Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Understand Before Detect: Vision--Language Learning for Omni-Domain Infrared Small Target Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that infrared small-target detection should begin with language-supervised scene understanding, and that its two-stage vision-language detector, JinSight, raises WideIRSTD IoU by over 14% relative to prior methods.

desk verdict The OmniIRST-VL dataset and JinSight framework are real contributions, but the headline gains are mostly backbone scale; the language-supervision effect is modest and cross-dataset claims lack a same-capacity control. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07015 v1 pith:VIJZUD5O submitted 2026-08-07 cs.CV

Haoyang Yuan , Boyang Li , Yingqian Wang , Yimian Dai , Nuo Chen , Xinfei Huang , Shuqi Yi , Zaiping Lin
show 2 more authors
Weidong Sheng Wei An
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords infraredsmalltargetdetectionomni-domaingeneralizationvision-languagelearningvisualinstructiontuningdensepredictionlow-rankcross-attentionmultimodalbenchmark
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 infrared small-target (IRST) detection trained only on binary target/background masks loses the scene-level semantics that stay stable across heterogeneous infrared domains, which is why domain-specific detectors degrade under domain shift. It proposes "understand before detect": first instruction-tune a generative vision-language model on infrared understanding tasks, then transfer the language-tuned visual backbone to dense detection. Building on that paradigm, JinSight combines an IRST-oriented visual instruction-tuning stage with a low-rank Latent Semantic Interaction module that exchanges global semantics with fine-grained spatial features, and the paper contributes OmniIRST-VL, the first large-scale vision-language dataset for omni-domain IRST detection with 39,701 instruction-response pairs. If the paradigm holds, a single model can replace a collection of domain-specific infrared detectors and generalize to unseen imaging conditions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-stage "understand before detect" pipeline. In Stage I, the paper takes the InternVL2.5-1B generative vision-language model and fine-tunes its ViT, projector, and language model on the OmniIRST-VL instruction mixture with the autoregressive objective $\mathcal{L}_{\text{inst}} = -\sum_{t=1}^{|y|} \log p(y_t \mid I, q, y_{<t})$, then keeps the instruction-tuned ViT as an IRST-aware backbone. In Stage II, the language projector and decoder are dropped, and Latent Semantic Interaction (LSI) modules are interleaved with the ViT blocks: each LSI block runs bidirectional cross-attention in a latent space of dimension $r \ll D$, transferring local spatial details from multi-scale features into ViT tokens and propagating global semantics back, with a low-rank FFN refining the latent tokens. OmniIRST-VL supplies 39,701 instruction-response pairs across six tasks (detailed captioning, physical VQA, image- and region-level counting, image- and region-level grounding), organized into scene-oriented and target-centric groups. The design's purpose is to make the encoder retain scene context and target-context relations that binary masks throw away, so that downstream dense prediction sees domain-invariant semantics.

What would settle it

Train the same InternVL ViT, initialized from the same pretrained weights, directly into the same dense-prediction decoder on the same training split without Stage I language tuning and with a matching training budget; if its IoU on WideIRSTD approaches or exceeds 42.94, the paradigm's claimed contribution is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that generative language supervision, applied before any dense-prediction training, reshapes an infrared visual encoder so that it carries domain-invariant semantics rather than domain-specific low-level statistics. Under this claim, the autoregressive objective forces the vision transformer to keep spatial and semantic evidence about few-pixel targets, while language ties heterogeneous imaging conditions (NIR/SWIR/LWIR, land/aerial/space platforms) to a shared vocabulary; afterwards, the same backbone can be dropped into a standard dense-prediction head and outperform task-specific detectors. On the WideIRSTD benchmark the paper reports an IoU of 42.94 against 36.62 for the strongest visual baseline, Text-IRSTD, a relative improvement it summarizes as over 14%, and on leave-one-dataset-out tests it reports the highest detection probability and IoU on each of three held-out datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that language-guided understanding, not the much larger pretrained backbone, is what lets a single detector generalize across infrared domains; the paper reports no same-capacity visual-only control.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single JinSight model can be deployed across land, aerial, and space imaging platforms and across NIR, SWIR, and LWIR bands without per-domain retraining.
  • Text is used only as training-time supervision: at inference the language branch is removed, and detection runs on infrared images alone.
  • The low-rank interaction is also an efficiency win: in the paper's latent-dimension ablation, setting $r=128$ roughly halves latency relative to the no-LSI baseline while raising IoU.
  • Both instruction groups contribute to the gain: removing either scene-oriented or target-centric instructions lowers IoU and detection probability, supporting the claim that holistic understanding, not just localization text, drives the improvement.
  • OmniIRST-VL provides a shared evaluation ground for large vision-language models on infrared understanding, with a four-option single-choice format for discriminative tracks and open-ended caption generation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the encoder is grounded in language, a natural extension is zero-shot target discovery, where a user describes a new target type in text and the model segments it without mask supervision for that type.
  • The same two-stage recipe could transfer to other sparse-object settings where scene context matters, such as tiny lesions in medical images or small vessels in satellite imagery.
  • The four-option benchmark format could be complemented by open-ended evaluation of the same grounding and counting questions, since a model may score well on option selection while failing to generate a correct coordinate or count.
  • The task ordering in OmniIRST-VL suggests a curriculum variant: train on scene-oriented tasks first (captioning, physical VQA), then on target-centric tasks (counting, grounding); the paper trains all six tasks as one shuffled mixture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. JinSight is a two-stage framework for omni-domain infrared small target detection. Stage I instruction-tunes a generative VLM (InternVL2.5-1B) on OmniIRST-VL, a new dataset of 39.7k image-instruction-response pairs derived from WideIRSTD, covering captioning, physical VQA, counting, and grounding. Stage II transfers the tuned ViT to dense prediction via UperNet and a low-rank Latent Semantic Interaction (LSI) module that exchanges global semantics with multi-scale spatial features. The paper claims consistent state-of-the-art detection performance, including over 14% IoU improvement on WideIRSTD, and attributes the gains to language supervision that learns domain-invariant semantics.

Significance. The OmniIRST-VL dataset is a substantial new resource: it spans six instruction tasks, multiple platforms and spectral bands, includes expert verification, and will be released with code and weights. The internal ablation in Table 4 is well designed and shows that instruction tuning and LSI add consistent, if modest, gains over a same-backbone visual baseline. The leave-one-dataset-out evaluation protocol is a good methodological choice. However, the paper's central claim of consistent state-of-the-art performance is not yet established because the main comparisons in Table 2 are confounded by model capacity: the same backbone without any language supervision already beats all published baselines. The cross-dataset generalization claim lacks a same-capacity visual-only control. If the authors can address this capacity confound, the work would be a solid contribution to the IRST community.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2 Table 2; §5.3 Table 4] The main comparison is confounded by model capacity. JinSight uses a 314M-parameter InternVL ViT backbone, whereas the best visual baseline (Text-IRSTD) has 181M parameters and most baselines have under 15M. Table 4's 'w/o IVIT, w/o LSI' row shows that the same 314M ViT plus UperNet, with no language supervision and no LSI, already reaches 40.72 IoU and 70.28 Pd on WideIRSTD, exceeding every method in Table 2 (best SOTA IoU: Text-IRSTD at 36.62). The full JinSight reaches 42.94 IoU, so the gain attributable to the proposed paradigm is about 2.2 IoU (5.5% relative), not the 'over 14%' claimed in the abstract. For the three cross-dataset generalization tasks in Table 2, no same-capacity visual-only control is reported, so the claim that JinSight 'consistently transfers across heterogeneous domains' is not established against the most plausible alternative explanation. Please add a visual-only baseline using the same InternVL ViT backbone (with and without LSI) on all four evaluation settings.
  2. [§9.1 vs §5.3 Table 5] The implementation details state that the LSI latent dimension is set to r=128, but Table 5 reports r=256 as giving the highest IoU (42.16 vs 41.79 for r=128). If the main results use r=128, the paper should justify that choice explicitly; if r=256 is optimal, the main experimental results in Table 2 should be updated accordingly. This inconsistency matters for reproducibility and for the reported SOTA numbers.
  3. [Table 3] The comparison of JinSight-1B with generic VLMs is not a controlled test of the 'understand before detect' paradigm. JinSight-1B is fine-tuned on OmniIRST-Train, while InternVL2.5-1B, Qwen3-VL-2B, and LLaVA-NeXT-7B are evaluated zero-shot; the improvements could simply reflect in-distribution training. A same-initialization baseline fine-tuned on generic visual instruction data (or on OmniIRST-VL with a subset of instructions) would be needed to attribute the gains to the proposed instruction set.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrase 'over 14% IoU improvement' is ambiguous (relative vs absolute) and is misleading in light of the capacity confound; please state the baseline and the relative/absolute interpretation explicitly.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 contains typographical errors ('Descirbe' and the malformed closing tag '<\point>' in the example); please proofread the figure text.
  3. [Table 5] The memory usage with LSI (e.g., 9.43 GB at r=64) is lower than without LSI (16.92 GB), which is counterintuitive since LSI adds parameters; please explain this result.
  4. [References] The reference for EarthDial (Sagar Soni et al., 2025) has a garbled author list; please correct the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the method is evaluated on external held-out benchmarks, the ablations are internal, and the central claims do not reduce to the training inputs by construction.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. Stage I optimizes the autoregressive objective in Eq. (1) on OmniIRST-VL, and Stage II's LSI is the bidirectional cross-attention fusion in Eqs. (2)-(3); neither defines the reported IoU or Pd in terms of itself. The headline WideIRSTD result and the cross-dataset results are obtained against external baselines retrained on the same split, with held-out test images, and the cross-dataset test sets are explicitly excluded from both stages of training. Table 4's 'w/o IVIT, w/o LSI' row is an internal baseline, not a circular fit. The OmniIRST-VL dataset is constructed from WideIRSTD, but the benchmark split is image-disjoint from the training split, and the language tasks are not the quantities being predicted in the detection claims. Self-citations, such as DNANet, appear only as baseline comparisons and are not load-bearing premises. The capacity confound raised by the skeptic is a legitimate external-validity and attribution concern, but it is not a case where a prediction is equivalent to its input by definition or where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on the transferability of language-tuned visual features and on the quality of the newly constructed OmniIRST-VL annotations. No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced. The main free parameter is the LSI latent dimension, which is selected on the test benchmark and reported inconsistently between main text and supplementary.

free parameters (2)
  • LSI latent dimension r = 256 in main text (optimal in Table 5), 128 in supplementary implementation details
    Selected based on WideIRSTD test performance in Table 5, without a separate validation split; main and supplementary disagree on the value used for the final model.
  • Number of instruction-tuning epochs = 3
    Fixed to 3 epochs for Stage I with no ablation showing sensitivity; a hyperparameter of the proposed recipe.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Language instruction tuning on the same training images used for detection provides transferable semantics that improve dense prediction.
    This is the core premise of the understand-before-detect paradigm; tested only through the Table 4 ablation on WideIRSTD, not across varying model scales.
  • domain assumption The ViT backbone retains sufficient spatial detail for few-pixel target localization after instruction tuning.
    Stage II relies on the instruction-tuned ViT's tokens; LSI is introduced because ViT features are spatially coarse, but the residual spatial information is assumed adequate (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption Metadata-derived language annotations (band, platform, scene) are correct and learnable from image content.
    OmniIRST-VL annotations are generated from metadata and masks, filtered automatically, and reviewed by experts, but no inter-annotator agreement or validity statistics are reported (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption The multiple-choice benchmark format measures understanding rather than exploitable distractor patterns.
    The held-out benchmark converts tasks to four-option single-choice questions with template-generated distractors; if distractors are systematically weaker, accuracy overstates true understanding (Supplementary Section 7.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understand Before Detect: Vision--Language Learning for Omni-Domain Infrared Small Target Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VIJZUD5O

@misc{pith2026260807015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understand Before Detect: Vision--Language Learning for Omni-Domain Infrared Small Target Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VIJZUD5O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07015}
}
read the original abstract

Omni-domain infrared small target (IRST) detection is crucial for infrared surveillance, yet remains challenging due to heterogeneous imaging domains and inconsistent target characteristics. Previous deep learning-based methods have been developed for visual-only paradigms and achieved promising performance on domain-specific tasks. However, existing methods follow the task-specific supervised learning paradigm. This paradigm simplifies the full-scene infrared observations to sparse target supervision, discarding the semantics that remain invariant across heterogeneous domains. Consequently, detection performance suffers substantially under domain shifts. To handle this issue, we introduce \textbf{``understand before detect''}, a paradigm that formulates omni-domain IRST detection as an understanding-driven process, where holistic infrared target understanding precedes precise detection. Building on this paradigm, we propose \textbf{JinSight}, which first develops holistic IRST understanding through language supervision and then transfers the learned cross-domain representations to precise small-target detection. By grounding infrared representations in language semantics, JinSight enables a single model to generalize across heterogeneous infrared domains. We then introduce Latent Semantic Interaction (LSI), which exchanges language-aligned global semantics with fine-grained spatial features in a compact low-rank space. To address the lack of multimodal omni-domain IRST benchmarks, we build \textbf{OmniIRST-VL}, the first large-scale, highly diverse vision--language dataset for omni-domain IRST detection. It comprises over 39k annotations across six complementary instruction tasks covering both scene-level understanding and target-centric reasoning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07015 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between conventional domain-specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the construction, statistics, and task design of OmniIRST-VL. The top row illustrates the annotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. JinSight architecture. (a) Inputs for Stage I instruction tuning and Stage II dense prediction. (b) The “understand before [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results of different instruction con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative challenges in WideIRSTD, the visual source of OmniIRST-VL. The enlarged regions illustrate how [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison on representative challenging scenes. Red, orange, and green dashed circles indicate correct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aibibu, T.; Lan, J.; Zeng, Y.; Lu, W.; and Gu, N. 2024. Feature-enhanced attention and dual-gelan net (feadg-net) for uav infrared small object detection in traffic surveillance. Drones, 8(7): 304

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    An, X.; Sun, J.; Gui, Z.; and He, W. 2025. Choice: benchmarking the remote sensing capabilities of large vision-language models. In NeurIPS, volume 38

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Bai, S.; Cai, Y.; Chen, R.; Chen, K.; Chen, X.; Cheng, Z.; Deng, L.; Ding, W.; Gao, C.; Ge, C.; et al. 2025. Qwen3-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Chen, S.; Ji, L.; Peng, S.; Zhu, S.; Ye, M.; and Sang, Y. 2025. Language-driven motion prior knowledge learning for moving infrared small target detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Chen, T.; Ye, Z.; Tan, Z.; Gong, T.; Wu, Y.; Chu, Q.; Liu, B.; Yu, N.; and Ye, J. 2024 a . MiM-ISTD: Mamba-in-Mamba for Efficient Infrared Small-Target Detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 62: 1--13

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Chen, Z.; Duan, Y.; Wang, W.; He, J.; Lu, T.; Dai, J.; and Qiao, Y. 2022. Vision transformer adapter for dense predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.08534

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Chen, Z.; Wu, J.; Wang, W.; Su, W.; Chen, G.; Xing, S.; Zhong, M.; Zhang, Q.; Zhu, X.; Lu, L.; et al. 2024 b . InternVL: Scaling up Vision Foundation Models and Aligning for Generic Visual-Linguistic Tasks. In CVPR

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Y.; Lee, I

    Chung, W. Y.; Lee, I. H.; and Park, C. G. 2023. Lightweight infrared small target detection network using full-scale skip connection U-Net. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 20: 1--5

    work page 2023

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Dai, Y.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, F.; and Barnard, K. 2021 a . Asymmetric contextual modulation for infrared small target detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, 950--959

    2021

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    A.; Shah, S

    Danish, M.; Munir, M. A.; Shah, S. R. A.; Kuckreja, K.; Khan, F. S.; Fraccaro, P.; Lacoste, A.; and Khan, S. 2025. Geobench-vlm: Benchmarking vision-language models for geospatial tasks. In ICCV, 7132--7142

    2025

  4. [12]

    I.; Waldner, F.; Caccetta, P.; and Wu, C

    Diakogiannis, F. I.; Waldner, F.; Caccetta, P.; and Wu, C. 2020. ResUNet-a: A deep learning framework for semantic segmentation of remotely sensed data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 162: 94--114

    2020

  5. [13]

    Guo, X.; Lao, J.; Dang, B.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, L.; Ru, L.; Zhong, L.; Huang, Z.; Wu, K.; Hu, D.; et al. 2024. Skysense: A multi-modal remote sensing foundation model towards universal interpretation for earth observation imagery. In CVPR, 27672--27683

    2024

  6. [14]

    Huang, B.; Li, J.; Chen, J.; Wang, G.; Zhao, J.; and Xu, T. 2023. Anti-UAV410: A thermal infrared benchmark and customized scheme for tracking drones in the wild. IEEE TPAMI, 46(5): 2852--2865

    2023

  7. [15]

    Huang, F.; Zheng, S.; Qiu, Z.; Liu, H.; Bai, H.; and Chen, L. 2025. Text-IRSTD: Leveraging Semantic Text to Promote Infrared Small Target Detection in Complex Scenes. In ICCV, 10635--10644

    2025

  8. [16]

    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 TIP, 32: 1745--1758

    2022

  9. [17]

    Li, B.; Ying, X.; Li, R.; Liu, Y.; Shi, Y.; and Li, M. 2024. The first competition on resource-limited infrared small target detection challenge: Methods and results. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09615

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Li, R.; An, W.; Wang, Y.; Ying, X.; Dai, Y.; Wang, L.; Li, M.; Guo, Y.; and Liu, L. 2025. Probing deep into temporal profile makes the infrared small target detector much better. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12766

    2025

  11. [19]

    Li, R.; An, W.; Xiao, C.; Li, B.; Wang, Y.; Li, M.; and Guo, Y. 2023. Direction-coded temporal U-shape module for multiframe infrared small target detection. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems

    2023

  12. [20]

    Lin, C.-Y. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, 74--81

    2004

  13. [21]

    Lin, T.-Y.; Doll \'a r, P.; Girshick, R.; He, K.; Hariharan, B.; and Belongie, S. 2017. Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In CVPR, 2117--2125

    2017

  14. [22]

    Liu, H.; Li, C.; Li, Y.; and Lee, Y. J. 2024 a . Improved Baselines with Visual Instruction Tuning. In CVPR, 26286--26296

    2024

  15. [23]

    Liu, P.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, G.; and Ding, J. 2024 b . Enhanced detection and recognition of road objects in infrared imaging using multi-scale self-attention. Sensors, 24(16): 5404

    2024

  16. [24]

    Liu, Q.; Liu, R.; Zheng, B.; Wang, H.; and Fu, Y. 2024 c . Infrared small target detection with scale and location sensitivity. In CVPR, 17490--17499

    2024

  17. [25]

    Loshchilov, I.; and Hutter, F. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Muhtar, D.; Li, Z.; Gu, F.; Zhang, X.; and Xiao, P. 2024. Lhrs-bot: Empowering remote sensing with vgi-enhanced large multimodal language model. In ECCV, 440--457

    2024

  19. [27]

    Papineni, K.; Roukos, S.; Ward, T.; and Zhu, W.-J. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In ACL, 311--318

    2002

  20. [28]

    W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al

    Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al. 2021. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. In ICML, 8748--8763

    2021

  21. [29]

    Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P.; and Brox, T. 2015. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, 234--241

    2015

  22. [30]

    Sagar Soni, H. D. M. F. M. A. M. M. S. D. P. F. C. W. L. J. K. S. K. F. K., Akshay Dudhane. 2025. EarthDial: Turning Multi-sensory Earth Observations to Interactive Dialogues. ArXiv

    2025

  23. [31]

    Shi, Y.; He, R.; Hui, L.; Li, X.; Yang, J.; Cheng, M.-M.; and Dai, Y. 2025. AuxDet: Auxiliary Metadata Matters for Omni-Domain Infrared Small Target Detection. arXiv e-prints, arXiv--2505

    2025

  24. [32]

    Singh, P.; and Singh, P. 2025. Leveraging Language Prior for Infrared Small Target Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13113

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Vedantam, R.; Lawrence Zitnick, C.; and Parikh, D. 2015. Cider: Consensus-based image description evaluation. In CVPR, 4566--4575

    2015

  26. [34]

    Wu, T.; Li, B.; Luo, Y.; Wang, Y.; Xiao, C.; Liu, T.; Yang, J.; An, W.; and Guo, Y. 2023. MTU-Net: Multilevel TransUNet for Space-Based Infrared Tiny Ship Detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61: 1--15

    2023

  27. [35]

    Wu, X.; Hong, D.; and Chanussot, J. 2022. UIU-Net: U-Net in U-Net for infrared small object detection. IEEE TIP, 32: 364--376

    2022

  28. [36]

    Xiao, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, B.; Jiang, Y.; and Sun, J. 2018. Unified perceptual parsing for scene understanding. In ECCV, 418--434

    2018

  29. [37]

    M.; and Luo, P

    Xie, E.; Wang, W.; Yu, Z.; Anandkumar, A.; Alvarez, J. M.; and Luo, P. 2021. SegFormer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers. NeurIPS, 34: 12077--12090

    2021

  30. [38]

    Xu, W.; Zheng, S.; Wang, C.; Zhang, Z.; Ren, C.; Xu, R.; and Xu, S. 2025. SAMamba: Adaptive state space modeling with hierarchical vision for infrared small target detection. Information Fusion, 124: 103338

    2025

  31. [39]

    Yang, J.; Liu, S.; Wu, J.; Su, X.; Hai, N.; and Huang, X. 2025. Pinwheel-shaped convolution and scale-based dynamic loss for infrared small target detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, 9202--9210

    2025

  32. [40]

    Yuan, M.; Meng, D.; Xi, Z.; Zhao, T.; Zhao, S.; Dai, Y.; and Wei, X. 2026. Seeing Through the Noise: Improving Infrared Small Target Detection and Segmentation from Noise Suppression Perspective. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognit...

    2026

  33. [41]

    Yuan, S.; Qin, H.; Yan, X.; Akhtar, N.; and Mian, A. 2024. Sctransnet: Spatial-channel cross transformer network for infrared small target detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 62: 1--15

    2024

  34. [42]

    Yuksekgonul, M.; Bianchi, F.; Kalluri, P.; Jurafsky, D.; and Zou, J. 2023. When and why Vision-Language Models behave like Bags-of-Words, and what to do about it? In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  35. [43]

    Zhang, M.; Li, X.; Gao, F.; Guo, J.; Gao, X.; and Zhang, J. 2025. SAIST: Segment any infrared small target model guided by contrastive language-image pretraining. In CVPR, 9549--9558

    2025

  36. [44]

    Zhang, M.; Zhang, R.; Yang, Y.; Bai, H.; Zhang, J.; and Guo, J. 2022. ISNet: Shape matters for infrared small target detection. In CVPR, 877--886

    2022

  37. [45]

    Zhang, W.; Cai, M.; Zhang, T.; Zhuang, Y.; and Mao, X. 2024. EarthGPT: A Universal Multi-modal Large Language Model for Multi-sensor Image Comprehension in Remote Sensing Domain. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 62: 1--27

    2024

  38. [46]

    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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.