Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 62 references

Analysis of Object Detection Models for Tiny Object in Satellite Imagery: A Dataset-Centric Approach

T0 review · 5 major / 7 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 DDOD tops tiny-object benchmark on 3,000 satellite images

desk verdict Unreleased data and missing training details make the benchmark claims unverifiable, and the advertised tracking study is absent. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10453 v1 pith:ETVKJ3U4 submitted 2024-12-12 cs.CV

Kailas PS , Selvakumaran R , Palani Murugan , Ramesh Kumar V , Malaya Kumar Biswal M This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords smallobjectdetectionsatelliteimagerydatasetcurationbenchmarkdeeplearningmAPevaluationByteTrackaerial
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a carefully assembled 3,000-image satellite dataset of cars, ships, and airplanes can serve as a fair test bed for tiny-object detection, and it reports baseline mean-average-precision (mAP) results for eight state-of-the-art detectors. It also applies ByteTrack to satellite video segments to show tracking performance on the same object classes. The value would be a compact, resource-friendly benchmark that lets researchers compare models on small objects without the huge images and large instances that dominate existing aerial datasets. The reported numbers are offered as reference points for future work on small-object detection in satellite imagery.

What carries the argument

The operative mechanism is the dataset itself: roughly 1,000 images per class sampled from the AiTODv2 vehicle and ship classes and from tiled Airbus aircraft imagery, re-annotated to a common COCO-style format. All detectors are standard open-source implementations trained on a single consumer GPU. The comparison metric is COCO-style mAP at IoU thresholds 0.5, 0.75, and averaged over 0.5:0.95, with a size-stratified mAP_S/mAP_M/mAP_L split that makes the tiny-object challenge explicit.

What would settle it

Release the curated dataset with per-image object-area histograms and an annotation audit; then retrain the same eight detectors on the original full AiTODv2 and Airbus sources. If the mAP ranking among detectors changes materially, the subset is not a faithful tiny-object benchmark.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that dense, anchor-free, and one-stage detectors outperform the classic two-stage Faster R-CNN on tiny satellite objects: DDOD with a ResNet50 and FPN backbone reaches the highest mAP (0.339), followed by FCOS (0.300), RetinaNet (0.296), and FoveaBox (0.290), while DetectoRS and VarifocalNet score below 0.20. The size-stratified mAP values show that small-object scores (mAP_S between 0.09 and 0.30) lag medium-object scores for every model, quantifying the tiny-object difficulty. All models list mAP_L as -1.000, indicating the benchmark contains no evaluated large objects, so the comparison is effectively about small and medium instances. The paper also applies ByteTrack to SAT-MTB video segments to assess satellite video object tracking for the same classes.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's validity rests entirely on the assumption that the 3,000-image subset is a representative, correctly annotated sample of tiny objects; the paper describes the dataset in three sentences and reports no object-size distributions, class counts, or annotation-quality checks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DDOD, FCOS, and RetinaNet with ResNet50 backbones give the strongest baselines for tiny satellite objects, all exceeding 0.29 mAP.
  • Two-stage Faster R-CNN variants perform worst (mAP 0.103), suggesting region-proposal pipelines are at a disadvantage when objects are only a few pixels wide.
  • The size-stratified mAP shows small-object scores (mAP_S between 0.09 and 0.30) are consistently well below medium-object scores, quantifying the tiny-object difficulty.
  • ByteTrack on SAT-MTB video segments provides a tracking baseline for cars, ships, and airplanes in satellite video.
  • A 3,000-image dataset can be trained on a single Tesla T4 GPU, making small-object detection research accessible in resource-constrained settings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the dataset is not released and no per-class instance counts or object-area histograms are reported, the mAP rankings may not generalize to other tiny-object distributions; a testable extension is to publish the dataset statistics.
  • The -1.000 mAP_L values suggest the curated subset contains essentially no large objects, so the benchmark measures small/medium performance only; future work could add large instances to probe scale robustness.
  • The Airbus component is tiled from larger images, which can alter object appearance and context; re-evaluating on the original full-resolution tiles would show whether tiling biases the airplane class results.
  • A direct comparison against the full AiTODv2 and Airbus datasets would reveal whether the 3,000-image subset preserves the original difficulty or introduces sampling bias.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper claims to curate a 3000-image satellite dataset ("SkyFusion") for tiny object detection, comprising cars, ships, and airplanes sampled from AiTODv2 and the Airbus Aircraft Detection dataset, and to evaluate eight object detectors (Faster R-CNN, RetinaNet, FCOS, VarifocalNet, FoveaBox, RTMDet, DDOD, DetectoRS) as well as ByteTrack video tracking on SAT-MTB. The only quantitative results are in Table 1, which reports COCO mAP metrics for the detectors. The introduction and literature review are followed by descriptions of each detector and a Results section that contains a figure reference but little experimental detail. The conclusion is a short literature review of SNIP/SNIPER rather than a synthesis of the reported experiments.

Significance. If the dataset and benchmark were released and the results were reproducible, the paper would provide a useful comparison of mainstream detectors on satellite tiny-object detection. The choice of three vehicle, ship, and airplane classes is practical, and the detector coverage is reasonably broad. However, the manuscript provides no dataset release, no code or checkpoints, no training/validation/test split, no training hyperparameters, no error bars, and no analysis of object-size distributions. The reported mAP values cannot therefore be verified or interpreted, so the potential significance is currently unrealized. The paper's strength is its survey-like coverage of detectors, but as an empirical benchmark it lacks the essential evidence needed to support its claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III and Table 1] The central benchmark claim rests on an unreleased, underspecified dataset. Section III describes sampling roughly 1000 images per class from AiTODv2 and tiled Airbus images, but it does not report the train/validation/test split, per-class instance counts, object-area histogram, or any annotation-quality checks. The COCO mAP_S, mAP_M, and mAP_L values cannot be interpreted without knowing how many objects fall in each area bracket, especially since tiling and resizing can change effective object areas. In addition, the mAP_L column is uniformly -1.000, which is not a valid COCO metric and is never explained; this looks like a placeholder or undefined value and casts doubt on the integrity of the table.
  2. [§III and Table 1] Training configurations are absent. The paper does not state epochs, learning rate, batch size, optimizer, scheduler, augmentations, or the number of independent runs for any of the sixteen reported model variants. Without this information, the differences in Table 1 (e.g., DDOD ResNet50+FPN at mAP 0.339 versus Faster R-CNN at 0.103) could be due to configuration choices rather than model efficacy. No code, configuration files, or checkpoints are released, so the comparisons are not reproducible by any third party.
  3. [§II.A and §III] The dataset curation is described in only three sentences and does not justify that the resulting subset is a representative or valid benchmark for tiny object detection. It is unclear how the AiTODv2 vehicle and ship images are combined with the tiled Airbus aircraft images, whether class distributions are balanced, whether tiling to 640x640 truncates objects, and what fraction of objects genuinely fall below the 1024-pixel area threshold. The assertion that "the average area occupied by objects in the SkyFusion dataset falls within this threshold" is unsupported by any distribution statistics, and the definition of the threshold itself is ambiguous: "32×32 or 1024 pixels" is redundant because 32×32 equals 1024 square pixels.
  4. [§I, §V.A, and Figure 2] The abstract and introduction promise a satellite video tracking evaluation using ByteTrack on the SAT-MTB dataset, but Section V contains no tracking results whatsoever. The text in Section V.A is generic commentary that even says "the image likely compares the mAP performance..."; it does not report any tracking metrics. Figure 2 is referenced as though it contains learning curves, but the caption refers to "Mean Average Position" and no actual figure content is described or plotted. The tracking claim is therefore unsupported and the Figure 2 reference appears to be placeholder text.
  5. [§VI] The Conclusion does not conclude the paper's empirical study. It is a two-paragraph review of the SNIP and SNIPER methods and repeats a statement about ``a comprehensive review'' that is not the paper's actual contribution. There is no summary of the Table 1 findings, no discussion of which detectors performed best or why, and no concrete future-work agenda tied to the reported experiments. This structural gap prevents the reader from understanding what the authors take their own results to mean.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§IV.B] The heading and text use "RetineNet" instead of "RetinaNet".
  2. [§IV.D] The model name is spelled "Varifocal Net" but the original is "VarifocalNet"; the spelling should be consistent.
  3. [References] Reference [56] cites the paper "DDoD: Dual Denial of Decision Attacks on Human-AI Teams" (IEEE Pervasive Computing, 2023), which is not the DDOD object detector discussed in §IV.G; the correct DDOD reference needs to be supplied.
  4. [§II.A] The sentence defining tiny objects as "those occupying areas less than or equal to 32 × 32 or 1024 pixels" is circular because 32×32 = 1024; the intended thresholds should be clarified.
  5. [Figure 2 caption] The caption uses "Mean Average Position" instead of "Mean Average Precision (mAP)".
  6. [§IV.H] The last sentence of the DetectoRS subsection refers to "the HTC model" without any prior definition or connection to DetectoRS; this is confusing and should be corrected or removed.
  7. [§V.A] The phrase "the image likely compares" is speculative and reads as placeholder text; the actual comparison shown in Figure 2 must be described explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper reports empirical benchmark measurements on a curated dataset with no fitted-parameter-as-prediction or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's contribution is an empirical evaluation: it assembles a 3000-image subset from AiTODv2 and the Airbus Aircraft Detection dataset, standardizes annotations to COCO format using Roboflow, trains MMDetection models, and tabulates COCO-style mAP scores. There is no derivation in which an output is defined in terms of an input, no parameter fitted to a subset and then renamed a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation: all references are to external prior work. The reported mAP values are measurements, not consequences of the dataset construction by construction. Concerns about the unreleased dataset, unspecified split, and missing hyperparameters are reproducibility and correctness issues, not circularity. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited with a quotation, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results rest on the hand-selected dataset composition and on unstated assumptions about training and the validity of borrowed implementations and metrics.

free parameters (2)
  • per-class image counts = ~1000 each (cars, ships, airplanes); exact counts not stated
    The dataset composition is hand-chosen to balance classes; the central evaluation depends on this balance.
  • tile size for Airbus images = 640x640 pixels
    Aircraft images are tiled to 640x640; this is a manual preprocessing choice that affects object sizes and model input.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The MMDetection model zoo implementations of Faster R-CNN, RetinaNet, FCOS, VarifocalNet, FoveaBox, RTMDet, DDOD, and DetectoRS are correct and used as-is.
    The paper relies on these external implementations without inspection; any bug affects all results.
  • ad hoc to paper The 3000-image subset sampled from AiTODv2 and Airbus is representative of tiny object detection in satellite imagery.
    The paper assumes this without providing statistics on object sizes, scene diversity, or annotation accuracy.
  • domain assumption MS-COCO evaluation metrics (mAP, mAP_S, etc.) are suitable for this dataset, including the 'tiny' object definition of <=32x32 pixels.
    The paper uses these metrics without checking whether the dataset conforms to the assumed object-size distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper The models were trained sufficiently to convergence, even though training epochs, learning rates, and other hyperparameters are not reported.
    The paper gives no protocol for training, so the validity of the reported mAP numbers rests on an unstated assumption of adequate training.
invented entities (1)
  • SkyFusion dataset
    purpose: A curated benchmark of 3000 satellite images of cars, ships, and airplanes intended for evaluating small object detection.
    The dataset is described as newly assembled but is not released and no access (URL, DOI, contact distribution) is given, so it cannot be used or independently tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of Object Detection Models for Tiny Object in Satellite Imagery: A Dataset-Centric Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ETVKJ3U4

@misc{pith2026241210453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of Object Detection Models for Tiny Object in Satellite Imagery: A Dataset-Centric Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ETVKJ3U4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10453}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, significant advancements have been made in deep learning-based object detection algorithms, revolutionizing basic computer vision tasks, notably in object detection, tracking, and segmentation. This paper delves into the intricate domain of Small-Object-Detection (SOD) within satellite imagery, highlighting the unique challenges stemming from wide imaging ranges, object distribution, and their varying appearances in bird's-eye-view satellite images. Traditional object detection models face difficulties in detecting small objects due to limited contextual information and class imbalances. To address this, our research presents a meticulously curated dataset comprising 3000 images showcasing cars, ships, and airplanes in satellite imagery. Our study aims to provide valuable insights into small object detection in satellite imagery by empirically evaluating state-of-the-art models. Furthermore, we tackle the challenges of satellite video-based object tracking, employing the Byte Track algorithm on the SAT-MTB dataset. Through rigorous experimentation, we aim to offer a comprehensive understanding of the efficacy of state-of-the-art models in Small-Object-Detection for satellite applications. Our findings shed light on the effectiveness of these models and pave the way for future advancements in satellite imagery analysis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [56]

    (2015, June)

    Ioffe, S., & Szegedy, C. (2015, June). Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 448-456). pmlr

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    Overall mAP performance: The highest curve on the graph at the end of training (furthest right on the x- axis) represents the model with the best overall mAP

    work page

  3. [2]

    A steeper curve suggests faster improvement

    Training speed: The rate at which each curve increases can indicate how quickly each model improves with training. A steeper curve suggests faster improvement. Figure-2 Comparison of Epoch and mAP (Mean Average Position) using various data models. VI. Conclusion and Future Works Inspired by the challenge of detecting large and small objects at different s...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R., & Sun, J. (2015). Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    O'Shea, K., & Nash, R. (2015). An introduction to convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.08458

    arXiv 2015

  6. [5]

    Y., Dollár, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Hariharan, B., & Belongie, S

    Lin, T. Y., Dollár, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Hariharan, B., & Belongie, S. (2017). Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 2117-2125)

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D.,

    Lin, T. Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., ... & Zitnick, C. L. (2014). Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision –ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 13 (pp. 740-755). Springer International Publishing

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    & Fei -Fei, L

    Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., ... & Fei -Fei, L. (2015). Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International journal of computer vision, 115, 211-252

    work page 2015

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Cheng, G., Lang, C., Wu, M., Xie, X., Yao, X., & Han, J. (2021). Feature enhancement network for object detection in optical remote sensing images. Journal of Remote Sensing

    2021

  2. [10]

    A., Van Gool, L., Williams, C

    Everingham, M., Eslami, S. A., Van Gool, L., Williams, C. K., Winn, J., & Zisserman, A. (2015). The pascal visual object classes challenge: A retrospective. International journal of computer vision, 111, 98-136

    2015

  3. [11]

    Liang, P., Blasch, E., & Ling, H. (2015). Encoding color information for visual tracking: Algorithms and benchmark. IEEE transactions on image processing, 24(12), 5630-5644

    2015

  4. [12]

    Zand, M., Etemad, A., & Greenspan, M. (2021). Oriented bounding boxes for small and freely rotated objects. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60, 1-15

    2021

  5. [13]

    Long, Y., Gong, Y., Xiao, Z., & Liu, Q. (2017). Accurate object localization in remote sensing images based on convolutional neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 55(5), 2486-2498

    2017

  6. [15]

    S., & Lu, Q

    Ding, J., Xue, N., Long, Y., Xia, G. S., & Lu, Q. (2018). Learning RoI transformer for detecting oriented objects in aerial images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00155

    2018 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Cheng, G., Yuan, X., Yao, X., Yan, K., Zeng, Q., Xie, X., & Han, J. (2023). Towards large -scale small object detection: Survey and benchmarks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

    2023

  8. [17]

    Y., Feichtenhofer, C., Darrell, T., & Xie, S

    Liu, Z., Mao, H., Wu, C. Y., Feichtenhofer, C., Darrell, T., & Xie, S. (2022). A convnet for the 2020s. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 11976-11986)

    2022

  9. [18]

    Liu, Y., Sun, P., Wergeles, N., & Shang, Y. (2021). A survey and performance evaluation of deep learning methods for small object detection. Expert Systems with Applications, 172, 114602

    2021

  10. [19]

    & Wang, L

    Han, W., Li, J., Wang, S., Wang, Y., Yan, J., Fan, R., ... & Wang, L. (2022). A context -scale-aware detector and a new benchmark for remote sensing small weak object detection in unmanned aerial vehicle images. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinforma...

    2022

  11. [20]

    Xu, C., Wang, J., Yang, W., Yu, H., Yu, L., & Xia, G. S. (2022). Detecting tiny objects in aerial images: A normalized Wasserstein distance and a new benchmark. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 190, 79-93

    2022

  12. [21]

    Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., & Wojna, Z. (2016). Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 2818 - 2826)

    2016

  13. [22]

    Simonyan, K., & Zisserman, A. (2014). Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556

    2014 arXiv

  14. [23]

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016). Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 770-778)

    2016

  15. [24]

    Y., Goyal, P., Girshick, R., He, K., & Dollár, P

    Lin, T. Y., Goyal, P., Girshick, R., He, K., & Dollár, P. (2017). Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision (pp. 2980-2988)

    2017

  16. [25]

    Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L., & Weinberger, K. Q. (2017). Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 4700-4708)

    2017

  17. [26]

    Y., Shvets, M., & Berg, A

    Fu, C. Y., Shvets, M., & Berg, A. C. (2019). RetinaMask: Learning to predict masks improves state-of-the-art single- shot detection for free. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.03353

    2019 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Zhang, Z., Wang, C., Song, J., & Xu, Y. (2022). Object Tracking based on satellite videos: A literature review. Remote Sensing, 14(15), 3674

    2022

  19. [28]

    Hosang, J., Benenson, R., & Schiele, B. (2017). Learning non -maximum suppression. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 4507-4515)

    2017

  20. [29]

    Wu, X., Hong, D., Ghamisi, P., Li, W., & Tao, R. (2018). MsRi -CCF: Multi -scale and rotation -insensitive convolutional channel features for geospatial object detection. Remote Sensing, 10(12), 1990

    2018

  21. [30]

    X., Heng, P

    Zhang, S. X., Heng, P. A., Liu, Z. J., Tan, L. W., Qiu, M. G., Li, Q. Y., ... & Cheng, J. C. Y. (2004). The Chinese Visible Human (CVH) datasets incorporate technical and imaging advances on earlier digital humans. Journal of Anatomy, 204(3), 165-173

    2004

  22. [31]

    Zhao, M., Li, S., Xuan, S., Kou, L., Gong, S., & Zhou, Z. (2022). SatSOT: A Benchmark Dataset for Satellite Video Single Object Tracking. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60, 1-11

    2022

  23. [32]

    & Guo, Y

    Yin, Q., Hu, Q., Liu, H., Zhang, F., Wang, Y., Lin, Z., ... & Guo, Y. (2021). Detecting and tracking small and dense moving objects in satellite videos: A benchmark. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60, 1-18

    2021

  24. [33]

    Miura, T., & Nagai, S. (2020). Landslide detection with himawari -8 geostationary satellite data: A case study of a torrential rain event in Kyushu, Japan. Remote Sensing, 12(11), 1734

    2020

  25. [34]

    Cohenour, C., van Graas, F., Price, R., & Rovito, T. (2015). Camera models for the wright patterson air force base (WPAFB) 2009 wide -area motion imagery (WAMI) data set. IEEE aerospace and electronic systems magazine, 30(6), 4-15

    2015

  26. [35]

    Hong, S., Kim, S., Joh, M., & Song, S. K. (2017). Globenet: Convolutional neural networks for typhoon eye tracking from remote sensing imagery. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.03417

    2017 arXiv

  27. [36]

    & Bengio, Y

    Goodfellow, I., Pouget -Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde -Farley, D., Ozair, S., ... & Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27

    2014

  28. [37]

    Li, S., Zhou, Z., Zhao, M., Yang, J., Guo, W., Lv, Y., ... & Gu, Y. (2023). A Multi -task Benchmark Dataset for Satellite Video: Object Detection, Tracking, and Segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing

    2023

  29. [38]

    Li, K., Wan, G., Cheng, G., Meng, L., & Han, J. (2020). Object detection in optical remote sensing images: A survey and a new benchmark. ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing, 159, 296-307

    2020

  30. [39]

    (2019, July)

    Su, H., Wei, S., Yan, M., Wang, C., Shi, J., & Zhang, X. (2019, July). Object detection and instance segmentation in remote sensing imagery based on precise mask R -CNN. In IGARSS 2019 -2019 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (pp. 1454-1457). IEEE

    2019

  31. [40]

    Wang, J., Chen, Y., Dong, Z., & Gao, M. (2023). Improved YOLOv5 network for real -time multi-scale traffic sign detection. Neural Computing and Applications, 35(10), 7853-7865

    2023

  32. [41]

    Liu, Y., Shao, Z., Teng, Y., & Hoffmann, N. (2021). NAM: Normalization -based attention module. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.12419

    2021 arXiv

  33. [42]

    S., Bai, X., Yang, W., Yang, M

    Ding, J., Xue, N., Xia, G. S., Bai, X., Yang, W., Yang, M. Y., ... & Zhang, L. (2021). Object detection in aerial images: A large-scale benchmark and challenges. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(11), 7778-7796

    2021

  34. [43]

    Chen, J., Chen, K., Chen, H., Zou, Z., & Shi, Z. (2022). A degraded reconstruction enhancement -based method for tiny ship detection in remote sensing images with a new large -scale dataset. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60, 1-14

    2022

  35. [44]

    S., Bai, X., Ding, J., Zhu, Z., Belongie, S., Luo, J.,

    Xia, G. S., Bai, X., Ding, J., Zhu, Z., Belongie, S., Luo, J., ... & Zhang, L. (2018). DOTA: A large -scale dataset for object detection in aerial images. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 3974-3983)

    2018

  36. [45]

    Tian, Z., Shen, C., Chen, H., & He, T. (2019). Fcos: Fully convolutional one-stage object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision (pp. 9627-9636)

    2019

  37. [46]

    Zhang, Z., & Sabuncu, M. (2018). Generalized cross entropy loss for training deep neural networks with noisy labels. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31

    2018

  38. [47]

    Long, J., Shelhamer, E., & Darrell, T. (2015). Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 3431-3440)

    2015

  39. [48]

    Zhang, H., Wang, Y., Dayoub, F., & Sunderhauf, N. (2021). Varifocalnet: An iou -aware dense object detector. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 8514-8523)

    2021

  40. [49]

    Redmon, J., Divvala, S., Girshick, R., & Farhadi, A. (2016). You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 779-788)

    2016

  41. [50]

    Y., & Berg, A

    Liu, W., Anguelov, D., Erhan, D., Szegedy, C., Reed, S., Fu, C. Y., & Berg, A. C. (2016). Ssd: Single shot multibox detector. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11– 14, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 14 (pp. 21-37). Springer ...

    2016

  42. [51]

    & Chen, K

    Lyu, C., Zhang, W., Huang, H., Zhou, Y., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., ... & Chen, K. (2022). Rtmdet: An empirical study of designing real-time object detectors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07784

    2022 arXiv

  43. [52]

    foreground

    to increase the effective receptive fields with Batch Normalization (BN) [53]. The new label assignment strategy, otherwise known as soft label assignmen t strategy, is based on SimOTA, and its cost function can be formulated as in equation 6. 𝐶 = λ1𝐶𝑐𝑙𝑠 + λ2𝐶reg + λ3𝐶center (...

  44. [53]

    Zhang, S., Chi, C., Yao, Y., Lei, Z., & Li, S. Z. (2020). Bridging the gap between anchor -based and anchor -free detection via adaptive training sample selection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 9759-9768)

    2020

  45. [54]

    Kong, T., Sun, F., Liu, H., Jiang, Y., Li, L., & Shi, J. (2020). Foveabox: Beyound anchor -based object detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29, 7389-7398

    2020

  46. [55]

    Y., Liao, H

    Wang, C. Y., Liao, H. Y. M., Wu, Y. H., Chen, P. Y., Hsieh, J. W., & Yeh, I. H. (2020). 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 (pp. 390-391)

    2020

  47. [57]

    Ge, Z., Liu, S., Wang, F., Li, Z., & Sun, J. (2021). Yolox: Exceeding yolo series in 2021. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08430

    2021 arXiv

  48. [58]

    Y., Cubuk, E

    Ghiasi, G., Cui, Y., Srinivas, A., Qian, R., Lin, T. Y., Cubuk, E. D., ... & Zoph, B. (2021). Simple copy -paste is a strong data augmentation method for instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 2918-2928)

    2021

  49. [59]

    Tag, B., van Berkel, N., Verma, S., Zhao, B. Z. H., Berkovsky, S., Kaafar, D., ... & Ohrimenko, O. (2023). DDoD: Dual Denial of Decision Attacks on Human-AI Teams. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 22(1), 77-84

    2023

  50. [60]

    Song, G., Liu, Y., & Wang, X. (2020). Revisiting the sibling head in object detector. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 11563-11572)

    2020

  51. [61]

    C., & Yuille, A

    Qiao, S., Chen, L. C., & Yuille, A. (2021). Detectors: Detecting objects with recursive feature pyramid and switchable atrous convolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 10213-10224)

    2021

  52. [62]

    C., Papandreou, G., Kokkinos, I., Murphy, K., & Yuille, A

    Chen, L. C., Papandreou, G., Kokkinos, I., Murphy, K., & Yuille, A. L. (2014). Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets and fully connected crfs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.7062

    2014 arXiv

  53. [63]

    Papandreou, G., Kokkinos, I., & Savalle, P. A. (2015). Modeling local and global deformations in deep learning: Epitomic convolution, multiple instance learning, and sliding window detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp....

    2015

  54. [64]

    & Lin, D

    Chen, K., Pang, J., Wang, J., Xiong, Y., Li, X., Sun, S., ... & Lin, D. (2019). Hybrid task cascade for instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 4974 - 4983)

    2019

Pith tools

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