Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

YOLOv11-RGBT: Towards a Comprehensive Single-Stage Multispectral Object Detection Framework

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · 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 freezing a pretrained infrared detector and adding a visible-light branch through zero-initialized convolutions raises multispectral detection to 47.61% mAP on FLIR.

desk verdict Useful multispectral detection framework, but the headline FLIR gain is inflated by comparing MCF against non-pretrained IR baselines; the controlled gains are much smaller. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14696 v2 pith:2VEDOXY5 submitted 2025-06-17 cs.CV

Dahang Wan , Rongsheng Lu , Yang Fang , Xianli Lang , Shuangbao Shu , Jingjing Chen , Siyuan Shen , Ting Xu
show 1 more author
Zecong Ye
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords multispectralobjectdetectionYOLOv11-RGBTcontrollablefine-tuningP3mid-fusionRGB-thermalpedestriansingle-stagedetectorfeaturefusionstrategy
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 sets out to give single-stage object detectors a reusable recipe for combining visible (RGB) and thermal infrared images. Its central proposal is YOLOv11-RGBT, a framework that instantiates several multispectral fusion modes on YOLO-family and transformer-based single-stage detectors, with two specific improvements: fuse the modalities once at the P3 feature layer instead of at many layers, and apply multispectral controllable fine-tuning (MCF), which freezes a pretrained single-modality model while a trainable second-modality branch is connected through zero-initialized convolutions. The authors report that on FLIR this combination consistently improves the infrared-only YOLOv11 baselines by 3.41-5.65 mAP, reaching 47.61% for the largest model, and that the same strategy generalizes to LLVIP and M3FD. The reason a sympathetic reader would care is that the recipe is architecture-agnostic and cheap: it upgrades an already-trained detector rather than training a fused network from scratch. The evidence stands or falls on whether the comparisons are controlled fairly across training protocols.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing mechanisms are P3 mid-fusion and multispectral controllable fine-tuning (MCF). P3 mid-fusion concatenates the RGB and infrared feature maps only at the P3 layer of the neck and passes them through a trainable module, instead of fusing at P3, P4, and P5; the paper's hypothesis is that aligned multispectral features are redundant, so fewer fusion nodes reduce interfering and mismatched information. MCF copies a pretrained YOLOv11, typically the infrared model, into a frozen branch and attaches a trainable visible-light branch whose features are added into the frozen network through Zero Conv2d layers, trainable 2D convolutions initialized to zero, so the visible signal starts at zero and is learned gradually. These mechanisms jointly encode the claim that one modality should be treated as dominant and the other as a corrective stream.

What would settle it

Train the five YOLOv11 sizes on FLIR under one fixed protocol chosen before seeing test results: identical COCO initialization, identical epochs, identical optimizer and learning rate, and evaluate infrared-only, Midfusion, Midfusion-P3, and RGBT-MCF variants. If MCF does not beat infrared-only across all five sizes, or P3 does not beat multi-node fusion in most sizes, the paper's central claim of consistent gains fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a single-stage multispectral detector should not fuse modalities everywhere. Fusing the RGB and infrared streams once at the P3 feature level beats the common P3-to-P5 multi-node fusion in most FLIR comparisons while using fewer parameters and fewer FLOPs. When pretrained weights are available, MCF extends this by freezing a COCO-pretrained infrared model and adding a trainable visible-light branch whose outputs enter through Zero Conv2d layers, 2D convolutions initialized to zero; this lets the visible stream contribute without overwriting the infrared features. The reported outcome is consistent gains over infrared-only models on FLIR (3.41-5.65 mAP, maximum 47.61% AP), a smaller but real gain on LLVIP, and a dataset-dependent outcome on M3FD where full multispectral transfer learning often beats MCF. The paper also reports that one modality usually dominates, infrared on FLIR and LLVIP and visible on VEDAI and M3FD, so the dominant modality should be the frozen branch.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reported improvements are caused by P3 fusion and MCF rather than by differences in training protocol, because the paper mixes non-pretrained and COCO-pretrained comparisons, chooses optimizers and learning rates per model after seeing results, and compares against literature numbers that were not reimplemented under identical conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, an existing COCO-pretrained infrared detector can be turned into a multispectral detector by fine-tuning a small visible-light branch while the rest of the network stays frozen, cutting training cost and preserving learned features.
  • P3 single-node fusion provides a smaller and faster multispectral model than multi-node fusion, which matters for real-time deployment on edge devices.
  • The same fusion modes are reported to transfer across YOLOv3 through YOLOv12 and RT-DETR, so the recipe is not tied to one architecture.
  • Practitioners should choose which modality to freeze based on the dataset: the paper reports infrared dominance on FLIR and LLVIP and visible dominance on VEDAI and M3FD.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because MCF works by zero-initialized gating, it should extend to any pixel-aligned auxiliary modality such as depth, event cameras, or SAR, and the natural test is whether the same frozen-backbone recipe transfers without architectural changes.
  • Editorial inference: the redundancy explanation predicts that on misaligned or poorly registered RGB-T data, multi-node fusion should regain its advantage; running the paper's fusion-mode table on a misaligned benchmark would directly test this prediction.
  • Editorial inference: the paper selects optimizers and learning rates per model after observing results, so the headline 47.61% is an upper envelope; a fixed-protocol rerun is the stress test that would separate method strength from tuning luck.
  • Editorial inference: when full transfer learning already beats MCF, as on M3FD, MCF is best used as a fallback; a hybrid that unfreezes a few late layers after MCF might combine the stability of frozen features with the flexibility of full fine-tuning.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents YOLOv11-RGBT, a single-stage multispectral object detection framework built on YOLOv11. The framework implements six fusion modes (early, mid, mid-to-late, late, score, and weight-sharing) across YOLOv3-YOLOv12 and RT-DETR, proposes a P3 single-node mid-fusion strategy, and introduces Multispectral Controllable Fine-tuning (MCF), which freezes a pretrained single-modality model and injects the other modality through zero-initialized convolution layers. The authors report experiments on FLIR, LLVIP, and M3FD, with the headline result that MCF consistently improves YOLOv11 models by 3.41%-5.65% mAP on FLIR, reaching 47.61% AP.

Significance. If validated, the framework is a potentially useful engineering contribution: it provides a unified codebase for multispectral detection across many YOLO versions, and the observation that single-node P3 fusion often matches or beats multi-node fusion with fewer parameters is an interesting empirical finding. The MCF strategy, adapting ControlNet-style zero convolutions to modality injection, is a plausible and simple design. The open-sourced code and the breadth of models and datasets are strengths. However, the central quantitative claim is currently undermined by uncontrolled baseline choices and post-hoc hyperparameter selection; once those are corrected, the paper would provide a solid benchmark-style contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §4.4; Tables 3 and 7] The headline improvement range in the abstract is not supported by the controlled comparison in Table 7. The values 41.18/43.89/44.79/44.93/47.61 for YOLOv11n/s/m/l/x-RGBT-MCF are compared against the non-pretrained IR baselines in Table 3 (37.31/39.74/41.38/41.45/41.96) to obtain 3.41%-5.65%, but Table 7 itself reports COCO-pretrained IR baselines of 40.30/43.44/44.12/43.87/44.43. Against those same-protocol baselines the gains are 0.45-3.18 mAP, and YOLOv11s gains only 0.45. The sentence in §4.4 that the algorithm 'boosted mAP from 41.96% to 47.61%' likewise mixes the non-pretrained IR baseline with the pretrained MCF result. Please recompute all reported deltas using baselines trained under the same pretraining protocol, or state explicitly that the headline range is relative to a non-pretrained baseline.
  2. [§4.4, Table 6] The per-model choice of optimizer and learning rate (Adam for YOLOv11n/l/x, SGD for YOLOv11s/m) is made after observing the test-set results, and no seed or error-bar information is reported. This transforms the 'consistent improvement' claim into a post-hoc selection of the best of three configurations per model size. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds under a fixed, pre-specified training recipe, or use a separate validation split for hyperparameter selection and state this explicitly.
  3. [§4.6, Table 12] On M3FD, every MCF model underperforms the corresponding Midfusion-P3 model in Table 12 (e.g., YOLOv11s: 60.13 vs 62.20 AP; YOLOv11x: 64.23 vs 66.17 AP). The text in §4.6 discloses this, but the abstract and contribution (3) present MCF as a general mechanism for 'enhancing model adaptability and robustness'; the claims should be scoped to datasets such as FLIR and LLVIP where the controlled comparison is positive, or the method should be made adaptive to dataset characteristics.
  4. [§4.4, Table 7; §4.6, Table 12] Comparisons with prior published methods are drawn from literature numbers without reimplementation and without controlling for pretraining, input resolution, evaluation protocol, or training schedule. For example, the text in §4.4 claims superiority over CFT and other 2019-2024 methods based on Table 7, but those rows come from different papers and pipelines. Please either reimplement the most competitive baselines under the same protocol or clearly mark literature numbers as indicative and avoid 'better than' claims without a controlled comparison.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 4.5] The sentence 'YOLOv11s trained on multispectral data achieves an AP50 of 89.84% and an AP of 53.29%, which is better than the visible-light-only model's AP50 of 89.84% and AP of 53.29%' contains identical numbers for the two conditions and does not match Table 8; the values correspond to the RGB pretrained row in Table 9. Please correct the sentence and re-check similar narrative statements against the tables.
  2. [Table 5] The YOLOv4-Tiny row is labeled 'YOLOv4-Tiny-Midfusion' although the table reports Midfusion-P3 results; rename it for consistency with the other rows.
  3. [Section 3.5, Eq. (4)] The sentence 'K*K is consistent with formula 4' should refer to Eq. (2), and the DFL summation over p=0..3 should be clarified.
  4. [Tables 6, 13, 14] The column header 'SDG' should read 'SGD'.
  5. [Tables 2 and 3] The parameter counts for YOLOv3-Tiny (98.89M) and YOLOv3 (11.57M) appear to be swapped relative to the usual model sizes; please verify and correct.
  6. [Section 4.3] The text says experiments were run on five datasets, but only FLIR, LLVIP, and M3FD receive tabulated results; KAIST and VEDAI are mentioned but not tabulated. Please state clearly which datasets are used for quantitative evaluation.
  7. [Abstract; §3.1] The abstract and contribution (1) mention six fusion modes, while §3.1 says the framework supports five modes plus weight-sharing; unify the count.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional or self-citation circularity; the headline FLIR gain is undermined by an inconsistent baseline comparison and per-model hyperparameter selection, but these are experimental-validity issues rather than circular reasoning.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical engineering study rather than a mathematical derivation chain. The proposed components (dual-backbone fusion at P3, and MCF freezing an infrared-pretrained YOLOv11 while adding visible-light features through Zero Conv2d layers) are described operationally, and all claimed improvements are measured mAP values from training runs, not quantities derived from the definitions of the method. No equation in Sections 3.4-3.5 makes the reported FLIR gains follow by construction, and no 'uniqueness theorem' or load-bearing self-citation is invoked. The two self-citations ([1] YOLO-MIF and [39] Mixed Local Channel Attention) appear only as general references in the introduction and related work; they do not support the central claim. The main concern is that the abstract's 'consistently improved YOLOv11 models' mAP by 3.41%-5.65%' is computed by comparing the COCO-pretrained MCF models in Table 7 against the non-pretrained infrared-only models in Table 3, even though Table 7 itself lists COCO-pretrained infrared baselines (e.g., YOLOv11x IR at 44.43% AP versus the non-pretrained 41.96% used in the text). Under the controlled pretrained comparison the gains are 0.45-3.18 mAP, not 3.41-5.65. Table 6 also selects the optimizer and learning rate per model after observing validation results, so the reported MCF numbers are selected maxima rather than independent predictions. These are serious threats to the validity of the headline claim, but they are not circularity: no predicted quantity is equivalent to its input by definition, and the mAP values are still measured outcomes rather than forced algebraic consequences. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited, and the appropriate finding is a low circularity score with the experimental caveats noted.

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

The central claims rest on three domain assumptions (COCO-to-IR transfer, dataset alignment, baseline comparability) and four hand-chosen hyperparameters or design choices. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Per-model optimizer and learning rate for MCF = Adam lr0=0.001 for YOLOv11n/l/x, SGD lr0=0.01 for YOLOv11s/m on FLIR (Table 6)
    Reported MCF results are the best of three hyperparameter settings per model; this post-hoc selection inflates the headline gains.
  • Loss weights (λ_dfl, λ_cls, λ_loc) = 1.0, 0.5, 0.05
    Section 3.5 fixes these without ablation for multispectral inputs; inherited from YOLOv11 defaults.
  • Training schedule = 300 epochs, batch size 16 (8 when GPU memory limited)
    Section 4.3 states hyperparameters were 'barely altered'; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Fusion location and node count = P3, single node
    Section 3.2 selects the P3 layer after comparing multi-node and single-node fusion; this is a model selection made on the same datasets later used for evaluation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption COCO-pretrained YOLOv11 weights transfer useful features to infrared imagery after fine-tuning.
    MCF freezes an infrared-trained model initialized from COCO (Section 3.3); if COCO features did not transfer to thermal images, the frozen branch could not anchor the fusion.
  • domain assumption RGB and IR pairs are spatially aligned, so feature maps can be concatenated or added at identical positions.
    Section 3.2 relies on aligned multispectral features, and Section 4.2 notes FLIR and LLVIP are pre-registered; the method has no alignment handling.
  • domain assumption Baseline metrics cited from other papers are comparable to the authors' runs.
    Tables 7 and 9 mix literature numbers (CFT, IGT, Fusion-Mamba) with the authors' results under different training protocols; comparability is assumed.
  • domain assumption YOLOv11 architecture and loss as cited in [16] behave as described.
    Section 3.5 reuses the YOLOv11 loss without modification; the framework's results inherit the correctness of the cited implementation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of YOLOv11-RGBT: Towards a Comprehensive Single-Stage Multispectral Object Detection Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2VEDOXY5

@misc{pith2026250614696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: YOLOv11-RGBT: Towards a Comprehensive Single-Stage Multispectral Object Detection Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2VEDOXY5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14696}
}
read the original abstract

Multispectral object detection, which integrates information from multiple bands, can enhance detection accuracy and environmental adaptability, holding great application potential across various fields. Although existing methods have made progress in cross-modal interaction, low-light conditions, and model lightweight, there are still challenges like the lack of a unified single-stage framework, difficulty in balancing performance and fusion strategy, and unreasonable modality weight allocation. To address these, based on the YOLOv11 framework, we present YOLOv11-RGBT, a new comprehensive multimodal object detection framework. We designed six multispectral fusion modes and successfully applied them to models from YOLOv3 to YOLOv12 and RT-DETR. After reevaluating the importance of the two modalities, we proposed a P3 mid-fusion strategy and multispectral controllable fine-tuning (MCF) strategy for multispectral models. These improvements optimize feature fusion, reduce redundancy and mismatches, and boost overall model performance. Experiments show our framework excels on three major open-source multispectral object detection datasets, like LLVIP and FLIR. Particularly, the multispectral controllable fine-tuning strategy significantly enhanced model adaptability and robustness. On the FLIR dataset, it consistently improved YOLOv11 models' mAP by 3.41%-5.65%, reaching a maximum of 47.61%, verifying the framework and strategies' effectiveness. The code is available at: https://github.com/wandahangFY/YOLOv11-RGBT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14696 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall architecture of the YOLOv11-RGBT. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The comparison of multi-spectral intermediate fusion methods for single-stage models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The overall architecture of the YOLOv11-RGBT-MCF. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the number of objects in each dataset. The horizontal axis is the category name, and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The transfer learning results of several YOLOv11 models after loading COCO-pretrained weights. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The comparison results of multispectral controllable fine-tuning (MCF) strategy utilized different hyperpa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Feature maps visualization of multi-spectral fusion from stage2 (P2) of YOLOv11 model, illustrating enhanced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Some detection results on M3FD and VEDAI datasets of YOLOv11-RGBT-MCF. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ProtoHGF-Net: Prototype HyperGraph Fusion with Intra-modal Calibration for RGBT Object Detection

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ProtoHGF-Net fuses RGB and thermal features via prototype-level hypergraph propagation with teacher-mask calibration, reporting 85.9%, 88.2%, and 79.1% mAP50 on DroneVehicle, DVTOD, and FLIR.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    YOLO-MIF: Improved YOLOv8 with multi-information fusion for object detection in gray-scale images

    Dahang Wan, Rongsheng Lu, Bingtao Hu, Jiajie Yin, Siyuan Shen, Ting xu, and Xianli Lang. YOLO-MIF: Improved YOLOv8 with multi-information fusion for object detection in gray-scale images. 62:102709

  2. [2]

    CoCoNet: Coupled contrastive learning network with multi-level feature ensemble for multi-modality image fusion

    Jinyuan Liu, Runjia Lin, Guanyao Wu, Risheng Liu, Zhongxuan Luo, and Xin Fan. CoCoNet: Coupled contrastive learning network with multi-level feature ensemble for multi-modality image fusion. 132(5):1748–1775

  3. [3]

    Multi- interactive feature learning and a full-time multi-modality benchmark for image fusion and segmentation

    Jinyuan Liu, Zhu Liu, Guanyao Wu, Long Ma, Risheng Liu, Wei Zhong, Zhongxuan Luo, and Xin Fan. Multi- interactive feature learning and a full-time multi-modality benchmark for image fusion and segmentation. In2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 8081–8090. ISSN: 2380-7504

  4. [4]

    Target-aware dual adversarial learning and a multi-scenario multi-modality benchmark to fuse infrared and visible for object detection

    Jinyuan Liu, Xin Fan, Zhanbo Huang, Guanyao Wu, Risheng Liu, Wei Zhong, and Zhongxuan Luo. Target-aware dual adversarial learning and a multi-scenario multi-modality benchmark to fuse infrared and visible for object detection. In2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5792–5801. ISSN: 2575-7075

  5. [5]

    Multispectral pedestrian detection: Benchmark dataset and baseline

    Soonmin Hwang, Jaesik Park, Namil Kim, Yukyung Choi, and In So Kweon. Multispectral pedestrian detection: Benchmark dataset and baseline. In2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 1037–1045. IEEE

  6. [6]

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

    Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection

  7. [7]

    YOLO9000: Better, faster, stronger

    Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. YOLO9000: Better, faster, stronger

    work page

  8. [8]

    YOLOv3: An incremental improvement

    Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. YOLOv3: An incremental improvement

    work page

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    YOLOv4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection

    Alexey Bochkovskiy, Chien-Yao Wang, and Hong-Yuan Mark Liao. YOLOv4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection

  2. [10]

    original-date: 2020-05-18T03:45:11Z

    ultralytics/yolov5. original-date: 2020-05-18T03:45:11Z

    2020

  3. [11]

    YOLOv6: A single-stage object detection framework for industrial applications

    Chuyi Li, Lulu Li, Hongliang Jiang, Kaiheng Weng, Yifei Geng, Liang Li, Zaidan Ke, Qingyuan Li, Meng Cheng, Weiqiang Nie, Yiduo Li, Bo Zhang, Yufei Liang, Linyuan Zhou, Xiaoming Xu, Xiangxiang Chu, Xiaoming Wei, and Xiaolin Wei. YOLOv6: A single-stage object detection framewor...

  4. [12]

    YOLOv7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors

    Chien-Yao Wang, Alexey Bochkovskiy, and Hong-Yuan Mark Liao. YOLOv7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors. pages 7464–7475

  5. [13]

    YOLO by ultralytics

    Glenn Jocher, Ayush Chaurasia, and Jing Qiu. YOLO by ultralytics. original-date: 2022-09-11T16:39:45Z

    2022

  6. [14]

    YOLOv9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information

    Chien-Yao Wang, I.-Hau Yeh, and Hong-Yuan Mark Liao. YOLOv9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information. version: 1

  7. [15]

    YOLOv10: Real-time end-to-end object detection

    Ao Wang, Hui Chen, Lihao Liu, Kai Chen, Zijia Lin, Jungong Han, and Guiguang Ding. YOLOv10: Real-time end-to-end object detection

  8. [16]

    YOLOv11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements

    Rahima Khanam and Muhammad Hussain. YOLOv11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements. 25 YOLOv11-RGBT

  9. [17]

    YOLOv12: Attention-centric real-time object detectors

    Yunjie Tian, Qixiang Ye, and David Doermann. YOLOv12: Attention-centric real-time object detectors

  10. [18]

    Wei Liu, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Christian Szegedy, Scott Reed, Cheng-Yang Fu, and Alexander C. Berg. SSD: Single shot MultiBox detector. In Bastian Leibe, Jiri Matas, Nicu Sebe, and Max Welling, editors, Computer Vision – ECCV 2016, volume 9905, pages 21–37. Springe...

    2016

  11. [19]

    DSSD : Deconvolutional single shot detector

    Cheng-Yang Fu, Wei Liu, Ananth Ranga, Ambrish Tyagi, and Alexander C Berg. DSSD : Deconvolutional single shot detector. page 11

  12. [20]

    Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation

    Ross Girshick, Jeff Donahue, Trevor Darrell, and Jitendra Malik. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. version: 5

  13. [21]

    Fast r-CNN

    Ross Girshick. Fast r-CNN

  14. [22]

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

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. Faster r-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. 39(6):1137–1149. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

  15. [23]

    Cascade r-CNN: Delving into high quality object detection

    Zhaowei Cai and Nuno Vasconcelos. Cascade r-CNN: Delving into high quality object detection. In2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6154–6162. ISSN: 2575-7075

  16. [24]

    Pixel-level image fusion: A survey of the state of the art

    Shutao Li, Xudong Kang, Leyuan Fang, Jianwen Hu, and Haitao Yin. Pixel-level image fusion: A survey of the state of the art. 33:100–112

  17. [25]

    MDCNN: multispectral pansharpening based on a multiscale dilated convolutional neural network

    Meilin Dong, Weisheng Li, Xuesong Liang, and Xiayan Zhang. MDCNN: multispectral pansharpening based on a multiscale dilated convolutional neural network. 15(3):036516. Publisher: SPIE

  18. [26]

    CrossFuse: A novel cross attention mechanism based infrared and visible image fusion approach

    Hui Li and Xiao-Jun Wu. CrossFuse: A novel cross attention mechanism based infrared and visible image fusion approach. 103:102147

  19. [28]

    Illumination-aware faster r-CNN for robust multispectral pedestrian detection

    Chengyang Li, Dan Song, Ruofeng Tong, and Min Tang. Illumination-aware faster r-CNN for robust multispectral pedestrian detection. 85:161–171

  20. [29]

    Jingjing Liu, Shaoting Zhang, Shu Wang, and Dimitris N. Metaxas. Multispectral deep neural networks for pedestrian detection

  21. [30]

    Chachlakis, Raymond Ptucha, Panos P

    Manish Sharma, Mayur Dhanaraj, Srivallabha Karnam, Dimitris G. Chachlakis, Raymond Ptucha, Panos P. Markopoulos, and Eli Saber. YOLOrs: Object detection in multimodal remote sensing imagery. 14:1497–1508. Conference Name: IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observ...

  22. [31]

    Cross-modality fusion transformer for multispectral object detection

    Fang Qingyun, Han Dapeng, and Wang Zhaokui. Cross-modality fusion transformer for multispectral object detection

  23. [32]

    Cross-modality attentive feature fusion for object detection in multispectral remote sensing imagery

    Qingyun Fang and Zhaokui Wang. Cross-modality attentive feature fusion for object detection in multispectral remote sensing imagery

  24. [33]

    ICAFusion: Iterative cross-attention guided feature fusion for multispectral object detection

    Jifeng Shen, Yifei Chen, Yue Liu, Xin Zuo, Heng Fan, and Wankou Yang. ICAFusion: Iterative cross-attention guided feature fusion for multispectral object detection. 145:109913

  25. [34]

    Multiscale cross-modal homogeneity enhancement and confidence-aware fusion for multispectral pedestrian detection

    Ruimin Li, Jiajun Xiang, Feixiang Sun, Ye Yuan, Longwu Yuan, and Shuiping Gou. Multiscale cross-modal homogeneity enhancement and confidence-aware fusion for multispectral pedestrian detection. 26:852–863. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Multimedia

  26. [35]

    Improving multispectral pedestrian detection by addressing modality imbalance problems

    Kailai Zhou, Linsen Chen, and Xun Cao. Improving multispectral pedestrian detection by addressing modality imbalance problems

  27. [36]

    PIAFusion: A progressive infrared and visible image fusion network based on illumination aware

    Linfeng Tang, Jiteng Yuan, Hao Zhang, Xingyu Jiang, and Jiayi Ma. PIAFusion: A progressive infrared and visible image fusion network based on illumination aware. 83-84:79–92

  28. [37]

    Illumination-guided RGBT object detection with inter- and intra-modality fusion

    Yan Zhang, Huai Yu, Yujie He, Xinya Wang, and Wen Yang. Illumination-guided RGBT object detection with inter- and intra-modality fusion. 72:1–13. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement

  29. [38]

    CBAM: Convolutional block attention module

    Sanghyun Woo, Jongchan Park, Joon-Young Lee, and In So Kweon. CBAM: Convolutional block attention module

  30. [39]

    Mixed local channel attention for object detection

    Dahang Wan, Rongsheng Lu, Siyuan Shen, Ting Xu, Xianli Lang, and Zhijie Ren. Mixed local channel attention for object detection. 123:106442. 26 YOLOv11-RGBT

  31. [40]

    Multispectral fusion for object detection with cyclic fuse-and-refine blocks

    Heng Zhang, Elisa Fromont, Sébastien Lefevre, and Bruno Avignon. Multispectral fusion for object detection with cyclic fuse-and-refine blocks

  32. [41]

    Vehicle detection in aerial imagery : A small target detection benchmark

    Sebastien Razakarivony and Frederic Jurie. Vehicle detection in aerial imagery : A small target detection benchmark. 34:187–203

  33. [42]

    Adopting the YOLOv4 architecture for low-latency multispectral pedestrian detection in autonomous driving

  34. [43]

    Cross-modality complementary information fusion for multispectral pedestrian detection

    Chaoqi Yan, Hong Zhang, Xuliang Li, Yifan Yang, and Ding Yuan. Cross-modality complementary information fusion for multispectral pedestrian detection. 35(14):10361–10386

  35. [44]

    LLVIP: A visible-infrared paired dataset for low-light vision

    Xinyu Jia, Chuang Zhu, Minzhen Li, Wenqi Tang, and Wenli Zhou. LLVIP: A visible-infrared paired dataset for low-light vision. In2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW), pages 3489–3497. ISSN: 2473-9944

  36. [45]

    KAIST multi-spectral day/night data set for autonomous and assisted driving

    Yukyung Choi, Namil Kim, Soonmin Hwang, Kibaek Park, Jae Shin Yoon, Kyounghwan An, and In So Kweon. KAIST multi-spectral day/night data set for autonomous and assisted driving. 19(3):934–948

  37. [46]

    Focal loss for dense object detection

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

  38. [47]

    Lichtenberg, and Jianxiong Xiao

    Shuran Song, Samuel P. Lichtenberg, and Jianxiong Xiao. SUN RGB-d: A RGB-d scene understanding benchmark suite. pages 567–576

  39. [48]

    DynamicEarthNet: Daily multi-spectral satellite dataset for semantic change segmentation

    Aysim Toker, Lukas Kondmann, Mark Weber, Marvin Eisenberger, Andres Camero, Jingliang Hu, Ariadna Pregel Hoderlein, Caglar Senaras, Timothy Davis, Daniel Cremers, Giovanni Marchisio, Xiao Xiang Zhu, and Laura Leal-Taixe. DynamicEarthNet: Daily multi-spectral satellite dataset ...

  40. [49]

    DAMSDet: Dynamic adaptive multispec- tral detection transformer with competitive query selection and adaptive feature fusion

    Junjie Guo, Chenqiang Gao, Fangcen Liu, Deyu Meng, and Xinbo Gao. DAMSDet: Dynamic adaptive multispec- tral detection transformer with competitive query selection and adaptive feature fusion

  41. [50]

    Investigating GF-5 hyperspectral and GF-1 multispectral data fusion methods for multitemporal change analysis

    Weiwei Sun, Kai Ren, Gang Yang, Xiangchao Meng, and Yinnian Liu. Investigating GF-5 hyperspectral and GF-1 multispectral data fusion methods for multitemporal change analysis. In2019 10th International Workshop on the Analysis of Multitemporal Remote Sensing Images (MultiTemp)...

  42. [51]

    Image fusion with guided filtering

    Shutao Li, Xudong Kang, and Jianwen Hu. Image fusion with guided filtering. 22(7):2864–2875. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Image Processing

  43. [52]

    Detail fusion GAN: High-quality translation for unpaired images with GAN-based data augmentation

    Ling Li, Yaochen Li, Chuan Wu, Hang Dong, Peilin Jiang, and Fei Wang. Detail fusion GAN: High-quality translation for unpaired images with GAN-based data augmentation. In2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 1731–1736. ISSN: 1051-4651

  44. [53]

    MAF-YOLO: Multi-modal attention fusion based YOLO for pedestrian detection

    Yongjie Xue, Zhiyong Ju, Yuming Li, and Wenxin Zhang. MAF-YOLO: Multi-modal attention fusion based YOLO for pedestrian detection. 118:103906

  45. [54]

    Learning multi-domain convolu- tional network for RGB-t visual tracking

    Xingming Zhang, Xuehan Zhang, Xuedan Du, Xiangming Zhou, and Jun Yin. Learning multi-domain convolu- tional network for RGB-t visual tracking. In2018 11th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics (CISP-BMEI), pages 1–6

  46. [55]

    DETRs beat YOLOs on real-time object detection

    Yian Zhao, Wenyu Lv, Shangliang Xu, Jinman Wei, Guanzhong Wang, Qingqing Dang, Yi Liu, and Jie Chen. DETRs beat YOLOs on real-time object detection. In2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16965–16974. ISSN: 2575-7075

  47. [56]

    PP-YOLOE: An evolved version of YOLO

    Shangliang Xu, Xinxin Wang, Wenyu Lv, Qinyao Chang, Cheng Cui, Kaipeng Deng, Guanzhong Wang, Qingqing Dang, Shengyu Wei, Yuning Du, and Baohua Lai. PP-YOLOE: An evolved version of YOLO

  48. [57]

    Multispectral pansharpening with radiative transfer-based detail-injection modeling for preserving changes in vegetation cover

    Andrea Garzelli, Bruno Aiazzi, Luciano Alparone, Simone Lolli, and Gemine Vivone. Multispectral pansharpening with radiative transfer-based detail-injection modeling for preserving changes in vegetation cover. 10(8):1308. Number: 8 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishi...

  49. [58]

    Rethinking early-fusion strategies for improved multispectral object detection

    Xue Zhang, Si-Yuan Cao, Fang Wang, Runmin Zhang, Zhe Wu, Xiaohan Zhang, Xiaokai Bai, and Hui-Liang Shen. Rethinking early-fusion strategies for improved multispectral object detection. pages 1–15

  50. [59]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. pages 3836–3847

  51. [60]

    Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Dollár

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, Lubomir Bourdev, Ross Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Dollár. Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context

  52. [61]

    TFDet: Target-aware fusion for RGB-t pedestrian detection

    Xue Zhang, Xiaohan Zhang, Jiangtao Wang, Jiacheng Ying, Zehua Sheng, Heng Yu, Chunguang Li, and Hui-Liang Shen. TFDet: Target-aware fusion for RGB-t pedestrian detection. pages 1–15

  53. [62]

    Multimodal object detection via probabilistic ensembling

    Yi-Ting Chen, Jinghao Shi, Zelin Ye, Christoph Mertz, Deva Ramanan, and Shu Kong. Multimodal object detection via probabilistic ensembling. In Shai Avidan, Gabriel Brostow, Moustapha Cissé, Giovanni Maria Farinella, and Tal Hassner, editors,Computer Vision – ECCV 2022, pages 1...

    2022

  54. [63]

    Multi-scale aggregation transformers for multispectral object detection

    Shuai You, Xuedong Xie, Yujian Feng, Chaojun Mei, and Yimu Ji. Multi-scale aggregation transformers for multispectral object detection. 30:1172–1176

  55. [64]

    Multi-modal gated mixture of local-to-global experts for dynamic image fusion

    Bing Cao, Yiming Sun, Pengfei Zhu, and Qinghua Hu. Multi-modal gated mixture of local-to-global experts for dynamic image fusion. In2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 23498–23507. IEEE

  56. [65]

    Multimodal object detection by channel switching and spatial attention

    Yue Cao, Junchi Bin, Jozsef Hamari, Erik Blasch, and Zheng Liu. Multimodal object detection by channel switching and spatial attention. In2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 403–411. ISSN: 2160-7516

  57. [66]

    Multi-modal feature pyramid transformer for RGB-infrared object detection

    Yaohui Zhu, Xiaoyu Sun, Miao Wang, and Hua Huang. Multi-modal feature pyramid transformer for RGB-infrared object detection. 24(9):9984–9995

  58. [67]

    CMX: Cross-modal fusion for RGB-x semantic segmentation with transformers

    Jiaming Zhang, Huayao Liu, Kailun Yang, Xinxin Hu, Ruiping Liu, and Rainer Stiefelhagen. CMX: Cross-modal fusion for RGB-x semantic segmentation with transformers. 24(12):14679–14694

  59. [68]

    LRAF-net: Long-range attention fusion network for visible–infrared object detection

    Haolong Fu, Shixun Wang, Puhong Duan, Changyan Xiao, Renwei Dian, Shutao Li, and Zhiyong Li. LRAF-net: Long-range attention fusion network for visible–infrared object detection. 35(10):13232–13245. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems

  60. [69]

    IGT: Illumination-guided RGB-t object detection with transformers

    Keyu Chen, Jinqiang Liu, and Han Zhang. IGT: Illumination-guided RGB-t object detection with transformers. 268:110423

  61. [70]

    YOLO-adaptor: A fast adaptive one-stage detector for non-aligned visible-infrared object detection

    Haolong Fu, Hanhao Liu, Jin Yuan, Xuan He, Jiacheng Lin, and Zhiyong Li. YOLO-adaptor: A fast adaptive one-stage detector for non-aligned visible-infrared object detection. pages 1–14

  62. [71]

    Fusion-mamba for cross-modality object detection

    Wenhao Dong, Haodong Zhu, Shaohui Lin, Xiaoyan Luo, Yunhang Shen, Xuhui Liu, Juan Zhang, Guodong Guo, and Baochang Zhang. Fusion-mamba for cross-modality object detection

  63. [72]

    FusionGAN: A generative adversarial network for infrared and visible image fusion

    Jiayi Ma, Wei Yu, Pengwei Liang, Chang Li, and Junjun Jiang. FusionGAN: A generative adversarial network for infrared and visible image fusion. 48:11–26

  64. [73]

    DenseFuse: A fusion approach to infrared and visible images

    Hui Li and Xiao-Jun Wu. DenseFuse: A fusion approach to infrared and visible images. 28(5):2614–2623

  65. [74]

    U2fusion: A unified unsupervised image fusion network

    Han Xu, Jiayi Ma, Junjun Jiang, Xiaojie Guo, and Haibin Ling. U2fusion: A unified unsupervised image fusion network. 44(1):502–518

  66. [75]

    Weakly aligned feature fusion for multimodal object detection

    Lu Zhang, Zhiyong Liu, Xiangyu Zhu, Zhan Song, Xu Yang, Zhen Lei, and Hong Qiao. Weakly aligned feature fusion for multimodal object detection. 36(3):4145–4159

  67. [76]

    DDFM: Denoising diffusion model for multi-modality image fusion

    Zixiang Zhao, Haowen Bai, Yuanzhi Zhu, Jiangshe Zhang, Shuang Xu, Yulun Zhang, Kai Zhang, Deyu Meng, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. DDFM: Denoising diffusion model for multi-modality image fusion. In2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 8048–...

  68. [77]

    Learning a dynamic cross-modal network for multispectral pedestrian detection

    Jin Xie, Rao Muhammad Anwer, Hisham Cholakkal, Jing Nie, Jiale Cao, Jorma Laaksonen, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Learning a dynamic cross-modal network for multispectral pedestrian detection. InProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM ’22, pages 4043–...

  69. [78]

    DetFusion: A detection-driven infrared and visible image fusion network

    Yiming Sun, Bing Cao, Pengfei Zhu, and Qinghua Hu. DetFusion: A detection-driven infrared and visible image fusion network. InProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 4003–4011. ACM

  70. [79]

    Lightweight transformer for multi-modal object detection (student abstract)

    Yue Cao, Yanshuo Fan, Junchi Bin, and Zheng Liu. Lightweight transformer for multi-modal object detection (student abstract). InProceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty- Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial In...

  71. [80]

    DIVFusion: Darkness-free infrared and visible image fusion

    Linfeng Tang, Xinyu Xiang, Hao Zhang, Meiqi Gong, and Jiayi Ma. DIVFusion: Darkness-free infrared and visible image fusion. 91:477–493

  72. [81]

    DM-fusion: Deep model-driven network for heterogeneous image fusion

    Guoxia Xu, Chunming He, Hao Wang, Hu Zhu, and Weiping Ding. DM-fusion: Deep model-driven network for heterogeneous image fusion. 35(7):10071–10085

  73. [82]

    Multispectral object detection via cross-modal conflict-aware learning

    Xiao He, Chang Tang, Xin Zou, and Wei Zhang. Multispectral object detection via cross-modal conflict-aware learning. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM ’23, pages 1465–1474. Association for Computing Machinery

  74. [83]

    MetaFusion: Infrared and visible image fusion via meta-feature embedding from object detection

    Wenda Zhao, Shigeng Xie, Fan Zhao, You He, and Huchuan Lu. MetaFusion: Infrared and visible image fusion via meta-feature embedding from object detection. In2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 13955–13965. ISSN: 2575-7075. 28 YOLOv11-RGBT

  75. [84]

    Toward generalizable multispectral pedestrian detection

    Fuchen Chu, Jiale Cao, Zhanjie Song, Zhuang Shao, Yanwei Pang, and Xuelong Li. Toward generalizable multispectral pedestrian detection. 25(5):3739–3750

  76. [85]

    CAMF: An interpretable infrared and visible image fusion network based on class activation mapping

    Linfeng Tang, Ziang Chen, Jun Huang, and Jiayi Ma. CAMF: An interpretable infrared and visible image fusion network based on class activation mapping. 26:4776–4791

  77. [86]

    LENFusion: A joint low-light enhancement and fusion network for nighttime infrared and visible image fusion

    Jun Chen, Liling Yang, Wei Liu, Xin Tian, and Jiayi Ma. LENFusion: A joint low-light enhancement and fusion network for nighttime infrared and visible image fusion. 73:1–15

  78. [87]

    Diff-IF: Multi-modality image fusion via diffusion model with fusion knowledge prior

    Xunpeng Yi, Linfeng Tang, Hao Zhang, Han Xu, and Jiayi Ma. Diff-IF: Multi-modality image fusion via diffusion model with fusion knowledge prior. 110:102450. 29

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.