Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

WoodYOLO: A Novel Object Detector for Wood Species Detection in Microscopic Images

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read WoodYOLO, a purpose-built YOLO variant for microscopic wood images, reaches an F2 score of 0.848 at IoU 0.3 and beats YOLOv7-W6 by 6.5 points and YOLOv10-M by 12.9 points.

desk verdict Solid niche engineering paper with a plausible but statistically unsupported headline claim; the single-split evaluation with no error bars is the main weakness. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11738 v1 pith:6FIQF34H submitted 2024-11-18 cs.CV cs.AI

Lars Nieradzik , Henrike Stephani , Jördis Sieburg-Rockel , Stephanie Helmling , Andrea Olbrich , Stephanie Wrage , Janis Keuper This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords objectdetectionmicroscopicimagingwoodspeciesidentificationvesselelementYOLOhigh-resolutionmicroscopyF2scoreforestprotection
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 sets out to automate a bottleneck in wood species verification: locating vessel elements, the water-conducting cells whose shapes differ among hardwood genera, in very large microscope images of macerated wood. It presents WoodYOLO, a custom YOLO-style detector trained at 2048-by-2048 resolution with a single-class head, no anchor-box clustering, and a pair of hyperparameters that cap object width and height. On a dataset of 767 images with 118,287 annotated vessel elements, the best configuration scores F2 0.848 at an IoU threshold of 0.3, compared with 0.783 for YOLOv7-W6 and 0.719 for YOLOv10-M, while using roughly 3-4 times less memory. The paper's broader claim is that general-purpose detector designs tuned on COCO do not automatically transfer to narrow, high-resolution domains, and that a from-scratch task-specific detector can win instead.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a single-class, YOLO-style detection head that outputs five values per grid cell — center x, center y, width, height, and confidence — with width and height formulas $\sigma(f)^2 g_w m_w$ and $\sigma(f)^2 g_h m_h$. The hyperparameters $m_w, m_h \in [0,1]$ fix the maximum object size, replacing the usual anchor-box clustering step and simplifying the loss. Training combines an IoU-based regression loss with a binary cross-entropy confidence loss, and the evaluation metric is F2 at a fixed IoU threshold of 0.3, chosen because the application needs high recall and tolerates imprecise box overlap.

What would settle it

Train WoodYOLO and YOLOv7-W6 on the same 613 images and evaluate on five random 154-image validation folds, reporting mean and standard deviation of F2 at IoU 0.3 and at IoU 0.5, plus COCO-style average precision; if the mean gap shrinks below about two points or the ordering flips at the stricter threshold, the claim of significant outperformance is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a purpose-built detector can beat state-of-the-art general YOLO variants on the specific task of vessel-element localization in microscopic wood images. WoodYOLO combines a shallow YOLOv7-tiny-derived neck with a single-class prediction head and a size-capping scheme: predicted width and height are written as $\sigma(f)^2 g_w m_w$ and $\sigma(f)^2 g_h m_h$, where $m_w$ and $m_h$ are user-set maximum fractions of image width and height. With this configuration the paper reports F2 0.848 at IoU 0.3, outperforming YOLOv7-W6 (0.783) and YOLOv10-M (0.719) and matching or beating the need for a 5184-by-5184 input with a much lighter 2048-by-2048 training resolution. The paper also reports that mosaic augmentation lowers F2 by 6.2 points, multi-positive center sampling helps only with zero neighbors, and other COCO-oriented tricks do not help, supporting its argument for task-specific design.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison leans entirely on a single 613/154 train-validation split and a custom F2 metric at IoU 0.3; if that split is unrepresentative or the threshold is too forgiving, the reported margin over YOLOv7 and YOLOv10 may not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Automated vessel-element localization of this quality could make paper and pulp wood-species verification faster, cheaper, and less dependent on a small pool of expert wood anatomists.
  • For domains far from general-purpose benchmarks, a custom detector built from scratch can outperform newer general YOLO releases, meaning version number is not a reliable proxy for real-world performance.
  • COCO-proven techniques such as mosaic augmentation can actively hurt a specialized detector; the paper's ablations give a concrete counterexample with a 6.2-point F2 drop.
  • The size-capping anchor scheme removes the need for anchor clustering and should simplify deployment on other single-class detection tasks with bounded object sizes.
  • WoodYOLO's 8-10 GB training memory at 2048-by-2048 makes high-resolution microscopy detection feasible on consumer-grade hardware, and the architecture scales up to 6144-by-6144 when more memory is available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reported margins were re-evaluated with 5-fold cross-validation and standard AP at IoU 0.5, the ranking might shift; the paper's own admission that the split was chosen for time constraints makes this a natural next check.
  • The F2@0.3 metric is so recall-favoring that part of the advantage over YOLOv7-YOLOv10 may come from the metric rather than from localization quality; a follow-up that filters false positives with a classifier, which the authors already propose, would show how much of the margin is real.
  • The size-capping head is a transferable idea: any single-class detection task with a known maximum object size (cell counting, particle detection, aerial imagery) could adopt the same trick without needing anchor-box clustering.
  • The broader lesson that COCO optimizations fail to transfer is drawn from one dataset; replicating the ablation on a second microscopy or satellite dataset would test whether it is a general phenomenon or a property of this particular image type.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces WoodYOLO, a YOLO-based object detector for locating vessel elements in large, high-resolution microscopic images of macerated hardwood. The authors adapt a YOLOv7-tiny-style architecture with a VGG11 backbone, a custom box parametrization using two scalar hyperparameters (maximum width and height) instead of anchor boxes, a two-term loss combining IoU regression and BCE confidence, and a task-specific F2 metric at IoU 0.3. On a dataset of 767 images (613 train / 154 validation) they report an F2 score of 0.848 for WoodYOLO, outperforming YOLOv10-S/M and YOLOv7-tiny/W6 by 12.9% and 6.5%, respectively, while using less VRAM. The paper also presents ablations of backbones, multi-positive neighbor settings, IoU loss variants, image size, and training techniques such as mosaic augmentation.

Significance. If the reported gains are reproducible, the work is a useful domain application: it demonstrates that a custom, lightweight YOLO variant can beat general-purpose detectors on a specialized high-resolution microscopy task, and it documents that common COCO-oriented techniques (mosaic augmentation, multi-positives, decoupled heads) do not transfer to this setting. The authors provide a substantial amount of experimentation and a from-scratch implementation, which is a strength for reproducibility, though no code or data is released. The scientific significance is currently limited by the evaluation protocol: the central claim of 'significant' improvement rests on a single split without error bars, a custom metric at a single IoU threshold, and comparisons at different input resolutions. These issues are fixable and the contribution is potentially publishable, but the evidence as presented does not yet support the strength of the claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Table 1 and abstract] The central claim that WoodYOLO 'significantly outperforms' YOLOv10 and YOLOv7 is not supported by statistical evidence. The evaluation uses a single train/validation split (613/154 images), and although §4 states that 'initial experiments with 5-fold cross-validations ... found that the metrics are relatively stable across different folds', no fold-wise numbers, means, standard deviations, confidence intervals, or per-image variance are reported. With 154 validation images and wide variability in vessel counts per image, the 6.5% F2 gap over YOLOv7-W6 could plausibly be within split-to-split noise. Please report the 5-fold results (or a bootstrap over images) with mean ± std for all compared models, and avoid the word 'significant' unless a significance test or non-overlapping intervals are provided.
  2. [§3.3 and §4] The custom F2 metric computed at a fixed IoU threshold of 0.3 is threshold-dependent, and the paper does not state how the confidence threshold is chosen for each model. If the confidence threshold (or any hyperparameter) is selected on the same 154-image validation set, the reported gap can be inflated by threshold overfitting. Please report precision-recall curves, the F2 value at multiple confidence thresholds, and additionally provide a standard metric such as AP or mAP at IoU 0.5 and 0.5:0.95 to show that the improvement is not an artifact of the specific low IoU threshold. Also state explicitly how the confidence threshold is set for each model in Table 1.
  3. [§4.1, Table 1] The comparison is not apples-to-apples because models are evaluated at different input resolutions: YOLOv7-W6 is run at 5184×5184 while WoodYOLO uses 2048×2048, and the text explains the higher resolution requires an A100. Higher input resolution generally improves detection performance but with a compute cost, so the reported F2 gaps conflate architectural differences with resolution and resource differences. Please either run the baselines at the same resolution as WoodYOLO, or report performance as a function of resolution and VRAM / inference time for all models. Additionally, YOLOv8 is mentioned in the related work (Qamar et al. use it for macerated fiber segmentation) but is omitted from Table 1; since YOLOv8 is a current state-of-the-art baseline, it should be included or its exclusion justified.
  4. [§4.2, §4.3, Tables 3–6] Several ablation conclusions are based on differences that are small relative to the rounding shown, and no variance estimates are provided. For example, Table 4 shows IoU loss variants spanning only 0.8293–0.8340, yet the text concludes 'GIoU yielded the best performance'; Table 5 shows image size 2048 giving 0.8316 versus 4964/4096 giving 0.8243, and Table 6 reports the anchor-box constraint contribution as 0.848 vs 0.841 (0.7%). Without repeated runs or error bars, these differences may be noise. Please provide uncertainty estimates for the ablations or explicitly state which differences are below the resolution of the evaluation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (2)–(3)] The notation in the loss equations is confusing: 'm' is used for the number of bounding boxes in the loss while the same letter is used for the hyperparameter 'm' in the box parametrization; also 'n' and 'm' are not clearly tied to the grid dimensions. Please rename or define all symbols explicitly.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The box parametrization w = σ(f)^2 · gwi · mw and h = σ(f)^2 · ghi · mh is ambiguous: the text says mw and mh define the maximum width/height relative to the image, but the formula multiplies by the grid width gwi and grid height ghi. It would be clearer to present the scaling to input-image coordinates explicitly, including how the grid indices are added for xc and yc.
  3. [§2] The statement 'YOLOv5 and YOLOv8 have never been published' is imprecise and may distract readers; while those versions lack peer-reviewed papers, they are widely used and the related work itself cites a YOLOv8-based study. Rephrase to say they have not been formally peer-reviewed or provide a citation for that claim.
  4. [§4.1] The sentence 'The parameters of YOLOv10 and YOLOv7 have both been optimized' is unclear — does it mean hyperparameters, pretrained weights, or inference settings? Please specify what optimization was performed for each baseline.
  5. [General] No code or data availability statement is provided. Given the emphasis on reproducibility (the authors note undocumented workarounds in other YOLO implementations), a public release of code and, where possible, annotations would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: WoodYOLO's central claim is an external benchmark comparison, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

WoodYOLO is an empirical object-detection paper. Its central claim—that the proposed detector outperforms YOLOv10 and YOLOv7 by 12.9% and 6.5% in F2 score—rests on measured validation-set numbers in Tables 1 and 6 against independently published architectures (YOLOv7, YOLOv10), not on an equation that folds the target result into the assumptions. The authors' self-citation to Nieradzik et al. (2023) is used for dataset construction and domain context, but the outperformance claim does not reduce to that citation: the baselines are external, and the score is a computed detection metric. The proposed F2@IoU 0.3 metric is domain-motivated (recall-critical application) and the model is optimized for it, but optimizing a model for the metric on which it is later evaluated is standard empirical practice, not circularity. The '0.7%' anchor-box improvement is a controlled ablation (Baseline 0.848 vs. No Maximum Size Constraint 0.841, Table 6), not a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. The paper's acknowledged single train/validation split with unreported variance is a legitimate evaluation-protocol weakness and should be weighed as a correctness risk, but it is not a circular derivation. No self-definitional, fitted-prediction, self-citation-load-bearing, uniqueness-imported, ansatz-smuggled, or renaming step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on user-defined hyperparameters (mw, mh) and domain assumptions about the metric and focal-plane sufficiency. No new physical entities are introduced. The paper is an empirical engineering contribution, so free parameters are design choices rather than fitted constants.

free parameters (2)
  • mw = not reported
    Maximum object width as a fraction of image width; user-defined hyperparameter in the box decoding formula w = sigma(...)^2 * gw * mw (Section 3.1). The paper gives an example of 0.1 but does not report the value used.
  • mh = not reported
    Maximum object height as a fraction of image height; companion hyperparameter to mw, used in h = sigma(...)^2 * gh * mh (Section 3.1). Not reported.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The third focal plane of each microscope image is representative for vessel element detection; additional planes add no significant information.
    Section 4 states 'Only the third of five focal planes of each image was utilized for training, as additional planes did not contribute significant information for detecting the vessel elements.' This is an empirical claim without supporting comparison.
  • domain assumption F2 score at a fixed IoU threshold of 0.3 is the appropriate metric for this application, placing recall over precision and tolerating loose bounding boxes.
    Section 3.3 argues that recall and approximate alignment matter more than precise overlap for downstream classification. The choice affects all conclusions.
  • standard math The YOLO architecture and its components (e.g., YOLOv7-tiny neck, GIoU loss) are correctly implemented and behave as described in the cited papers.
    The model is built from existing components; correctness of the baseline is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WoodYOLO: A Novel Object Detector for Wood Species Detection in Microscopic Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6FIQF34H

@misc{pith2026241111738,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WoodYOLO: A Novel Object Detector for Wood Species Detection in Microscopic Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6FIQF34H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11738}
}
read the original abstract

Wood species identification plays a crucial role in various industries, from ensuring the legality of timber products to advancing ecological conservation efforts. This paper introduces WoodYOLO, a novel object detection algorithm specifically designed for microscopic wood fiber analysis. Our approach adapts the YOLO architecture to address the challenges posed by large, high-resolution microscopy images and the need for high recall in localization of the cell type of interest (vessel elements). Our results show that WoodYOLO significantly outperforms state-of-the-art models, achieving performance gains of 12.9% and 6.5% in F2 score over YOLOv10 and YOLOv7, respectively. This improvement in automated wood cell type localization capabilities contributes to enhancing regulatory compliance, supporting sustainable forestry practices, and promoting biodiversity conservation efforts globally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11738 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Microscope image of macerated hardwood cells including vessel elements. Blue boxes indicate the correctly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Detection architecture based on YOLOv7-tiny [Wang et al., 2022]. "c" = Convolution with BN and ReLU, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The "b" concatenation block consists of convolutions of kernel size 3x3 and 1x1. Each convolution is followed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of predicted bounding boxes (blue) and ground truth boxes (green). A high IoU threshold can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    European Parliament. Regulation (eu) 2023/1115 of the european parliament and of the council of 31 may 2023 on the making available on the union market and the export from the union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing regulation (eu) no 995/2010. Off. J. Eur. Union, 150: 0 206--247, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    A review of recent application of near infrared spectroscopy to wood science and technology

    Satoru Tsuchikawa and Hikaru Kobori. A review of recent application of near infrared spectroscopy to wood science and technology. Journal of Wood Science, 61 0 (3): 0 213--220, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Overview of current practices in data analysis for wood identification-a guide for the different timber tracking methods, 2020

    Nele Schmitz, Hans Beeckman, C \'e line Blanc-Jolivet, Laura Boeschoten, Jez WB Braga, Jos \'e -Antonio Cabezas, Gilles Chaix, Simon Crameri, Bernd Degen, Victor Deklerck, et al. Overview of current practices in data analysis for wood identification-a guide for the different timber tracking methods, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Flaig, Jens Berger, Philip Wenig, Andrea Olbrich, and Bodo Saake

    Max L. Flaig, Jens Berger, Philip Wenig, Andrea Olbrich, and Bodo Saake. Identification of tropical wood species in paper: a new chemotaxonomic method based on extractives. Holzforschung, 77 0 (11-12): 0 860--878, 2023. doi:doi:10.1515/hf-2023-0048. URL https://doi.org/10.1515/hf-2023-0048

    work page doi:10.1515/hf-2023-0048 2023

  5. [5]

    Atlas of vessel elements: Identification of asian timbers

    Stephanie Helmling, Andrea Olbrich, Immo Heinz, and Gerald Koch. Atlas of vessel elements: Identification of asian timbers. Iawa Journal, 39 0 (3): 0 249--352, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Fiber atlas: identification of papermaking fibers

    Marja-Sisko Ilvessalo-Pf \"a ffli. Fiber atlas: identification of papermaking fibers. Springer Science & Business Media, 1995

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Atlas of macroscopic wood identification: with a special focus on timbers used in Europe and CITES-listed species

    Flavio Ruffinatto and Alan Crivellaro. Atlas of macroscopic wood identification: with a special focus on timbers used in Europe and CITES-listed species. Springer Nature, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Computer vision-based wood identification: A review

    Jos \'e Lu \' s Silva, Rui Bordalo, Jos \'e Pissarra, and Paloma de Palacios. Computer vision-based wood identification: A review. Forests, 13 0 (12): 0 2041, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Mywood-premium, 2018

    UTAR and FRIM. Mywood-premium, 2018. URL https://mywoodid.frim.gov.my/

    2018

  2. [10]

    The xylotron: flexible, open-source, image-based macroscopic field identification of wood products

    Prabu Ravindran, Blaise J Thompson, Richard K Soares, and Alex C Wiedenhoeft. The xylotron: flexible, open-source, image-based macroscopic field identification of wood products. Frontiers in plant science, 11: 0 1015, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    The xylophone: toward democratizing access to high-quality macroscopic imaging for wood and other substrates

    Alex C Wiedenhoeft. The xylophone: toward democratizing access to high-quality macroscopic imaging for wood and other substrates. Iawa Journal, 41 0 (4): 0 699--719, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Automating wood species detection and classification in microscopic images of fibrous materials with deep learning, 2023

    Lars Nieradzik, Jördis Sieburg-Rockel, Stephanie Helmling, Janis Keuper, Thomas Weibel, Andrea Olbrich, and Henrike Stephani. Automating wood species detection and classification in microscopic images of fibrous materials with deep learning, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    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, 2015. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0312

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Yolov7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors, 2022

    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, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.02696

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    End-to-end object detection with transformers, 2020

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End-to-end object detection with transformers, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.12872

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Detrs beat yolos on real-time object detection, 2024

    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, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.08069

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ni, and Heung-Yeung Shum

    Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Shilong Liu, Lei Zhang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Lionel M. Ni, and Heung-Yeung Shum. Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to-end object detection, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.03605

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Nms strikes back, 2022

    Jeffrey Ouyang-Zhang, Jang Hyun Cho, Xingyi Zhou, and Philipp Krähenbühl. Nms strikes back, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.06137

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection, 2016

    Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection, 2016. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02640

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Yolo9000: Better, faster, stronger, 2016

    Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. Yolo9000: Better, faster, stronger, 2016. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.08242

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Yolov3: An incremental improvement, 2018

    Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. Yolov3: An incremental improvement, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02767

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Yolov4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection, 2020

    Alexey Bochkovskiy, Chien-Yao Wang, and Hong-Yuan Mark Liao. Yolov4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.10934

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Scaled-yolov4: Scaling cross stage partial network, 2021

    Chien-Yao Wang, Alexey Bochkovskiy, and Hong-Yuan Mark Liao. Scaled-yolov4: Scaling cross stage partial network, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.08036

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Yolox: Exceeding yolo series in 2021, 2021 a

    Zheng Ge, Songtao Liu, Feng Wang, Zeming Li, and Jian Sun. Yolox: Exceeding yolo series in 2021, 2021 a . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.08430

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Yolov6: A single-stage object detection framework for industrial applications, 2022

    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...

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Damo-yolo : A report on real-time object detection design, 2023

    Xianzhe Xu, Yiqi Jiang, Weihua Chen, Yilun Huang, Yuan Zhang, and Xiuyu Sun. Damo-yolo : A report on real-time object detection design, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.15444

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Yolov9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information, 2024 a

    Chien-Yao Wang, I-Hau Yeh, and Hong-Yuan Mark Liao. Yolov9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information, 2024 a . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13616

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Yolov10: Real-time end-to-end object detection, 2024 b

    Ao Wang, Hui Chen, Lihao Liu, Kai Chen, Zijia Lin, Jungong Han, and Guiguang Ding. Yolov10: Real-time end-to-end object detection, 2024 b . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14458

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Pp-yolo: An effective and efficient implementation of object detector, 2020

    Xiang Long, Kaipeng Deng, Guanzhong Wang, Yang Zhang, Qingqing Dang, Yuan Gao, Hui Shen, Jianguo Ren, Shumin Han, Errui Ding, and Shilei Wen. Pp-yolo: An effective and efficient implementation of object detector, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.12099

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Pp-yolov2: A practical object detector, 2021

    Xin Huang, Xinxin Wang, Wenyu Lv, Xiaying Bai, Xiang Long, Kaipeng Deng, Qingqing Dang, Shumin Han, Qiwen Liu, Xiaoguang Hu, Dianhai Yu, Yanjun Ma, and Osamu Yoshie. Pp-yolov2: A practical object detector, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.10419

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Pp-yoloe: An evolved version of yolo, 2022

    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, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.16250

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Segmentation and characterization of macerated fibers and vessels using deep learning

    Saqib Qamar, Abu Imran Baba, Stéphane Verger, and Magnus Andersson. Segmentation and characterization of macerated fibers and vessels using deep learning. Plant Methods, 20 0 (1), August 2024. ISSN 1746-4811. doi:10.1186/s13007-024-01244-w. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13007...

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Automatic cell counting with yolov5: A fluorescence microscopy approach

    Sebastián López Flórez, Alfonso González-Briones, Guillermo Hernández, Carlos Ramos, and Fernando de la Prieta. Automatic cell counting with yolov5: A fluorescence microscopy approach. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 8 0 (3): 0 64, ...

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Bader Aldughayfiq, Farzeen Ashfaq, N. Z. Jhanjhi, and Mamoona Humayun. Yolov5-fpn: A robust framework for multi-sized cell counting in fluorescence images. Diagnostics, 13 0 (13): 0 2280, July 2023. ISSN 2075-4418. doi:10.3390/diagnostics13132280. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3390...

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Yolov7-ma: Improved yolov7-based wheat head detection and counting

    Xiaopeng Meng, Changchun Li, Jingbo Li, Xinyan Li, Fuchen Guo, and Zhen Xiao. Yolov7-ma: Improved yolov7-based wheat head detection and counting. Remote Sensing, 15 0 (15), 2023. ISSN 2072-4292. doi:10.3390/rs15153770. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/15/3770

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Semo-yolo: A multiscale object detection network in satellite remote sensing images

    Peng Li and Cheng Che. Semo-yolo: A multiscale object detection network in satellite remote sensing images. In 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1--8, 2021. doi:10.1109/IJCNN52387.2021.9534343

    2021

  29. [37]

    Preparation of thin sections of synthetic resins and wood-resin composites, and a new macerating method for wood

    GL Franklin. Preparation of thin sections of synthetic resins and wood-resin composites, and a new macerating method for wood. Nature, 155 0 (3924): 0 51--51, 1945

    1945

  30. [38]

    Stephanie Helmling, Andrea Olbrich, Lena Tepe, and Gerald Koch. Qualitative and quantitative characteristics of macerated vessels of 23 mixed tropical hardwood (mth) species: a data collection for the identification of wood species in pulp and paper. Holzforschung, 70 0 (9): 0...

    2016

  31. [39]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition, 2015

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition, 2015. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1556

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A convnet for the 2020s, 2022

    Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao-Yuan Wu, Christoph Feichtenhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. A convnet for the 2020s, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.03545

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition, 2015

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition, 2015. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03385

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cspnet: A new backbone that can enhance learning capability of cnn, 2019

    Chien-Yao Wang, Hong-Yuan Mark Liao, I-Hau Yeh, Yueh-Hua Wu, Ping-Yang Chen, and Jun-Wei Hsieh. Cspnet: A new backbone that can enhance learning capability of cnn, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11929

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Enhancing geometric factors in model learning and inference for object detection and instance segmentation, 2021

    Zhaohui Zheng, Ping Wang, Dongwei Ren, Wei Liu, Rongguang Ye, Qinghua Hu, and Wangmeng Zuo. Enhancing geometric factors in model learning and inference for object detection and instance segmentation, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03572

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Distance-iou loss: Faster and better learning for bounding box regression, 2019

    Zhaohui Zheng, Ping Wang, Wei Liu, Jinze Li, Rongguang Ye, and Dongwei Ren. Distance-iou loss: Faster and better learning for bounding box regression, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08287

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Generalized intersection over union: A metric and a loss for bounding box regression, 2019

    Hamid Rezatofighi, Nathan Tsoi, JunYoung Gwak, Amir Sadeghian, Ian Reid, and Silvio Savarese. Generalized intersection over union: A metric and a loss for bounding box regression, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.09630

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Williams, John Winn, and Andrew Zisserman

    Mark Everingham, Luc Gool, Christopher K. Williams, John Winn, and Andrew Zisserman. The Pascal Visual Object Classes (VOC) Challenge . Int. J. Comput. Vision, 88 0 (2): 0 303–338, jun 2010. ISSN 0920-5691. doi:10.1007/s11263-009-0275-4. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-009-0275-4

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    Fcos: Fully convolutional one-stage object detection, 2019

    Zhi Tian, Chunhua Shen, Hao Chen, and Tong He. Fcos: Fully convolutional one-stage object detection, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.01355

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ota: Optimal transport assignment for object detection, 2021 b

    Zheng Ge, Songtao Liu, Zeming Li, Osamu Yoshie, and Jian Sun. Ota: Optimal transport assignment for object detection, 2021 b . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.14259

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Scott, and Weilin Huang

    Chengjian Feng, Yujie Zhong, Yu Gao, Matthew R. Scott, and Weilin Huang. Tood: Task-aligned one-stage object detection, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07755

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Repvgg: Making vgg-style convnets great again, 2021

    Xiaohan Ding, Xiangyu Zhang, Ningning Ma, Jungong Han, Guiguang Ding, and Jian Sun. Repvgg: Making vgg-style convnets great again, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.03697

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mingxing Tan and Quoc V. Le. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.11946

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Squeeze-and-excitation networks, 2019

    Jie Hu, Li Shen, Samuel Albanie, Gang Sun, and Enhua Wu. Squeeze-and-excitation networks, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.01507

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bag of tricks for image classification with convolutional neural networks, 2018

    Tong He, Zhi Zhang, Hang Zhang, Zhongyue Zhang, Junyuan Xie, and Mu Li. Bag of tricks for image classification with convolutional neural networks, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.01187

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.