Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 70 references

DyFrDet: Towards Accurate Small Object Detection via Dynamic Frequency Suppression with Label Disambiguation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage detector that dynamically masks both low- and high-frequency noise in feature maps and down-weights ambiguous labels reports state-of-the-art results on three small-object benchmarks.

desk verdict The dynamic band predictor is a plausible tweak, but the paper's high-frequency suppression claim rests on a misreading of the DFT geometry. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02495 v1 pith:6ZELENHM submitted 2026-08-03 cs.CV cs.AI

Zihan Yang , Yang Guo , Hongxing Zhang , Dan Lu , Siyuan Yao This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords smallobjectdetectionfrequencydomaindynamicbandpredictorfeaturepyramidnetworklabeldisambiguationuncertaintyweightingAI-TODSODA
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

The paper argues that small-object detection is bottlenecked by two overlooked problems: frequency-domain distractions in feature maps and ambiguity in the ground-truth labels. To address both, it proposes DyFrDet, which adds a Dynamic Frequency-aware Feature Pyramid Network (DyFrFPN) that transforms FPN features with the FFT and predicts per-channel thresholds to suppress low-frequency redundancy and high-frequency noise, plus a Label Disambiguation Module (LDM) that models bounding-box regression as a Gaussian distribution and down-weights samples whose predicted uncertainty indicates label ambiguity. DyFrDet reports state-of-the-art AP on AI-TOD, SODA-A, and SODA-D, with the largest consistent gains on tiny-object categories. If these results hold, they show that frequency-domain denoising and uncertainty-aware regression are complementary and transferable routes to better small-object detection.

What carries the argument

The Dynamic Band Predictor (DBP): an attention module over both spatial and frequency features that predicts per-channel suppression thresholds (alpha1, alpha2), used to build a rectangular mask M (Eq. 7) that zeros out the low-frequency top-left and high-frequency bottom-right regions of the FFT-transformed feature map; and the Label Disambiguation Module (LDM): a distributional regression head that predicts a Gaussian over box offsets and reweights the KL-divergence loss by omega(sigma_m), where sigma_m is the predicted variance.

What would settle it

Measure the amplitude spectrum of ground-truth small-object patches across AI-TOD: if a substantial fraction of their energy falls inside the masked corner regions, the suppression is discarding target signal. Alternatively, run DyFrDet with the mask inverted (suppress the mid-band, keep the corners); if AP does not drop substantially, the spectral-locality assumption is not what carries the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that suppressing a channel-wise dynamic band in the frequency spectrum—zeroing the top-left low-frequency corner and bottom-right high-frequency corner of each feature map—removes background distractors that hurt small objects, and that doing this dynamically (not with a fixed filter) is essential. The paper also claims that modeling box offsets as a Gaussian with predicted variance, and reweighting the regression loss by a function of that variance, mitigates the label ambiguity that comes with low-resolution objects. On the three benchmarks, the full DyFrDet outperforms both the static variant and prior state-of-the-art methods such as HS-FPN and SET, and the ablation

Load-bearing premise

The rectangular frequency mask in Eq. (7) assumes that small objects' useful signals never sit in the extreme low- or high-frequency corners, so wiping those corners out only removes background clutter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dynamic band suppression beats every static threshold sweep tested (Table 3), implying the per-channel, content-adaptive mask is the load-bearing innovation in DyFrFPN.
  • Best performance at beta=0.5, not full suppression, indicates the method works by attenuating distracting frequencies, not by hard filtering them away.
  • DyFrFPN and LDM each improve the baseline alone, and together add 2.4 AP on AI-TOD, suggesting they address distinct failure modes (feature noise vs. label noise).
  • Gains are largest on very-tiny and tiny categories (APvt, APt) on AI-TOD, consistent with the claim that frequency noise and label ambiguity disproportionately hurt small objects.
  • On SODA-A, combining DyFrDet with a stronger backbone (DecoupleNet) yields further gains, showing the modules compose with existing architectures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The rectangular-corner mask encodes a strong spectral-locality assumption: that small objects' discriminative signal never lives in the extreme low- or high-frequency corners. An easy stress test is to run the same DBP with a circular or soft-edged mask and compare AP on highly blurred objects.
  • The predicted variance sigma_m could serve as a per-sample label-quality score beyond training—for example, to select confident detections or to flag images whose annotations are unreliable.
  • Since DyFrFPN operates on FPN features and LDM on the regression head, both should transplant to one-stage and transformer-based detectors with minimal changes; the paper only demonstrates two-stage and oriented two-stage variants.
  • The paper does not separate the effect of suppressing low vs. high frequencies on specific categories; a natural extension is per-class analysis to see whether certain classes depend on the suppressed bands differently.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DyFrDet, a two-stage small-object detector combining two modules: DyFrFPN and LDM. DyFrFPN transforms pyramid features via the FFT, uses a Dynamic Band Predictor to estimate channel-wise thresholds, and masks frequency coefficients in the top-left and bottom-right corners of the spectrum, supposedly removing low-frequency redundancy and high-frequency noise. LDM models bounding-box regression as a Gaussian predictive distribution and reweights the regression loss according to predicted uncertainty to handle label ambiguity. Experiments are reported on AI-TOD, SODA-A, and SODA-D, with state-of-the-art claims on all three benchmarks, supported by ablations over the two modules, static versus dynamic suppression, band-predictor inputs, and the suppression rate.

Significance. If the claims held, dynamic frequency masking and uncertainty-weighted regression would be useful and inexpensive additions for small-object detection, and the paper would make a solid empirical contribution. The paper has strengths: it reports extensive comparisons and internally consistent ablations, the LDM is a reasonable extension of distributional regression, and a code link is provided. However, the central spectral mechanism is based on an incorrect description of the 2D DFT layout: the mask in Eq. (7) does not suppress the high-frequency band it claims to suppress. The empirical gains may still be real, but they can only be interpreted as a form of dynamic low-frequency suppression; the paper's central claim of simultaneous low-frequency and high-frequency suppression is not supported as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (1), Eq. (7)]
  2. [Table 4 and Sec. 4.1 (SODA-A)]
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Table 3 and Sec. 4.1]
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Implementation Details]
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (5)]
  3. [Tables 1, 4, 7]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DyFrDet's claims are evaluated against external benchmarks and its components are learned modules, not restatements of the outcome.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: DyFrFPN and LDM are trained modules whose gains are measured on AI-TOD, SODA-A, and SODA-D (Tables 1, 4, 7). The Dynamic Band Predictor learns thresholds alpha_1, alpha_2 from features via Eq. (6) and applies the mask in Eq. (7); there is no equation that defines the predicted thresholds in terms of the final AP or vice versa. The LDM loss (Eq. 11) is a standard KL divergence between a predicted Gaussian and a Dirac target, reweighted by predicted covariance; this is a learned objective, not a hidden restatement of the benchmark outcome. No self-citation is load-bearing: the cited uncertainty-tracking works [50, 54] are related-work context, and the core regression objective is attributed to external sources (KL loss [15], KLDet [63]) as well. Hyperparameter choices (alpha_l, alpha_h, beta, epsilon, rho) are tuned on the benchmarks, which is a soundness concern about generalization, not circularity. The paper's assumption that the bottom-right DFT corner contains high-frequency noise is technically questionable (in the unshifted DFT, that corner corresponds to low negative frequencies), but this is a correctness/mechanism error, not a circular derivation: the mask does not reduce to the claim by construction. Therefore, no circular step can be exhibited from the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is empirical; it relies on the premise that rectangular frequency-band suppression cleans features without removing object cues, and that predicted uncertainty is a trustworthy ambiguity signal. Free hyperparameters were selected on AI-TOD and then applied to SODA, which weakens the SOTA claim's independence.

free parameters (4)
  • α_l, α_h = 0.05, 0.95
    Predefined base suppression thresholds in Eq. (6); chosen by hand, not learned; dynamic predictor only scales them.
  • β (suppression rate) = 0.5
    Eq. (8); Table 6 shows 0.5 best on AI-TOD; tuned on validation.
  • ε, ρ (LDM weighting) = ε=0.5, ρ=0.8
    Eq. (12); set by hand, no ablation reported for these values.
  • γ (loss weight) = 0.9
    Eq. (13); hand-set, no sensitivity analysis reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 2D FFT of feature maps decomposes into low-frequency top-left and high-frequency bottom-right, and a rectangular mask can remove noise while retaining small-object information.
    Eq. (7) in §3.1; central to DyFrFPN but not proven for deep feature statistics.
  • domain assumption Predicted Gaussian variance over box offsets is a valid proxy for annotation ambiguity; larger σ_m means more label ambiguity.
    Eq. (10)–(12) in §3.2; reuses prior KL-loss work but the ambiguity interpretation is assumed.
  • domain assumption Downweighting high-σ_m samples via ω(σ_m) improves training and does not discard hard positives.
    Eq. (12); no experiment isolates this assumption from the rest of the loss.
  • standard math Standard FFT/IFFT operations are differentiable and compatible with CNN training.
    Eq. (1)–(3); standard, used by prior frequency-domain methods.
  • domain assumption Benchmark annotations (AI-TOD, SODA) are a reliable external ground truth for evaluating small-object detection.
    Section 4; SOTA claim depends on standard benchmark protocol.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DyFrDet: Towards Accurate Small Object Detection via Dynamic Frequency Suppression with Label Disambiguation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ZELENHM

@misc{pith2026260802495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DyFrDet: Towards Accurate Small Object Detection via Dynamic Frequency Suppression with Label Disambiguation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ZELENHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02495}
}
read the original abstract

Despite the remarkable progress over the past decades, accurately identifying small objects remains challenging because of their insufficient visual cues. Previous works typically attempt to construct discriminative representation of the small objects. However, the wide range frequency domain noises and label ambiguities have been greatly overlooked, which significantly hinders the accurate localization. To address these issues, we propose a novel small object detection (SOD) detector termed DyFrDet, which is able to precisely localize the small object by dynamically suppressing the background distractions in frequency domain. Specifically, we propose a Dynamic Frequency-aware Feature Pyramid Network (DyFrFPN) to adaptively suppress low-frequency redundancy and excessive high-frequency noises. The DyFrFPN transforms the hierarchical features into frequency domain representation, and introduces a Dynamic Band Predictor (DBP) to preserve the discriminative components for small object identification. Afterwards, we present a novel Label Disambiguation Module (LDM), which leverages probabilistic distributions to explicitly model and alleviate the inherent ambiguity of target labels, yielding efficient improvement in localization precision of the small objects with low-resolution. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DyFrDet achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple benchmarks, indicating its effectiveness and robustness in various challenging scenarios. Our code is available at https://github.com/ManOfStory/DyFrDet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02495 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Visualization of the heatmap using different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall architecture of DyFrDet consists of two main components: Dynamic Frequency-aware Feature Pyramid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of different small objects under vary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of features map at the P2 level on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Jinghao Bian, Mingtao Feng, Weisheng Dong, Fangfang Wu, Jianqiao Luo, Yaonan Wang, and Guangming Shi. 2025. Feature Information Driven Position Gauss- ian Distribution Estimation for Tiny Object Detection. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 30376–30386

    2025

  2. [2]

    Zhaowei Cai and Nuno Vasconcelos. 2018. Cascade r-cnn: Delving into high quality object detection. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 6154–6162

    2018

  3. [3]

    Bing Cao, Haiyu Yao, Pengfei Zhu, and Qinghua Hu. 2024. Visible and clear: Finding tiny objects in difference map. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. 1–18

    2024

  4. [4]

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexan- der Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. 2020. End-to-end object detection with transformers. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. 213–229

    2020

  5. [5]

    Changrui Chen, Yu Zhang, Qingxuan Lv, Shuo Wei, Xiaorui Wang, Xin Sun, and Junyu Dong. 2019. Rrnet: A hybrid detector for object detection in drone-captured images. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision workshops. 0–0

    2019

  6. [6]

    Linwei Chen, Lin Gu, and Ying Fu. 2025. Frequency-dynamic attention modula- tion for dense prediction. InIEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 22620–22632

    2025

  7. [7]

    Gong Cheng, Yanqing Yao, Shengyang Li, Ke Li, Xingxing Xie, Jiabao Wang, Xi- wen Yao, and Junwei Han. 2022. Dual-aligned oriented detector.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing60 (2022), 1–11

    2022

  8. [8]

    Gong Cheng, Xiang Yuan, Xiwen Yao, Kebing Yan, Qinghua Zeng, Xingxing Xie, and Junwei Han. 2023. Towards large-scale small object detection: Survey and benchmarks.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45, 11 (2023), 13467–13488

    2023

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Lu Chi, Borui Jiang, and Yadong Mu. 2020. Fast fourier convolution.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33 (2020), 4479–4488

    2020

  2. [10]

    Xiyang Dai, Yinpeng Chen, Bin Xiao, Dongdong Chen, Mengchen Liu, Lu Yuan, and Lei Zhang. 2021. Dynamic head: Unifying object detection heads with attentions. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 7373– 7382

    2021

  3. [11]

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 248–255

    2009

  4. [12]

    Zewen Du, Zhenjiang Hu, Guiyu Zhao, Ying Jin, and Hongbin Ma. 2025. Cross- Layer Feature Pyramid Transformer for Small Object Detection in Aerial Images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing63 (2025), 1–14

    2025

  5. [13]

    Golnaz Ghiasi, Tsung-Yi Lin, and Quoc V Le. 2019. Nas-fpn: Learning scalable feature pyramid architecture for object detection. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 7036–7045

    2019

  6. [14]

    Ross Girshick, Jeff Donahue, Trevor Darrell, and Jitendra Malik. 2014. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 580–587

    2014

  7. [15]

    Yihui He, Chenchen Zhu, Jianren Wang, Marios Savvides, and Xiangyu Zhang

  8. [16]

    Shihua Huang, Zhichao Lu, Xiaodong Cun, Yongjun Yu, Xiao Zhou, and Xi Shen

  9. [17]

    Jung Uk Kim, Sungjune Park, and Yong Man Ro. 2021. Robust small-scale pedes- trian detection with cued recall via memory learning. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 3050–3059

    2021

  10. [18]

    Mate Kisantal, Zbigniew Wojna, Jakub Murawski, Jacek Naruniec, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Augmentation for small object detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.07296(2019)

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Wentong Li, Yijie Chen, Kaixuan Hu, and Jianke Zhu. 2022. Oriented reppoints for aerial object detection. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 1829–1838

    2022

  12. [20]

    Yanghao Li, Yuntao Chen, Naiyan Wang, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. 2019. Scale- aware trident networks for object detection. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 6054–6063

    2019

  13. [21]

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Piotr Dollár, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Hariharan, and Serge Belongie. 2017. Feature pyramid networks for object detection. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2117–2125

    2017

  14. [22]

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollár. 2017. Focal loss for dense object detection. InIEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 2980–2988

    2017

  15. [23]

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. 740–755

    2014

  16. [24]

    Hou-I Liu, Yu-Wen Tseng, Kai-Cheng Chang, Pin-Jyun Wang, Hong-Han Shuai, and Wen-Huang Cheng. 2024. A DeNoising FPN With Transformer R-CNN for Tiny Object Detection.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing62 (2024), 1–15

    2024

  17. [25]

    Shilong Liu, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Xiao Yang, Xianbiao Qi, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, and Lei Zhang. 2022. DAB-DETR: Dynamic Anchor Boxes are Better Queries for DETR. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    2022

  18. [26]

    Wei Liu, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Christian Szegedy, Scott Reed, Cheng-Yang Fu, and Alexander C Berg. 2016. Ssd: Single shot multibox detector. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. 21–37

    2016

  19. [27]

    Wei Lu, Si-Bao Chen, Hui-Dong Li, Qing-Ling Shu, Chris HQ Ding, Jin Tang, and Bin Luo. 2025. Legnet: Lightweight edge-Gaussian driven network for low- quality remote sensing image object detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14012 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Wei Lu, Si-Bao Chen, Qing-Ling Shu, Jin Tang, and Bin Luo. 2024. DecoupleNet: A Lightweight Backbone Network with Efficient Feature Decoupling for Remote Sensing Visual Tasks.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing62 (2024), 1–13

    2024

  21. [29]

    José Henrique Lima Marques, Jeffri Murrugarra-Llerena, and Claudio R. Jung

  22. [30]

    Guangtao Nie and Hua Huang. 2022. Multi-oriented object detection in aerial images with double horizontal rectangles.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45, 4 (2022), 4932–4944

    2022

  23. [31]

    Badri N Patro, Vinay P Namboodiri, and Vijay S Agneeswaran. 2025. Spectformer: Frequency and attention is what you need in a vision transformer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision. 9543–9554

    2025

  24. [32]

    InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    GauCho: Gaussian Distributions with Cholesky Decomposition for Oriented Object Detection. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 3593–3602

  25. [33]

    Zequn Qin, Pengyi Zhang, Fei Wu, and Xi Li. 2021. Fcanet: Frequency channel attention networks. InIEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 783–792

    2021

  26. [34]

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2016. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks.IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence39, 6 (2016), 1137–1149

    2016

  27. [35]

    Siyuan Qiao, Liang-Chieh Chen, and Alan Yuille. 2021. Detectors: Detecting objects with recursive feature pyramid and switchable atrous convolution. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 10213–10224

    2021

  28. [36]

    Zican Shi, Jing Hu, Jie Ren, Hengkang Ye, Xuyang Yuan, Yan Ouyang, Jia He, Bo Ji, and Junyu Guo. 2025. HS-FPN: High frequency and spatial perception FPN for tiny object detection. InAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 6896–6904

    2025

  29. [37]

    Huixin Sun, Runqi Wang, Yanjing Li, Linlin Yang, Shaohui Lin, Xianbin Cao, and Baochang Zhang. 2025. SET: Spectral Enhancement for Tiny Object Detection. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 4713–4723

    2025

  30. [38]

    Shuohao Shi, Qiang Fang, Xin Xu, and Tong Zhao. 2024. Similarity distance-based label assignment for tiny object detection. InIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 13711–13718

    2024

  31. [39]

    Mingxing Tan, Ruoming Pang, and Quoc V Le. 2020. Efficientdet: Scalable and efficient object detection. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 10781–10790

    2020

  32. [40]

    Zhi Tian, Chunhua Shen, Hao Chen, and Tong He. 2019. Fcos: Fully convolutional one-stage object detection. InIEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 9627–9636

    2019

  33. [41]

    Yanguang Sun, Chunyan Xu, Jian Yang, Hanyu Xuan, and Lei Luo. 2024. Frequency-spatial entanglement learning for camouflaged object detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision. 343–360

    2024

  34. [42]

    Jinwang Wang, Wen Yang, Haowen Guo, Ruixiang Zhang, and Gui-Song Xia

  35. [43]

    Jialian Wu, Chunluan Zhou, Qian Zhang, Ming Yang, and Junsong Yuan. 2020. Self-mimic learning for small-scale pedestrian detection. InProceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 2012–2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Thang Vu, Hyunjun Jang, Trung X Pham, and Chang Yoo. 2019. Cascade RPN: Delving into high-quality region proposal network with adaptive convolution. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems32 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Chang Xu, Jinwang Wang, Wen Yang, Huai Yu, Lei Yu, and Gui-Song Xia. 2022. Detecting tiny objects in aerial images: A normalized Wasserstein distance and a new benchmark.ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing190 (2022), 79–93

    2022

  38. [46]

    Chang Xu, Jinwang Wang, Wen Yang, Huai Yu, Lei Yu, and Gui-Song Xia. 2022. RFLA: Gaussian receptive field based label assignment for tiny object detection. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. 526–543

    2022

  39. [47]

    Chang Xu, Jinwang Wang, Wen Yang, and Lei Yu. 2021. Dot distance for tiny object detection in aerial images. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and MM ’26, November 10–14, 2026, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Zihan Yang, Yang Guo, Hongxing Zhang, Dan Lu, & Siyuan Yao. Pattern Recogn...

    2021

  40. [48]

    Xingxing Xie, Gong Cheng, Jiabao Wang, Xiwen Yao, and Junwei Han. 2021. Ori- ented R-CNN for object detection. InIEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 3520–3529

    2021

  41. [49]

    Chenhongyi Yang, Zehao Huang, and Naiyan Wang. 2022. QueryDet: Cascaded sparse query for accelerating high-resolution small object detection. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 13668–13677

    2022

  42. [50]

    Siyuan Yao, Yang Guo, Yanyang Yan, Wenqi Ren, and Xiaochun Cao. 2025. Unc- Track: Reliable Visual Object Tracking With Uncertainty-Aware Prototype Mem- ory Network.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing34 (2025), 3533–3546

    2025

  43. [51]

    Siyuan Yao, Xiaoguang Han, Hua Zhang, Xiao Wang, and Xiaochun Cao. 2021. Learning Deep Lucas-Kanade Siamese Network for Visual Tracking.IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing30 (2021), 4814–4827

    2021

  44. [52]

    Yongchao Xu, Mingtao Fu, Qimeng Wang, Yukang Wang, Kai Chen, Gui-Song Xia, and Xiang Bai. 2020. Gliding vertex on the horizontal bounding box for multi- oriented object detection.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence43, 4 (2020), 1452–1459

    2020

  45. [53]

    Siyuan Yao, Hao Sun, Tian-Zhu Xiang, Xiao Wang, and Xiaochun Cao. 2024. Hierarchical graph interaction transformer with dynamic token clustering for camouflaged object detection.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing33 (2024), 5936–5948

    2024

  46. [54]

    Siyuan Yao, Rui Zhu, Ziqi Wang, Wenqi Ren, Yanyang Yan, and Xiaochun Cao

  47. [55]

    Botao Ye, Hong Chang, Bingpeng Ma, Shiguang Shan, and Xilin Chen. 2022. Joint feature learning and relation modeling for tracking: A one-stream framework. In European Conference on Computer Vision. 341–357

    2022

  48. [56]

    Siyuan Yao, Dongxiu Liu, Taotao Li, Shengjie Li, Wenqi Ren, and Xiaochun Cao

  49. [57]

    Xiang Yuan, Gong Cheng, Jiacheng Cheng, Ruixiang Yao, and Junwei Han. 2026. Unc-SOD: An Uncertainty Learning Framework for Small Object Detection.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing35 (2026), 1127–1142

    2026

  50. [58]

    Xiang Yuan, Gong Cheng, Kebing Yan, Qinghua Zeng, and Junwei Han. 2023. Small Object Detection via Coarse-to-fine Proposal Generation and Imitation Learning. InIEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 6317–6327

    2023

  51. [59]

    Chang-Bin Zhang, Yujie Zhong, and Kai Han. 2025. Mr. DETR: Instructive Multi- Route Training for Detection Transformers. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 9933–9943

    2025

  52. [60]

    InIEEE International Conference on Computer Vision

    UMDATrack: Unified multi-domain adaptive tracking under adverse weather conditions. InIEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 6466– 6475

  53. [61]

    Ni, and Heung-Yeung Shum

    Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Shilong Liu, Lei Zhang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Lionel M. Ni, and Heung-Yeung Shum. 2023. DINO: DETR with Improved DeNoising Anchor Boxes for End-to-End Object Detection. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  54. [62]

    Hongtian Yu, Yunjie Tian, Qixiang Ye, and Yunfan Liu. 2024. Spatial transform decoupling for oriented object detection. InAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, Vol. 38. 6782–6790

    2024

  55. [63]

    Zhuangzhuang Zhou and Yingying Zhu. 2024. KLDet: Detecting Tiny Objects in Remote Sensing Images via Kullback–Leibler Divergence.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing62 (2024), 1–16

    2024

  56. [64]

    Xizhou Zhu, Weijie Su, Lewei Lu, Bin Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. 2021. Deformable {DETR}: Deformable Transformers for End-to-End Object Detection. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  57. [66]

    Dawei Zhang, Yanwei Fu, and Zhonglong Zheng. 2022. UAST: Uncertainty-aware siamese tracking. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. 26161–26175

    2022

  58. [68]

    Shifeng Zhang, Cheng Chi, Yongqiang Yao, Zhen Lei, and Stan Z Li. 2020. Bridging the gap between anchor-based and anchor-free detection via adaptive training sample selection. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 9759–9768

    2020

  59. [2019]

    In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Bounding box regression with uncertainty for accurate object detection. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2888–2897

  60. [2021]

    InIEEE International Conference on Pattern Recognition

    Tiny Object Detection in Aerial Images. InIEEE International Conference on Pattern Recognition. 3791–3798

  61. [2025]

    15162- 15171 pages

    DEIM: DETR with Improved Matching for Fast Convergence. 15162- 15171 pages

  62. [2026]

    UAGLNet: Uncertainty-Aggregated Global–Local Fusion Network With Cooperative CNN–Transformer for Building Extraction.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing64 (2026), 1–14

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.