Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

What is YOLOv6? A Deep Insight into the Object Detection Model

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that YOLOv6's EfficientRep backbone, Rep-PAN neck, and Efficient Decoupled Head make its models the best real-time detectors on COCO, with YOLOv6-N reaching 37.5% AP at 1187 FPS.

desk verdict A readable digest of the YOLOv6 technical report with no new content, and the copied benchmark numbers are internally inconsistent — the narrative in places reads the AP50 column as AP. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13006 v1 pith:6KNXYSVP submitted 2024-12-17 cs.CV

Athulya Sundaresan Geetha This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords objectdetectionYOLOv6real-timeEfficientRepbackboneRep-PANneckCOCObenchmarkmodelquantizationanchor-freedetector
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 is a descriptive deep dive into YOLOv6, a single-stage industrial object detector. It sets out to show that YOLOv6's hardware-oriented design—the EfficientRep backbone, Rep-PAN neck, and Efficient Decoupled Head—yields the strongest speed-accuracy combination among real-time detectors on the COCO benchmark. The headline numbers are YOLOv6-N reaching 37.5% AP at 1187 FPS and YOLOv6-S reaching 45.0% AP at 484 FPS, both ahead of same-class models such as PPYOLOE-S, YOLOv5-S, YOLOX-S, and YOLOv8-S. A reader would care because the paper ties those numbers to specific architectural decisions—reparameterization, task-aligned label assignment, and quantization-friendly training—which is the information needed to decide whether and how to deploy the model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the YOLOv6 architecture itself: the EfficientRep backbone uses RepBlocks and CSPStackRep blocks so that a multi-branch training structure can be reparameterized into a single-path inference network, which is what lets small variants run at over 1000 FPS; the Rep-PAN neck applies the same reparameterization to multi-scale feature aggregation; and the Efficient Decoupled Head cuts convolution layers while keeping classification and regression separate. Around that core, Task Alignment Learning assigns training targets, Varifocal Loss handles classification, Distribution Focal Loss sharpens box regression, and RepOptimizer plus partial quantization-aware training keep the model accurate after INT8 quantization. The argument is that each component is load-bearing: change the backbone block for larger models, switch label assignment, or drop quantization handling, and the AP/FPS balance in the tables shifts.

What would settle it

Re-running the released YOLOv6 models on the COCO 2017 validation set on an NVIDIA Tesla T4 GPU with the same TensorRT version and batch sizes as Table 12, then comparing measured AP and FPS with the quoted 37.5% AP at 1187 FPS for YOLOv6-N, would settle the claim; a clear shortfall would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that YOLOv6's combination of a reparameterized backbone and neck, an anchor-free Efficient Decoupled Head, Task Alignment Learning for label assignment, and Varifocal plus Distribution Focal losses yields a detector family that dominates its direct competitors at every size tier. The reported evidence is COCO val numbers: YOLOv6-N gets 37.0%/37.5% AP, YOLOv6-S 44.3%/45.0%, YOLOv6-M 49.1%/50.0%, and YOLOv6-L 51.8%/52.8%, with speeds from 1187 FPS down to 116 FPS at batch size 32, while larger 1280-input variants (YOLOv6-L6) reach 57.2% AP. The paper presents this as the result of scaling the same design principles rather than of a single lucky modification, and it explains the training and quantization refinements that make the numbers reproducible in industrial settings.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's claim that YOLOv6 outperforms its rivals rests entirely on benchmark numbers quoted from the YOLOv6 papers; if those numbers are inaccurate or were measured under incompatible settings, the comparative conclusion collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The quoted figures imply YOLOv6-N is the fastest accurate real-time detector in its class, making it a candidate for edge and embedded deployment where latency matters more than top accuracy.
  • The S, M, and L variants form a scaling ladder that keeps one architecture across speed and accuracy budgets, so switching deployment targets does not require changing frameworks.
  • The 1280-input L6 variants reach 57.2% AP, which the paper presents as making YOLOv6 competitive for offline, high-accuracy industrial inspection.
  • The quantization experiments imply that an INT8-deployed YOLOv6-S can keep above 42% AP while losing modest FPS, which matters for production systems that need compressed models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper does not spell out is that Table 12 merges numbers from different source papers, so a fair superiority claim would need all models re-benchmarked on one hardware and software configuration.
  • A testable extension is to rerun YOLOv6-N on a Tesla T4 GPU with TensorRT at batch sizes 1 and 32 and compare measured AP and FPS with 37.5% and 1187 FPS; failure to reproduce would bound the claim to the original authors' environment.
  • The design pattern described here—reparameterized blocks, task-aligned assignment, and quantization-aware training—appears in later YOLO generations, so the paper's descriptive value likely reaches beyond YOLOv6 even though the author does not claim that.
  • For practitioners, the implicit takeaway is to try the Nano variant first when FPS is the binding constraint, because the paper shows the largest speed gap over competitors at that size tier.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a descriptive overview of the YOLOv6 object detection model, covering its EfficientRep backbone, Rep-PAN neck, efficient decoupled head, label assignment (TAL), loss functions (VFL, DFL, SIoU/GIoU), quantization and deployment strategies. It also reports COCO accuracy and inference speed figures for YOLOv6-N/S/M/L and their 1280-input variants, and compares these against prior YOLO versions and competitors such as PPYOLOE, YOLOX, YOLOv5, YOLOv7, and YOLOv8. The abstract and Section 4.3 claim that YOLOv6 variants achieve specific AP/FPS numbers and that YOLOv6-S outperforms PPYOLOE-S, YOLOv5-S, YOLOX-S, and YOLOv8-S.

Significance. If the performance numbers were independently verified and internally consistent, the paper would be a useful practitioner-oriented summary of a real-time detector's capabilities. However, the manuscript reports no experiments of its own; every benchmark table is reproduced from the YOLOv6 technical reports (Li et al., references [48] and [49]), and the quoted numbers contradict each other across the abstract, Section 2.7, Section 4.3, and Table 12. The architectural description is coherent and adequately sourced, but the central empirical claim—that YOLOv6 achieves the stated AP and FPS and outperforms same-class detectors—is not established by this manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table 12] The text reports 'YOLOv6-N achieves a 51.2% AP-val with 1234 FPS' and 'YOLOv6-L shows the highest AP-val of 70.0%' with '121 FPS', but Table 12 lists YOLOv6-N AP val as 37.0%/37.5% and YOLOv6-L AP as 51.8%/52.8%, with AP50 values of 53.1% and 70.3%, respectively. The prose is therefore reading the AP50 column as if it were AP, conflating two different COCO metrics. This misreporting propagates to the abstract, which cites the 37.5% AP and 52.8% AP figures as if they were directly comparable, and it undermines the accuracy claims in the conclusions.
  2. [Abstract vs. Section 2.7 vs. Table 12] The performance numbers for the same model are inconsistent across the manuscript. The abstract states YOLOv6-N achieves 37.5% AP at 1187 FPS; Section 2.7 states 35.9% AP at 1234 FPS; and Table 12 lists 37.0%/37.5% AP and 779/1187 FPS. The paper never explains whether these are different released versions (e.g., v2.0 vs. v3.0), different TensorRT versions, different batch sizes, or different IOU thresholds. Without such an explanation, even the most basic benchmark claim of the paper is ambiguous and cannot be checked.
  3. [Section 1, Section 4.3, Tables 3–12] The paper states its goal is 'to evaluate the YOLOv6 object detection model ... focusing on accuracy and inference speed', yet it contains no experimental section, no measurement methodology, no error analysis, and no code. Every performance table is labeled 'From Li et al.' with citation [48] or [49], meaning the reported numbers are copied from the primary source rather than independently verified. The central claim that YOLOv6 outperforms other detectors is therefore not supported by any evidence generated in this work; it rests entirely on the accuracy of the cited source, which the manuscript itself shows to be internally inconsistent.
  4. [Table 12, Table 11, Section 4.3] The cross-model comparison used for the 'outperforming' statement mixes results from different test protocols. Table 12 marks rows for YOLOX, YOLOv7, and YOLOv8 with '*' for 'batch size 1 or other test variations', and the '†' in Table 11 indicates that some speeds were tested with TensorRT 8 at different batch sizes. Input sizes also differ (e.g., YOLOX-Tiny is 416, while YOLOv6 models are 640). The text does not control for these sources of variation, so AP differences such as 44.9% for YOLOv6-S versus 43.1% for PPYOLOE-S cannot be attributed to model quality rather than to protocol differences. The conclusion that YOLOv6 is superior is not justified by the table as presented.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title contains an extra space: 'D EEP INSIGHT' should read 'DEEP INSIGHT'.
  2. [Section 2.5] The final sentence of Section 2.5 ends mid-word: 'improves the model’s detection mAP by 3' is an incomplete sentence and should be finished or removed.
  3. [References [47] and [49]] References [47] and [49] cite the same arXiv paper by Li et al. (YOLOv6) but are listed as if they were distinct sources; this should be corrected and the citations deduplicated.
  4. [Table 2] The 'Speed Benchmark Hardware' entry reads 'NVIDIA Tesla TensorRT v7.2'; TensorRT is inference software, not hardware, and the specific GPU model (e.g., T4 or A100) is missing from this column.
  5. [Table 12] The header 'AP val AP val 50' is ambiguous; it should be written as 'AP' and 'AP50' to match the two metric columns and to prevent the confusion seen in Section 4.3.
  6. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'from revios models' appears to contain a typo; it should likely be 'from previous models'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper is a secondary survey whose YOLOv6 benchmark figures are quoted from external primary sources, not derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a descriptive survey, not a derivation. Its headline claims (e.g., 'YOLOv6-N achieves 37.5% AP at 1187 FPS') are explicit quotations from the external YOLOv6 primary sources (Li et al., refs [48]-[49], and Rath [64]); the abstract and Section 4.3 fit no parameters, solve no equations, and derive no numbers from any input in the manuscript. No step reduces an output to an input by construction: the numbers are reported benchmarks, not predictions generated from a model fitted here. The author's own prior work (refs [37], [38], [42]) supports only peripheral statements about YOLOv5/YOLOv8/YOLOv10 comparisons and is not load-bearing for the YOLOv6 performance claim. The internal discrepancies between Section 2.7 (35.9% AP / 1234 FPS), Table 12 (37.5% / 1187 FPS), and Section 4.3's reading of the AP50 column as AP (e.g., 51.2% and 70.0% AP-val) are correctness and transcription concerns, not circularity: they do not make the cited benchmark equal to the paper's own inputs. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

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

This review introduces no new parameters, no new axioms beyond trust in the cited sources, and no invented entities. Its entire evidentiary base is a set of benchmark tables quoted from Li et al. and other papers, treated as accurate without verification.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The benchmark numbers reported in the YOLOv6 papers (Li et al., arXiv:2209.02976 and arXiv:2301.05586) are accurate and directly comparable.
    The paper's entire numeric content is a restatement of these tables; it performs no independent verification.
  • domain assumption AP and FPS measurements from different detector papers (YOLOv5, YOLOX, PPYOLOE, YOLOv7, YOLOv8) are directly comparable despite different test protocols.
    Table 12 merges numbers from different sources, some flagged for batch size or IOU threshold, without protocol correction.
  • domain assumption The architectural description of YOLOv6 (EfficientRep backbone, Rep-PAN neck, Efficient Decoupled Head) is correctly paraphrased from the original paper.
    The paper adds no new analysis of these components, so its description is only as trustworthy as the source.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What is YOLOv6? A Deep Insight into the Object Detection Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KNXYSVP

@misc{pith2026241213006,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What is YOLOv6? A Deep Insight into the Object Detection Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KNXYSVP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13006}
}
read the original abstract

This work explores the YOLOv6 object detection model in depth, concentrating on its design framework, optimization techniques, and detection capabilities. YOLOv6's core elements consist of the EfficientRep Backbone for robust feature extraction and the Rep-PAN Neck for seamless feature aggregation, ensuring high-performance object detection. Evaluated on the COCO dataset, YOLOv6-N achieves 37.5\% AP at 1187 FPS on an NVIDIA Tesla T4 GPU. YOLOv6-S reaches 45.0\% AP at 484 FPS, outperforming models like PPYOLOE-S, YOLOv5-S, YOLOX-S, and YOLOv8-S in the same class. Moreover, YOLOv6-M and YOLOv6-L also show better accuracy (50.0\% and 52.8\%) while maintaining comparable inference speeds to other detectors. With an upgraded backbone and neck structure, YOLOv6-L6 delivers cutting-edge accuracy in real-time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13006 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture model of YOLOv6. Adapted from Rath [39]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Performance of YOLOv7 in Kitchen Safety While Handling Knife

    cs.CV 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    YOLOv7 detects knife-handling hazards in a self-captured kitchen video dataset, reaching mAP50-95 0.7879 at epoch 31, but performs poorly on the blade-contact hazard class.

  2. YOLOv4: A Breakthrough in Real-Time Object Detection

    cs.CV 2025-02 conditional

    A review-style preprint that restates YOLOv4's architecture and COCO benchmark numbers from the original 2020 paper without new experiments.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [49]

    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, et al. Yolov6: A single-stage object detection framework for industrial applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.02976, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  2. [48]

    Yolov6 v3

    Chuyi Li, Lulu Li, Yifei Geng, Hongliang Jiang, Meng Cheng, Bo Zhang, Zaidan Ke, Xiaoming Xu, and Xiangxiang Chu. Yolov6 v3. 0: A full-scale reloading. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.05586, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

    A layer-wise surface deformation defect detection by convolutional neural networks in laser powder-bed fusion images

    Muhammad Ayub Ansari, Andrew Crampton, and Simon Parkinson. A layer-wise surface deformation defect detection by convolutional neural networks in laser powder-bed fusion images. Materials, 15(20):7166, 2022

    2022

  4. [2]

    Custom lightweight convolutional neural network architecture for automated detection of damaged pallet racking in warehousing & distribution centers

    Muhammad Hussain and Richard Hill. Custom lightweight convolutional neural network architecture for automated detection of damaged pallet racking in warehousing & distribution centers. IEEE Access, 11:58879– 58889, 2023

    2023

  5. [3]

    Lightweight convolutional network for automated photovoltaic defect detection

    Arsalan Zahid, Muhammad Hussain, Richard Hill, and Hussain Al-Aqrabi. Lightweight convolutional network for automated photovoltaic defect detection. In 2023 9th International Conference on Information Technology Trends (ITT), pages 133–138. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  6. [4]

    Comparative study of computational time that hog-based features used for vehicle detection

    Natthariya Laopracha and Khamron Sunat. Comparative study of computational time that hog-based features used for vehicle detection. In Recent Advances in Information and Communication Technology 2017: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computing and Information Technology (IC2IT), pages 275–284. Springer, 2018

    2017

  7. [5]

    On combining classifiers

    J Kittler, M Hatef, Robert PW Duin, and J Matas. On combining classifiers. ieee transaction on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 1998

    1998

  8. [6]

    Action recognition by dense trajectories

    H Wang, A Klaser, C Schmid, and CL Liu. Action recognition by dense trajectories. cvpr’11, washington, dc, usa. IEEE Computer Society, pages 3169–3176, 2011

    2011

Show all 66 references
  1. [7]

    A database for fine grained activity detection of cooking activities

    Marcus Rohrbach, Sikandar Amin, Mykhaylo Andriluka, and Bernt Schiele. A database for fine grained activity detection of cooking activities. In 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1194–1201. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  2. [8]

    Feature mapping for rice leaf defect detection based on a custom convolutional architecture

    Muhammad Hussain, Hussain Al-Aqrabi, Muhammad Munawar, and Richard Hill. Feature mapping for rice leaf defect detection based on a custom convolutional architecture. Foods, 11(23):3914, 2022

    2022

  3. [9]

    Gun and knife detection based on faster r-cnn for video surveillance

    M Milagro Fernandez-Carrobles, Oscar Deniz, and Fernando Maroto. Gun and knife detection based on faster r-cnn for video surveillance. In Iberian conference on pattern recognition and image analysis, pages 441–452. Springer, 2019

    2019

  4. [10]

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 580–587, 2014

    2014

  5. [11]

    Stable and compact design of memristive googlenet neural network

    Huanhuan Ran, Shiping Wen, Kaibo Shi, and Tingwen Huang. Stable and compact design of memristive googlenet neural network. Neurocomputing, 441:52–63, 2021

    2021

  6. [12]

    Brain tumor detection using mask r-cnn

    Mounika Gajja. Brain tumor detection using mask r-cnn. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst, 12:101–108, 2020

    2020

  7. [13]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM, 60(6):84–90, 2017

    2017

  8. [14]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  9. [15]

    Pedestrian detection based on faster r-cnn

    Shuang Liu, Xing Cui, Jiayi Li, Hui Yang, and Niko Lukaˇc. Pedestrian detection based on faster r-cnn. Interna- tional Journal of Performability Engineering, 15(7):1792, 2019

    2019

  10. [16]

    Classification of picture art style based on vggnet

    Zihan Yang. Classification of picture art style based on vggnet. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 1774, page 012043. IOP Publishing, 2021

    2021

  11. [17]

    Yolo-v5 variant selection algorithm coupled with representative augmentations for modelling production-based variance in automated lightweight pallet racking inspection

    Muhammad Hussain. Yolo-v5 variant selection algorithm coupled with representative augmentations for modelling production-based variance in automated lightweight pallet racking inspection. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 7(2):120, 2023. 13 A.S.G EETHA .: W HAT IS YOLO V6? A D...

    2023

  12. [18]

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 779–788, 2016

    2016

  13. [19]

    A gradient guided architecture coupled with filter fused representations for micro-crack detection in photovoltaic cell surfaces

    Muhammad Hussain, Tianhua Chen, Sofya Titrenko, Pan Su, and Mufti Mahmud. A gradient guided architecture coupled with filter fused representations for micro-crack detection in photovoltaic cell surfaces. IEEE Access, 10:58950–58964, 2022

    2022

  14. [20]

    Yolo9000: better, faster, stronger

    Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. Yolo9000: better, faster, stronger. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7263–7271, 2017

    2017

  15. [21]

    Yolov3: An incremental improvement

    Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. Yolov3: An incremental improvement. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02767, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  16. [22]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10934, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Comprehensive guide to ultralytics yolov5, 2023

    Lakshantha Dissanayake, Glenn Jocher, Q Burhan, and Sergiu Waxmann. Comprehensive guide to ultralytics yolov5, 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7464–7475, 2023

    2023

  19. [26]

    Yolo: A brief history, 2023

    Glenn Jocher, Muhammad Rizwan Munawar, and Ayush Chaurasia. Yolo: A brief history, 2023

    2023

  20. [27]

    Isolated bangla handwritten character recognition with convolutional neural network

    Mujadded Al Rabbani Alif, Sabbir Ahmed, and Muhammad Abul Hasan. Isolated bangla handwritten character recognition with convolutional neural network. In2017 20th International conference of computer and information technology (ICCIT), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  21. [28]

    Yolo object detection explained, 2024

    DataCamp. Yolo object detection explained, 2024. Accessed: 2024-12-13

    2024

  22. [29]

    Using deep convolutional neural network architectures for object classification and detection within x-ray baggage security imagery

    Samet Akcay, Mikolaj E Kundegorski, Chris G Willcocks, and Toby P Breckon. Using deep convolutional neural network architectures for object classification and detection within x-ray baggage security imagery. IEEE transactions on information forensics and security, 13(9):2203–2...

    2018

  23. [30]

    A frame-work assisting the visually impaired people: common object detection and pose estimation in surrounding environment

    Van-Hung Le, Hai Vu, and Thuy Thi Nguyen. A frame-work assisting the visually impaired people: common object detection and pose estimation in surrounding environment. In 2018 5th NAFOSTED conference on information and computer science (NICS), pages 216–221. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  24. [31]

    An evaluation of yolo-based algorithms for hand detection in the kitchen

    Joshua van Staden and Dane Brown. An evaluation of yolo-based algorithms for hand detection in the kitchen. In 2021 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, Computing and Data Communication Systems (icABCD), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  25. [32]

    Improved yolov4 algorithm for safety management of on-site power system work

    Qiang Li, Feng Zhao, Zhongping Xu, Kexin Li, Jing Wang, Haofeng Liu, Liang Qin, and Kaipei Liu. Improved yolov4 algorithm for safety management of on-site power system work. Energy reports, 8:739–746, 2022

    2022

  26. [33]

    You only learn one representation: Unified network for multiple tasks

    CY Wang, IH Yeh, and HYM Liao. You only learn one representation: Unified network for multiple tasks. arxiv

  27. [34]

    Complete and accurate holly fruits counting using yolox object detection

    Yanchao Zhang, Wenbo Zhang, Jiya Yu, Leiying He, Jianneng Chen, and Yong He. Complete and accurate holly fruits counting using yolox object detection. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 198:107062, 2022

    2022

  28. [35]

    Real-time multiple object tracking for safe cooking activities

    Hubert Ngankam, Philippe Dion, Hélène Pigot, and Sylvain Giroux. Real-time multiple object tracking for safe cooking activities. In International Conference on Smart Homes and Health Telematics, pages 192–204. Springer, 2023

    2023

  29. [36]

    Augmented reality based interactive cooking guide

    Isaias Majil, Mau-Tsuen Yang, and Sophia Yang. Augmented reality based interactive cooking guide. Sensors, 22(21):8290, 2022

    2022

  30. [37]

    A comparative analysis of yolov5, yolov8, and yolov10 in kitchen safety

    Athulya Sundaresan Geetha and Muhammad Hussain. A comparative analysis of yolov5, yolov8, and yolov10 in kitchen safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20872, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Comparing yolov5 variants for vehicle detection: A performance analysis

    Athulya Sundaresan Geetha. Comparing yolov5 variants for vehicle detection: A performance analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12550, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [39]

    A yolov6-based improved fire detection approach for smart city environments

    Saydirasulov Norkobil Saydirasulovich, Akmalbek Abdusalomov, Muhammad Kafeel Jamil, Rashid Nasimov, Dinara Kozhamzharova, and Young-Im Cho. A yolov6-based improved fire detection approach for smart city environments. Sensors, 23(6):3161, 2023

    2023

  33. [40]

    Detection of guns and knives images based on yolo v7

    Yi Yi Aung and Kyi Zar Oo. Detection of guns and knives images based on yolo v7. In 2024 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence For Internet of Things (AIIoT), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  34. [41]

    Real time object detection with data variation

    Maha Mokrani and Zied Hajaiej. Real time object detection with data variation. Przeglad Elektrotechniczny, 2024(5), 2024. 14 A.S.G EETHA .: W HAT IS YOLO V6? A D EEP INSIGHT INTO THE OBJECT DETECTION MODEL - D ECEMBER 18, 2024

    2024

  35. [42]

    Comparative analysis of yolov8 and yolov10 in vehicle detection: Performance metrics and model efficacy.Vehicles, 6(3):1364– 1382, 2024

    Athulya Sundaresan Geetha, Mujadded Al Rabbani Alif, Muhammad Hussain, and Paul Allen. Comparative analysis of yolov8 and yolov10 in vehicle detection: Performance metrics and model efficacy.Vehicles, 6(3):1364– 1382, 2024

    2024

  36. [43]

    A comprehensive review of yolo architectures in computer vision: From yolov1 to yolov8 and yolo-nas

    Juan Terven, Diana-Margarita Córdova-Esparza, and Julio-Alejandro Romero-González. A comprehensive review of yolo architectures in computer vision: From yolov1 to yolov8 and yolo-nas. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, 5(4):1680–1716, 2023

    2023

  37. [44]

    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. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1–21. Springer, 2025

    2025

  38. [45]

    Yolov1 to yolov10: A comprehensive review of yolo variants and their application in the agricultural domain

    Mujadded Al Rabbani Alif and Muhammad Hussain. Yolov1 to yolov10: A comprehensive review of yolo variants and their application in the agricultural domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10139, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Nikhileswara Rao

    S. Nikhileswara Rao. Yolov11 architecture explained: Next-level object detection with enhanced speed and accuracy, 2024

    2024

  40. [50]

    Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision

    Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2818–2826, 2016

    2016

  41. [51]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Repvgg: Making vgg-style convnets great again

    Xiaohan Ding, Xiangyu Zhang, Ningning Ma, Jungong Han, Guiguang Ding, and Jian Sun. Repvgg: Making vgg-style convnets great again. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 13733–13742, 2021

    2021

  43. [53]

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

    Chien-Yao Wang, Hong-Yuan Mark Liao, Yueh-Hua Wu, Ping-Yang Chen, Jun-Wei Hsieh, and I-Hau Yeh. Cspnet: A new backbone that can enhance learning capability of cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, pages 390–391, 2020

    2020

  44. [54]

    Path aggregation network for instance segmentation

    Shu Liu, Lu Qi, Haifang Qin, Jianping Shi, and Jiaya Jia. Path aggregation network for instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8759–8768, 2018

    2018

  45. [55]

    Ota: Optimal transport assignment for object detection

    Zheng Ge, Songtao Liu, Zeming Li, Osamu Yoshie, and Jian Sun. Ota: Optimal transport assignment for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 303–312, 2021

    2021

  46. [56]

    Varifocalnet: An iou-aware dense object detector

    Haoyang Zhang, Ying Wang, Feras Dayoub, and Niko Sunderhauf. Varifocalnet: An iou-aware dense object detector. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8514– 8523, 2021

    2021

  47. [57]

    Siou loss: More powerful learning for bounding box regression

    Zhora Gevorgyan. Siou loss: More powerful learning for bounding box regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12740, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  48. [58]

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

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 658–666, 2019

    2019

  49. [59]

    Focal loss for dense object detection

    T-YLPG Ross and GKHP Dollár. Focal loss for dense object detection. In proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2980–2988, 2017

    2017

  50. [60]

    Generalized focal loss: Learning qualified and distributed bounding boxes for dense object detection

    Xiang Li, Wenhai Wang, Lijun Wu, Shuo Chen, Xiaolin Hu, Jun Li, Jinhui Tang, and Jian Yang. Generalized focal loss: Learning qualified and distributed bounding boxes for dense object detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:21002–21012, 2020

    2020

  51. [61]

    Polyloss: A polynomial expansion perspective of classification loss functions

    Zhaoqi Leng, Mingxing Tan, Chenxi Liu, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Xiaojie Shi, Shuyang Cheng, and Dragomir Anguelov. Polyloss: A polynomial expansion perspective of classification loss functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.12511, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  52. [62]

    Generalized focal loss v2: Learning reliable localization quality estimation for dense object detection

    Xiang Li, Wenhai Wang, Xiaolin Hu, Jun Li, Jinhui Tang, and Jian Yang. Generalized focal loss v2: Learning reliable localization quality estimation for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11632–116...

    2021

  53. [63]

    Re- parameterizing your optimizers rather than architectures

    Xiaohan Ding, Honghao Chen, Xiangyu Zhang, Kaiqi Huang, Jungong Han, and Guiguang Ding. Re- parameterizing your optimizers rather than architectures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15242, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Yolov6 object detection – paper explanation and inference, 2022

    Sovit Rath. Yolov6 object detection – paper explanation and inference, 2022

    2022

  55. [65]

    Deployment of ai-based rbf network for photovoltaics fault detection procedure

    Muhammad Hussain, Mahmoud Dhimish, Violeta Holmes, and Peter Mather. Deployment of ai-based rbf network for photovoltaics fault detection procedure. AIMS Electronics and Electrical Engineering, 4(1):1–18, 2019

    2019

  56. [66]

    Domain modelling for a lightweight convolutional network focused on automated exudate detection in retinal fundus images

    Burcu Ataer Aydin, Muhammad Hussain, Richard Hill, and Hussain Al-Aqrabi. Domain modelling for a lightweight convolutional network focused on automated exudate detection in retinal fundus images. In 2023 9th International Conference on Information Technology Trends (ITT), page...

    2023

  57. [67]

    Child emotion recognition via custom lightweight cnn architecture

    Muhammad Hussain and Hussain Al-Aqrabi. Child emotion recognition via custom lightweight cnn architecture. In Kids Cybersecurity Using Computational Intelligence Techniques, pages 165–174. Springer, 2023. 16

    2023

  58. [2021]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04206, 2021

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.