO, YOLOv8, RT-DETR, YOLO11, D-FINE, DEIM) on a self-collected AOI-BarePCB dataset. The proposed modules (MRDCB, ASPN) are compared through ablations using the same training and evaluation protocol, so the reported improvements are not definitional consequences of the module definitions. The paper's few self-citations appear in related-work contexts (e.g., refs [22], [41], [43]) and do not carry the load of the main result. The ambiguous train/validation/test split and lack of public code or data are reproducibility and validity concerns, but they do not make the derivation circular.

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

No constants are fitted by hand; training hyperparameters (learning rate 1e-4, batch 16, 300 epochs) are standard choices, not free parameters tied to the claimed result. No new physical entities are introduced; MRDCB, ASPN, and LSSM are architectural components whose usefulness is asserted from the paper's own experiments, so they are best evaluated as claims, not as independent entities.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The AOI-BarePCB dataset is representative of real bare-board production conditions.
    Section IV-A: collected from one AOI production line, 800 images; no evidence of line-to-line or environment variation, and no external dataset validation.
  • domain assumption mAP at IoU 0.5 is a sufficient quality metric for the industrial use case.
    Section IV-B defines mAP at IoU 0.5, precision, and recall; no IoU sweep, false-alarm cost model, or localization metric is reported.
  • domain assumption Baselines were tuned fairly enough for comparison.
    Section IV-B states a shared optimizer and schedule, but does not report per-model hyperparameter search or validation protocol; small mAP differences could reflect tuning effort.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MRC-DETR: An Adaptive Multi-Residual Coupled Transformer for Bare Board PCB Defect Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I4UGQZOW

@misc{pith2026250703386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MRC-DETR: An Adaptive Multi-Residual Coupled Transformer for Bare Board PCB Defect Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I4UGQZOW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03386}
}
read the original abstract

In modern electronic manufacturing, defect detection on Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) plays a critical role in ensuring product yield and maintaining the reliability of downstream assembly processes. However, existing methods often suffer from limited feature representation, computational redundancy, and insufficient availability of high-quality training data -- challenges that hinder their ability to meet industrial demands for both accuracy and efficiency. To address these limitations, we propose MRC-DETR, a novel and efficient detection framework tailored for bare PCB defect inspection, built upon the foundation of RT-DETR. Firstly, to enhance feature representation capability, we design a Multi-Residual Directional Coupled Block (MRDCB). This module improves channel-wise feature interaction through a multi-residual structure. Moreover, a cross-spatial learning strategy is integrated to capture fine-grained pixel-level relationships, further enriching the representational power of the extracted features. Secondly, to reduce computational redundancy caused by inefficient cross-layer information fusion, we introduce an Adaptive Screening Pyramid Network (ASPN). This component dynamically filters and aggregates salient low-level features, selectively fusing them with high-level semantic features. By focusing on informative regions and suppressing redundant computations, ASPN significantly improves both efficiency and detection accuracy. Finally, to tackle the issue of insufficient training data, particularly in the context of bare PCBs, we construct a new, high-quality dataset that fills a critical gap in current public resources. Our dataset not only supports the training and evaluation of our proposed framework but also serves as a valuable benchmark for future research in this domain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03386 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of object detection models: mAP performance vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed MRC-DETR. The Multi-Residuals Directional Coupled (MRDC) Block outputs multiscale features S3, S4, S5. The Adaptive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the Multi-Residuals Directional Coupled Block [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The detailed structure of the adaptive screening pyramid network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of typical bare board defects in the AOI-BarePCB dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of detection results across different models. For better clarity, results are best viewed in enlarged form. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of detection heatmaps produced by the proposed model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Reliable and lightweight adaptive convolution network for pcb surface defect detection,

    L. Lei, H.-X. Li, and H.-D. Yang, “Reliable and lightweight adaptive convolution network for pcb surface defect detection,” IEEE Transac- tions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 73, pp. 1–8, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Refined defect detector with deformable transformer and pyramid feature fusion for pcb detection,

    T. Liu, G.-Z. Cao, Z. He, and S. Xie, “Refined defect detector with deformable transformer and pyramid feature fusion for pcb detection,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 73, pp. 1–11, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Machine vision- based defect detection in ic images using the partial information correla- tion coefficient,

    C.-C. Wang, B. C. Jiang, J.-Y . Lin, and C.-C. Chu, “Machine vision- based defect detection in ic images using the partial information correla- tion coefficient,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 378–384, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Improved normalized cross-correlation for defect detection in printed-circuit boards,

    M. H. Annaby, Y . M. Fouda, and M. A. Rushdi, “Improved normalized cross-correlation for defect detection in printed-circuit boards,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 199– 211, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Small object detection in unmanned aerial vehicle images using feature fusion and scaling-based single shot detector with spatial context analysis,

    X. Liang, J. Zhang, L. Zhuo, Y . Li, and Q. Tian, “Small object detection in unmanned aerial vehicle images using feature fusion and scaling-based single shot detector with spatial context analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1758–1770, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Scorepillar: A real-time small object detection method based on pillar scoring of lidar measurement,

    Z. Cao, T. Wang, P. Sun, F. Cao, S. Shao, and S. Wang, “Scorepillar: A real-time small object detection method based on pillar scoring of lidar measurement,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 73, pp. 1–13, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Object detection with discriminatively trained part-based models,

    P. F. Felzenszwalb, R. B. Girshick, D. McAllester, and D. Ramanan, “Object detection with discriminatively trained part-based models,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1627–1645, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Ssd: Single shot multibox detector,

    W. Liu, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, C. Szegedy, S. Reed, C.-Y . Fu, and A. C. Berg, “Ssd: Single shot multibox detector,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 2016, pp. 21–37

    work page 2016

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,

    S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1137– 1149, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Cornernet: Detecting objects as paired key- points,

    H. Law and J. Deng, “Cornernet: Detecting objects as paired key- points,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 734–750

    2018

  3. [11]

    You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 779–788

    2016

  4. [12]

    Yolo9000: Better, faster, stronger,

    J. Redmon and A. Farhadi, “Yolo9000: Better, faster, stronger,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 6517–6525

    2017

  5. [13]

    Yolov4: Op- timal speed and accuracy of object detection,

    A. Bochkovskiy, C.-Y . Wang, and H.-Y . M. Liao, “Yolov4: Op- timal speed and accuracy of object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10934, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  6. [14]

    End-to-end object detection with transformers,

    N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko, “End-to-end object detection with transformers,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 2020, pp. 213–229

    2020

  7. [15]

    Focal loss for dense object detection,

    T.-Y . Lin, P. Goyal, R. Girshick, K. He, and P. Doll ´ar, “Focal loss for dense object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 318–327, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    End-to-end deep learning frame- work for printed circuit board manufacturing defect classification,

    A. Bhattacharya and S. G. Cloutier, “End-to-end deep learning frame- work for printed circuit board manufacturing defect classification,” Scientific reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 12559, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    A survey of industrial surface defect detection based on deep learning,

    Y . Haobo, “A survey of industrial surface defect detection based on deep learning,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Cyber- Physical Social Intelligence (ICCSI) , 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  10. [18]

    Detrs beat yolos on real-time object detection,

    Y . Zhao, W. Lv, S. Xu, J. Wei, G. Wang, Q. Dang, Y . Liu, and J. Chen, “Detrs beat yolos on real-time object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 16 965–16 974

    2024

  11. [19]

    Feature pyramid networks for object detection,

    T.-Y . Lin, P. Doll´ar, R. Girshick, K. He, B. Hariharan, and S. Belongie, “Feature pyramid networks for object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 936–944

    2017

  12. [20]

    Perceive-ir: Learning to perceive degradation better for all-in-one image restoration,

    X. Zhang, J. Ma, G. Wang, Q. Zhang, H. Zhang, and L. Zhang, “Perceive-ir: Learning to perceive degradation better for all-in-one image restoration,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15994 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    An adaptive defect-aware attention network for accurate pcb- defect detection,

    X. Liu, “An adaptive defect-aware attention network for accurate pcb- defect detection,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measure- ment, vol. 73, pp. 1–11, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Un- veiling the underwater world: Clip perception model-guided underwater image enhancement,

    J. Cao, Z. Zeng, X. Zhang, H. Zhang, C. Fan, G. Jiang, and W. Lin, “Un- veiling the underwater world: Clip perception model-guided underwater image enhancement,” Pattern Recognition, p. 111395, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    A class-incremental learning method for pcb defect detection,

    Q. Ge, R. Wu, Y . Wu, and H. Liu, “A class-incremental learning method for pcb defect detection,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 74, pp. 1–15, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Efficient multi-scale attention module with cross-spatial learning,

    D. Ouyang, S. He, G. Zhang, M. Luo, H. Guo, J. Zhan, and Z. Huang, “Efficient multi-scale attention module with cross-spatial learning,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  17. [25]

    Run, don’t walk: Chasing higher flops for faster neural networks,

    J. Chen, S.-h. Kao, H. He, W. Zhuo, S. Wen, C.-H. Lee, and S.- H. G. Chan, “Run, don’t walk: Chasing higher flops for faster neural networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2023, pp. 12 021–12 031

    2023

  18. [26]

    Accurate leukocyte detection based on deformable-detr and multi-level feature fusion for aiding diagnosis of blood diseases,

    Y . Chen, C. Zhang, B. Chen, Y . Huang, Y . Sun, C. Wang, X. Fu, Y . Dai, F. Qin, Y . Peng et al. , “Accurate leukocyte detection based on deformable-detr and multi-level feature fusion for aiding diagnosis of blood diseases,” Computers in biology and medicine , vol. 170, p. 1...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Ela: Efficient local attention for deep convolutional neural networks,

    W. Xu and Y . Wan, “Ela: Efficient local attention for deep convolutional neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01123 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Structure- constrained feature extraction by autoencoders for subspace clustering,

    K. Tang, K. Xu, Z. Su, W. Jiang, X. Luo, and X. Sun, “Structure- constrained feature extraction by autoencoders for subspace clustering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshop (ICCVW), 2019, pp. 624–632

    2019

  21. [29]

    A deep learning-based surface defect inspection system using multiscale and channel-compressed features,

    J. Yang, G. Fu, W. Zhu, Y . Cao, Y . Cao, and M. Ying Yang, “A deep learning-based surface defect inspection system using multiscale and channel-compressed features,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 8032–8042, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Lgfn: Lightweight light field image super-resolution using local convolution modulation and global attention feature extraction,

    Z. Yu, L. Chen, Z. Zeng, K. Yang, S. Luo, S. Chen, and C. Zhong, “Lgfn: Lightweight light field image super-resolution using local convolution modulation and global attention feature extraction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognit...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Multiflow: Shifting towards task-agnostic vision-language pruning,

    M. Farina, M. Mancini, E. Cunegatti, E. Cunegatti, G. Iacca, and E. Ricci, “Multiflow: Shifting towards task-agnostic vision-language pruning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2024, pp. 16 185–16 195

    2024

  24. [32]

    Masked autoencoders enable efficient knowledge distillers,

    Y . Bai, Z. Wang, J. Xiao, C. Wei, H. Wang, A. Yuille, Y . Zhou, and C. Xie, “Masked autoencoders enable efficient knowledge distillers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023, pp. 24 256–24 265

    2023

  25. [33]

    Performance measurement of distributed storage on edge devices,

    P. Loganathan, D. Rauthan, A. Trivedi, and V . Naik, “Performance measurement of distributed storage on edge devices,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on COMmunication Systems & NETworkS (COMSNETS), 2023, pp. 841–846

    2023

  26. [34]

    Scale-equalizing pyramid convolution for object detection,

    X. Wang, S. Zhang, Z. Yu, L. Feng, and W. Zhang, “Scale-equalizing pyramid convolution for object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020, pp. 13 356–13 365

    2020

  27. [35]

    Ipg-net: Image pyramid guidance network for small object detection,

    Z. Liu, G. Gao, L. Sun, and L. Fang, “Ipg-net: Image pyramid guidance network for small object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), 2020, pp. 4422–4430

    2020

  28. [36]

    Global context- based self-similarity feature augmentation and bidirectional feature fu- sion for surface defect detection,

    H. Wang, R. Zhang, M. Feng, Y . Liu, and G. Yang, “Global context- based self-similarity feature augmentation and bidirectional feature fu- sion for surface defect detection,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 72, pp. 1–12, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Lightweight vision transformer with spatial and channel enhanced self-attention,

    J. Zheng, L. Yang, Y . Li, K. Yang, Z. Wang, and J. Zhou, “Lightweight vision transformer with spatial and channel enhanced self-attention,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW), 2023, pp. 1484–1488

    2023

  30. [38]

    Self-supervised learning for high-resolution remote sensing images change detection with variational information bottleneck,

    C. Wang, S. Du, W. Sun, and D. Fan, “Self-supervised learning for high-resolution remote sensing images change detection with variational information bottleneck,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 16, pp. 5849–5866, 2023. J...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Uniuir: Considering underwater image restoration as an all-in-one learner,

    X. Zhang, H. Zhang, G. Wang, Q. Zhang, L. Zhang, and B. Du, “Uniuir: Considering underwater image restoration as an all-in-one learner,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12981, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    A domain incremental learning framework for pcb continuous defect detection,

    Z. Yan, R. Hao, B. Huang, L. Zhu, and H. Pan, “A domain incremental learning framework for pcb continuous defect detection,” IEEE Trans- actions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 74, pp. 1–13, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Enhancing 3d video watching experiences: Tackling compression and 3d warping distortions in synthesized view with perceptual guidance,

    H. Zhang, X. Zhang, L. Zhu, Y . Zhang, J. Cao, and W.-K. Ling, “Enhancing 3d video watching experiences: Tackling compression and 3d warping distortions in synthesized view with perceptual guidance,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 264, p. 125853, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    A high-performance small target defect detection method for pcb boards based on a novel yolo-dfa algorithm,

    K. Li, X. Zhong, and Y . Han, “A high-performance small target defect detection method for pcb boards based on a novel yolo-dfa algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 74, pp. 1–12, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Afd-former: A hybrid transformer with asymmetric flow division for synthesized view quality enhancement,

    X. Zhang, N. Cai, H. Zhang, Y . Zhang, J. Di, and W. Lin, “Afd-former: A hybrid transformer with asymmetric flow division for synthesized view quality enhancement,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 3786–3798, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Tdd-net: a tiny defect detection network for printed circuit boards,

    R. Ding, L. Dai, G. Li, and H. Liu, “Tdd-net: a tiny defect detection network for printed circuit boards,” CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 110–116, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Online pcb defect detector on a new pcb defect dataset,

    S. Tang, F. He, X. Huang, and J. Yang, “Online pcb defect detector on a new pcb defect dataset,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.06197 , 2019

    1902 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Dab-detr: Dynamic anchor boxes are better queries for detr,

    S. Liu, F. Li, H. Zhang, X. Yang, X. Qi, H. Su, J. Zhu, and L. Zhang, “Dab-detr: Dynamic anchor boxes are better queries for detr,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12329, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection,

    X. Zhu, W. Su, L. Lu, B. Li, X. Wang, and J. Dai, “Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04159, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Dn-detr: Ac- celerate detr training by introducing query denoising,

    F. Li, H. Zhang, S. Liu, J. Guo, L. M. Ni, and L. Zhang, “Dn-detr: Ac- celerate detr training by introducing query denoising,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 13 619–13 627

    2022

  41. [49]

    D-fine: redefine regression task in detrs as fine-grained distribution refinement,

    Y . Peng, H. Li, P. Wu, Y . Zhang, X. Sun, and F. Wu, “D-fine: redefine regression task in detrs as fine-grained distribution refinement,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13842, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Deim: Detr with improved matching for fast convergence,

    S. Huang, Z. Lu, X. Cun, Y . Yu, X. Zhou, and X. Shen, “Deim: Detr with improved matching for fast convergence,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR), 2025, pp. 15 162–15 171

    2025

  43. [51]

    Ultralytics YOLOv8,

    G. Jocher, J. Qiu, and A. Chaurasia, “Ultralytics YOLOv8,” Jan. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

    2023

  44. [52]

    Ultralytics YOLO11,

    G. Jocher, J. Qiu, and A. Chaurasia, “Ultralytics YOLO11,” Jan. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

    2024

  45. [53]

    Squeeze-and-excitation networks,

    J. Hu, L. Shen, and G. Sun, “Squeeze-and-excitation networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Spatial group-wise enhance: Improving semantic feature learning in convolutional networks,

    X. Li, X. Hu, and J. Yang, “Spatial group-wise enhance: Improving semantic feature learning in convolutional networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09646, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Poly kernel inception network for remote sensing detection,

    X. Cai, Q. Lai, Y . Wang, W. Wang, Z. Sun, and Y . Yao, “Poly kernel inception network for remote sensing detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 27 706–27 716

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.