Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 52 references

OG-HFYOLO :Orientation gradient guidance and heterogeneous feature fusion for deformation table cell instance segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A YOLO-style cell segmenter claims top accuracy on deformed tables via gradient orientation, cross-scale fusion, scale-aware loss, and mask-NMS.

desk verdict A real engineering contribution wrapped in an evaluation that needs a source-leakage check before any of the headline mAP numbers can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20682 v3 pith:L5F45JBM submitted 2025-04-29 cs.CV

Long Liu , Cihui Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords tablestructurerecognitioninstancesegmentationdeformedcelllocalizationgradientorientationheterogeneouskernelfusionscale-awarelossmasknon-maximumsuppressiondatagenerator
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 is trying to establish that pixel-level instance segmentation can reliably locate cells in geometrically deformed tables, where traditional corner-point detection loses content and wire-table text-box segmentation fails. It proposes OG-HFYOLO, a YOLO-style anchor-based model that adds a gradient-orientation extractor, a heterogeneous-kernel cross-fusion module, a scale-aware loss, and mask-driven non-maximum suppression, and reports that it beats all compared mainstream instance segmentation models on the derived DWTAL datasets. A sympathetic reading takes away two main claims: the model's reported Mask mAP@50:95 of 74.23% on DWTAL-s and 62.38% on DWTAL-l, and the usefulness of a deformable-table data generator that turns coarse corner annotations into pixel-level masks at scale. If these claims hold, downstream table-content extraction gains a finer-grained spatial coordinate source than contour points, and the field gains a benchmark dataset with the missing mask-level annotations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a YOLO-style anchor-based detector retrofitted with four interacting components, plus a data generator. The Gradient Orientation-aware Extractor (GOE) decouples horizontal and vertical gradient responses, computes gradient magnitude and an orientation-channel encoding, and applies an orientation attention with kernels initialized from directional basis vectors, so the shallow layers see edge direction and strength. The Heterogeneous Kernel Cross Fusion (HKCF) module uses a bottleneck with channel attention and parallel horizontal/vertical cross-convolutions of kernel sizes 3, 5, and 7 to capture wide-spanning and tall-narrow merged cells. The scale-aware loss replaces the raw inverse-area normalization with $(1+\log(1/A))$ weighting to smooth gradient growth for small cells. Mask-driven NMS suppresses a detection only when its predicted-mask IoU with a higher-confidence mask exceeds a threshold, avoiding box-overlap artifacts in dense layouts. The DWTAL data generator synthesizes training images through wave warping, cylindrical warping, and corner-weighted illumination adjustment, converting coarse corner annotations into pixel-level masks.

What would settle it

Re-split DWTAL by source-table identity so all warped variants of one original table stay in a single partition, retrain OG-HFYOLO and the leading baselines, and compare Mask mAP@50:95; if the margin over YOLOv5l-seg collapses or the absolute mAP drops by more than a few points, the deformation-robust generalization claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the hard part of deformed-table cell localization is not finding cells but drawing their exact boundaries, and that a single-stage anchor-based segmenter can be equipped to do this. The proposed OG-HFYOLO couples a Gradient Orientation-aware Extractor (GOE) in the shallow backbone, a Heterogeneous Kernel Cross Fusion (HKCF) module in the neck, a log-scaled scale-aware mask loss, and mask-IoU-based NMS in place of box NMS. On DWTAL-s it reports Mask mAP@50:95 of 74.23%, ahead of the best compared baseline YOLOv5l-seg at 71.96%; on DWTAL-l it reports 62.38%, ahead of YOLOv5l-seg at 61.34%. The paper also introduces the DWTAL dataset, generated by wave and cylindrical warping plus illumination adjustment from mildly deformed tables in WTW, TAL-OCR, and 150 collected images, to provide the first large-scale fine-grained cell-mask benchmark for deformed tables.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains depend on the test set containing genuinely new table layouts; because the DWTAL split randomly assigns generated images without tracking which source table each deformed image came from, the model could be learning to recognize familiar layouts rather than learning to segment any deformed table.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cell localization in deformed tables can move from four contour corner points to pixel masks, giving content extraction a way to keep text that falls near strongly curved boundaries.
  • The DWTAL dataset supplies the first large-scale mask-level benchmark for deformed wired tables, so subsequent models can be trained and compared on fine-grained spatial coordinates rather than coarse boxes.
  • Anchor-based detection is measurably better than anchor-free for this task: the paper's ablation shows over 10% mAP improvements from the anchor-based formulation, so future deformed-table detectors should not default to anchor-free.
  • The proposed components are only effective together: GOE, HKCF, scale-aware loss, and mask-NMS each give small isolated gains, but their combination produces the reported jump, indicating the dense-object and scale-variation problems are coupled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the random image-level split lets differently warped versions of the same source table appear in both training and test sets, the reported mAP margins may overstate true generalization to unseen table layouts; a table-level split would settle this directly.
  • Mask-driven NMS is a transferable idea: any dense-instance domain where bounding boxes overlap heavily, such as medical cell clusters or document layout objects, could be evaluated with the same mask-IoU suppression rule.
  • The $(1+\log(1/A))$ loss weighting is a general replacement for the standard inverse-area normalization and could be tested on other instance segmentation benchmarks with extreme scale ratios.
  • The data generator itself, with its parameter-coupling rules for wave and cylindrical warping and illumination gradients, could serve as a deformation-augmentation recipe for other document analysis tasks such as text detection or layout parsing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes OG-HFYOLO, a YOLO-based instance segmentation model for deformed table cells, combining a Gradient Orientation-aware Extractor (GOE), a Heterogeneous Kernel Cross Fusion (HKCF) module, a scale-aware loss, and mask-driven non-maximal suppression. It also introduces a data generator that produces deformed table images from TAL-OCR, WTW, and 150 offline images, yielding the DWTAL-s and DWTAL-l datasets. Experiments report mask mAP@50:95 of 74.23% on DWTAL-s and 62.38% on DWTAL-l, exceeding the best cited baseline, YOLOv5l-seg, by 2.27 and 1.04 points respectively. The authors claim state-of-the-art segmentation accuracy among mainstream instance segmentation models on the DWTAL dataset.

Significance. If the reported results are trustworthy, the work provides a useful benchmark for fine-grained deformed table cell localization and a plausible architectural recipe for dense, scale-variant instance segmentation. The open-sourcing of the dataset and code is a clear strength. However, the evaluation protocol has a serious potential flaw: because the DWTAL images are generated from a limited set of source tables, a random image-level split can place differently warped versions of the same source table into both training and test sets. This would inflate the reported mAP values and the margins over baselines. The comparison with baselines is also not controlled for training budget. The central claim therefore requires verification under a corrected split before the numerical results can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2] Section 3.2 states that DWTAL-s and DWTAL-l are split by randomly allocating 80% of images to training and 20% to testing. Since Section 3.1 describes generating many deformed images from each selected source table (TAL-OCR, WTW, and 150 offline tables), a random image-level split can place different warped versions of the same source table in both the training and test partitions. This permits the model to memorize table layouts rather than learn deformation-robust cell boundary segmentation. As a result, the absolute mAP numbers in Tables 2 and 3, and especially the 2.27-point margin over YOLOv5l-seg on DWTAL-s, may be substantially inflated. The authors should either split at the source-table level and re-run all experiments, provide explicit evidence that no source table contributes images to both partitions, or report results on held-out real tables from different sources.
  2. [5.1] The comparison is not controlled for training schedule or initialization. Section 5.1 states that the proposed model is trained for 200 epochs from scratch, while the non-YOLO baselines (Mask R-CNN, Cascade Mask R-CNN, Mask2Former, SOLOv2, YOLACT) are fine-tuned for 100 epochs from ImageNet-pretrained ResNet-101. The training schedule for YOLOv5l-seg, YOLOv8l-seg, and YOLOv11l-seg is not reported. The gains shown in Tables 2 and 3 could therefore be partially attributable to training budget disparity rather than architectural merit. The authors should train all methods under the same schedule and initialization conditions, or at minimum report the exact epochs and pretraining settings for every baseline and discuss the potential influence on the comparison.
  3. [5.3] All reported performance numbers appear to come from a single training run without standard deviations or repeated-seed experiments. This is particularly concerning for the DWTAL-l comparison, where the margin over YOLOv5l-seg in mask mAP@50:95 is only 1.04 points. Without variance estimates, it is impossible to assess whether the observed improvements are statistically meaningful. The authors should run at least three seeds (or report confidence intervals) for the main comparisons in Tables 2 and 3.
minor comments (6)
  1. [4.5] Equation (18) defines Mask_IoU as |Mi∩Mi|/|Mi∪Mj|, but the numerator should be |Mi∩Mj|. The notation also switches between Mi and Mi, which should be fixed to distinguish the two masks clearly.
  2. [4.5] The mask-NMS post-processing is described as suppressing a low-confidence mask only if its Mask_IoU with a higher-confidence mask 'exceeds the threshold', but the threshold value is never specified, nor is its sensitivity analyzed. This is a reproducibility gap that should be filled.
  3. [4.2] The number of orientation bins n used in Equations (9) and (10) for the orientation attention mechanism is not reported. Please provide the value and any ablation of this hyperparameter.
  4. [5.5.2] Table 5 is difficult to read because the checkmark symbols for the ablated components run together in the extracted text. Please reformat the table so each configuration row clearly shows which modules are enabled or disabled.
  5. [4.4] The paper introduces the weighting W_s = 1+log(1/A) as a smoother alternative to 1/A, but Equation (17) uses the product (1+log(1/A_i))·(1/A_i) rather than substituting W_s for 1/A. The relationship between the proposed weight and Equation (17) should be clarified, and the theoretical claims about the derivative behavior should be reconciled with the actual loss formula.
  6. [3.1] There is a duplicated sentence in the introductory paragraph of Section 3.1: 'Specifically, the generator incorporates two distortion techniques: wave warping and cylindrical warping.' appears twice. Please remove the duplicate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: headline segmentation results are measured on an open dataset with no fitted constants or self-citation chain forcing the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: OG-HFYOLO is trained and evaluated on the self-generated DWTAL-s and DWTAL-l datasets, and the reported mAP numbers are measured outcomes compared against baseline models. No headline quantity is derived from a fitted parameter, and no equation makes a prediction equivalent to an input by construction. The proposed components (GOE, HKCF, scale-aware loss, mask-NMS) are presented as architectural modifications with external inspirations such as HOG, YOLO-MS, and SOLOv2, not as results forced by self-citation. The concerns noted by the reader about the random image-level 80/20 split potentially placing differently warped versions of the same source table in both training and test sets are benchmark-validity or generalization issues, not circularity: they do not make the reported evaluation reduce to the paper's own assumptions by definition. Because the dataset and code are open source, the claimed results are externally checkable. Under the specified criteria, no specific circular step can be quoted or exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's headline numbers rest on hand-chosen synthetic deformation parameters, on the assumption that corner-derived masks are accurate at pixel level, and on an unspecified train/test split independence. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • wave distortion amplitude A range = A uniformly sampled from [10, 50]
    Hand-set in Section 3.1 to make synthetic deformations plausible; no calibration against real deformed tables, and it directly defines the DWTAL test distribution.
  • wave distortion wavelength omega range = omega selected from [omega_min, 800], with omega_min scaled by s in [1, 5]
    Hand-set to avoid unrealistic high-frequency distortions; contributes to the synthetic deformation distribution on which all quantitative results are obtained.
  • cylindrical curvature axis c and distortion factor F = c drawn from truncated normal N(2, 0.72) in [1, 5]; F in ranges such as [0.7, 0.85] depending on c
    Hand-set in Section 3.1.2 to simulate binding-line compression; defines the cylindrical deformation distribution in DWTAL.
  • shadow brightness parameters cb and eb = cb in [0.6, 0.9], eb in [0.1, 0.3]
    Hand-set in Section 3.1.3 for illumination adjustment; affects the synthetic test images and therefore the reported mAP.
  • GOE orientation bin count n = unspecified
    The orientation attention in Section 4.2 divides [0, pi) into n bins, but n is never reported; it is a free hyperparameter of the module.
  • Mask-NMS IoU threshold = unspecified
    The post-processing in Section 4.5 suppresses low-confidence masks only if Mask_IoU exceeds a threshold, but the threshold value is not reported and it tunes the final precision and recall tradeoff.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fine-grained cell segmentation masks can be obtained by interpolating the existing four-corner annotations of WTW and TAL-OCR.
    In Section 3.2, masks are 'refined' from corner coordinates; if these masks misalign with true cell boundaries under deformation, all mAP numbers on DWTAL are unreliable.
  • domain assumption The wave and cylindrical warping models, with the chosen parameter ranges, cover the real-world distribution of deformed table images.
    The data generator in Section 3.1 is the sole source of quantitative test data; no real deformed-table benchmark is used for the reported mAP tables.
  • domain assumption Training and test splits of generated images do not share source tables.
    The split protocol in Section 3.2 is described as random 80/20 allocation of images; the paper does not state that generated images from the same source table are kept in the same split, so source-level independence is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The scale-aware loss W_s = 1 + log(1/A) is a better normalizer than 1/A.
    Chosen in Section 4.4 for smoother gradient curvature; no experiment isolates the log weighting from the rest of the loss, and no optimality is proven.
  • domain assumption HOG-style gradient decoupling generalizes from human detection to cell contours.
    The GOE design in Section 4.2 borrows HOG's orientation binning principle; the paper gives qualitative heatmaps but only a 0.44% mAP gain when GOE is added alone in the ablation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OG-HFYOLO :Orientation gradient guidance and heterogeneous feature fusion for deformation table cell instance segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L5F45JBM

@misc{pith2026250420682,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OG-HFYOLO :Orientation gradient guidance and heterogeneous feature fusion for deformation table cell instance segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L5F45JBM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20682}
}
read the original abstract

Table structure recognition is a key task in document analysis. However, the geometric deformation in deformed tables causes a weak correlation between content information and structure, resulting in downstream tasks not being able to obtain accurate content information. To obtain fine-grained spatial coordinates of cells, we propose the OG-HFYOLO model, which enhances the edge response by Gradient Orientation-aware Extractor, combines a Heterogeneous Kernel Cross Fusion module and a scale-aware loss function to adapt to multi-scale objective features, and introduces mask-driven non-maximal suppression in the post-processing, which replaces the traditional bounding box suppression mechanism. Furthermore, we also propose a data generator, filling the gap in the dataset for fine-grained deformation table cell spatial coordinate localization, and derive a large-scale dataset named Deformation Wired Table (DWTAL). Experiments show that our proposed model demonstrates excellent segmentation accuracy on all mainstream instance segmentation models. The dataset and the source code are open source: https://github.com/justliulong/OGHFYOLO.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20682 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effect comparison of different methods: (a) shows a deformed table under natural scene, (b) demonstrates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dataset Annotation Examples: The source of each row’s imagery differs: the first row originates from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The overview of the OG-HFYOLO. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: HOG feature extraction core schematic diagram: the left inset demonstrates gradient orientation features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The overall structure of GOE: Feature extraction and combination of gradient direction and gradient magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: GOE module effect demonstration: The second line shows the effect of the second downsampling feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The internal structure of HKCF primarily consists of bottleneck structures and cross-convolutions. CBA is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the effects of different models:Subfigures (a)–(c) are derived from the simpler DWTAL-s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Our model result in real-world and other dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Deep learning for table detection and structure recognition: A survey

    Mahmoud M. Kasem, Abdelrahman Abdallah, Alexander Berendeyev, Ebrahem Elkady, Mahmoud Abdalla, Mohamed Mahmoud, Mohamed Hamada, Daniyar B. Nurseitov, and Islam Taj-Eddin. Deep learning for table detection and structure recognition: A survey. ArXiv, abs/2211.08469, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Image-based table recognition: Data, model, and evaluation

    Xu Zhong, Elaheh ShafieiBavani, and Antonio Jimeno Yepes. Image-based table recognition: Data, model, and evaluation. In Andrea Vedaldi, Horst Bischof, Thomas Brox, and Jan-Michael Frahm, editors, Computer Vision – ECCV 2020, pages 564–580, Cham, 2020. Springer International Publishing. 18 preprint paper

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Relatext: Exploiting visual relationships for arbitrary- shaped scene text detection with graph convolutional networks

    Chixiang Ma, Lei Sun, Zhuoyao Zhong, and Qiang Huo. Relatext: Exploiting visual relationships for arbitrary- shaped scene text detection with graph convolutional networks. Pattern Recognition, 111:107684, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    CascadeTabNet: An approach for end to end table detection and structure recognition from image-based documents

    Devashish Prasad, Ayan Gadpal, Kshitij Kapadni, Manish Visave, and Kavita Sultanpure. CascadeTabNet: An approach for end to end table detection and structure recognition from image-based documents. 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 2439–2447, June 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    LGPMA: Complicated table structure recognition with local and global pyramid mask alignment

    Liang Qiao, Zaisheng Li, Zhanzhan Cheng, Peng Zhang, Shiliang Pu, Yi Niu, Wenqi Ren, Wenming Tan, and Fei Wu. LGPMA: Complicated table structure recognition with local and global pyramid mask alignment. In Josep Lladós, Daniel Lopresti, and Seiichi Uchida, editors, Document Analysis and Recognition – ICDAR 2021 , volume 12821, pages 99–114, Cham, 2021. Sp...

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Mask r-cnn

    Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. Mask r-cnn. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 42(2):386–397, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Parsing table structures in the wild

    Rujiao Long, Wen Wang, Nan Xue, Feiyu Gao, Zhibo Yang, Yongpan Wang, and Gui-Song Xia. Parsing table structures in the wild. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 924–932, Montreal, QC, Canada, October 2021. IEEE

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Tal-ocr-table dataset

    TAL Education Group. Tal-ocr-table dataset. https://ai.100tal.com/, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Rethinking bottleneck structure for efficient mobile network design

    Daquan Zhou, Qibin Hou, Yunpeng Chen, Jiashi Feng, and Shuicheng Yan. Rethinking bottleneck structure for efficient mobile network design. In Andrea Vedaldi, Horst Bischof, Thomas Brox, and Jan-Michael Frahm, editors, Computer Vision – ECCV 2020 , pages 680–697, Cham, 2020. Sp...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Yolo-ms: Rethinking multi-scale representation learning for real-time object detection

    Yuming Chen, Xinbin Yuan, Ruiqi Wu, Jiabao Wang, Qibin Hou, and Mingg-Ming Cheng. Yolo-ms: Rethinking multi-scale representation learning for real-time object detection. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, PP, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    An open approach towards the benchmarking of table structure recognition systems

    Asif Shahab, Faisal Shafait, Thomas Kieninger, and Andreas Dengel. An open approach towards the benchmarking of table structure recognition systems. ACM, pages 113–120, 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    Icdar 2013 robust reading competition

    Dimosthenis Karatzas, Faisal Shafait, Seiichi Uchida, Masakazu Iwamura, Lluis Gomez i Bigorda, Sergi Robles Mestre, Joan Mas, David Fernandez Mota, Jon Almazàn Almazàn, and Lluís Pere de las Heras. Icdar 2013 robust reading competition. In 2013 12th International Conference on...

    2013

  5. [13]

    Zhou, and Zhoujun Li

    Minghao Li, Lei Cui, Shaohan Huang, Furu Wei, M. Zhou, and Zhoujun Li. Tablebank: Table benchmark for image-based table detection and recognition. ArXiv, abs/1903.01949, 2019

    1903 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gfte: Graph-based financial table extraction

    Yiren Li, Zheng Huang, Junchi Yan, Yi Zhou, Fan Ye, and Xianhui Liu. Gfte: Graph-based financial table extraction. ArXiv, abs/2003.07560, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Complicated table structure recognition

    Zewen Chi, Heyan Huang, Heng-Da Xu, Houjin Yu, Wanxuan Yin, and Xian-Ling Mao. Complicated table structure recognition. ArXiv, abs/1908.04729, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Zheng Huang, Kai Chen, Jianhua He, Xiang Bai, Dimosthenis Karatzas, Shijian Lu, and C. V . Jawahar. Icdar2019 competition on scanned receipt ocr and information extraction. 2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), pages 1516–1520, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Junction-based table detection in camera-captured document images

    Wonkyo Seo, Hyung Il Koo, and Nam Ik Cho. Junction-based table detection in camera-captured document images. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition (IJDAR) , 18:47–57, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Yolomask: Real-time instance segmenta- tion with integrating yolov5 and orienmask

    Yang Wang, Zhikui Ouyang, Runhua Han, Zhijian Yin, and Zhen Yang. Yolomask: Real-time instance segmenta- tion with integrating yolov5 and orienmask. In 2022 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Communication Technology (ICCT), pages 1646–1650, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Pr-yolo: Improved yolo for fast protozoa classification and segmentation

    WUJIAN YANG, SUNYANG CHEN, GUANLIN CHEN, and QIHAO SHI. Pr-yolo: Improved yolo for fast protozoa classification and segmentation. Research Square, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Jocher et al

    G. Jocher et al. YOLO by ultralytics (version 5.7.0). https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Yolo-sf: Yolo for fire segmentation detection

    Xianghong Cao, Yixuan Su, Xin Geng, and Yongdong Wang. Yolo-sf: Yolo for fire segmentation detection. IEEE Access, 11:111079–111092, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    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 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 7464–7475, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Yolo-core: Contour regression for efficient instance segmentation

    Haoliang Liu, Wei Xiong, and Yu Zhang. Yolo-core: Contour regression for efficient instance segmentation. Machine Intelligence Research, 20(5):716–728, 2023. 19 preprint paper

    2023

  16. [24]

    Yuseg: Yolo and unet is all you need for cell instance segmentation

    Bizhe Bai, Jie Tian, Sicong Luo, Tao Wang, and Sisuo Lyu. Yuseg: Yolo and unet is all you need for cell instance segmentation. In Jun Ma, Ronald Xie, Anubha Gupta, José Guilherme de Almeida, Gary D. Bader, and Bo Wang, editors, Proceedings of The Cell Segmentation Challenge in...

    2022

  17. [25]

    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, abs/2004.10934, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  18. [26]

    TTIS-YOLO: a traffic target instance segmentation paradigm for complex road scenarios

    Wenjun Xia, Peiqing Li, Qipeng Li, Taiping Yang, and Shunfeng Zhang. TTIS-YOLO: a traffic target instance segmentation paradigm for complex road scenarios. Measurement Science and Technology , 35(10):105402, October 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Gha-inst: a real-time instance segmentation model utilizing yolo detection framework

    Chengang Dong, Yuhao Tang, and Liyan Zhang. Gha-inst: a real-time instance segmentation model utilizing yolo detection framework. Cluster Computing, 27(6):7401–7415, March 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Studio encoding parameters of digital television for standard 4:3 and wide-screen 16:9 aspect ratios

    ITU-R. Studio encoding parameters of digital television for standard 4:3 and wide-screen 16:9 aspect ratios. Recommendation BT.601-7, International Telecommunication Union, 03 2011. Revises BT.601-6 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    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 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 1571–1580, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Feature pyramid networks for object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Piotr Dollár, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Hariharan, and Serge Belongie. Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 936–944, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Girshick, and Jian Sun

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross B. Girshick, and Jian Sun. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 39:1137–1149, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    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 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 580–587, 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    Dalal and B

    N. Dalal and B. Triggs. Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05) , volume 1, pages 886–893, San Diego, CA, USA, 2005. IEEE

    2005

  26. [34]

    John S. Bridle. Probabilistic interpretation of feedforward classification network outputs, with relationships to statistical pattern recognition. In Françoise Fogelman Soulié and Jeanny Hérault, editors, Neurocomputing, pages 227–236, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1990. Springer Berlin...

    1990

  27. [35]

    Lempitsky

    Dmitry Ulyanov, Andrea Vedaldi, and Victor S. Lempitsky. Instance normalization: The missing ingredient for fast stylization. ArXiv, abs/1607.08022, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Zeiler and Rob Fergus

    Matthew D. Zeiler and Rob Fergus. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In David Fleet, Tomas Pajdla, Bernt Schiele, and Tinne Tuytelaars, editors, Computer Vision – ECCV 2014 , pages 818–833, Cham, 2014. Springer International Publishing

    2014

  29. [37]

    Cross-SRN: Structure-preserving super- resolution network with cross convolution

    Yuqing Liu, Qi Jia, Xin Fan, Shanshe Wang, Siwei Ma, and Wen Gao. Cross-SRN: Structure-preserving super- resolution network with cross convolution. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 32(8):4927–4939, August 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Malunet: A multi-attention and light- weight unet for skin lesion segmentation

    Jiacheng Ruan, Suncheng Xiang, Mingye Xie, Ting Liu, and Yuzhuo Fu. Malunet: A multi-attention and light- weight unet for skin lesion segmentation. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 1150–1156, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    En- hancing geometric factors in model learning and inference for object detection and instance segmentation

    Zhaohui Zheng, Ping Wang, Dongwei Ren, Wei Liu, Rongguang Ye, Qinghua Hu, and Wangmeng Zuo. En- hancing geometric factors in model learning and inference for object detection and instance segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 52(8):8574–8586, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Focal and efficient iou loss for accurate bounding box regression

    Yi-Fan Zhang, Weiqiang Ren, Zhang Zhang, Zhen Jia, Liang Wang, and Tieniu Tan. Focal and efficient iou loss for accurate bounding box regression. Neurocomputing, 506:146–157, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation

    Fausto Milletarì, Nassir Navab, and Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi. V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. 2016 F ourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) , pages 565–571, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Navaneeth Bodla, Bharat Singh, Rama Chellappa, and Larry S. Davis. Soft-nms — improving object detection with one line of code. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 5562–5570, 2017. 20 preprint paper

    2017

  35. [43]

    Solov2: Dynamic, faster and stronger

    Xinlong Wang, Rufeng Zhang, Tao Kong, Lei Li, and Chunhua Shen. Solov2: Dynamic, faster and stronger. ArXiv, abs/2003.10152, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Mmdetection: Open mmlab detection toolbox and benchmark

    Kai Chen, Jiaqi Wang, Jiangmiao Pang, Yuhang Cao, Yu Xiong, Xiaoxiao Li, Shuyang Sun, Wansen Feng, Ziwei Liu, Jiarui Xu, Zheng Zhang, Dazhi Cheng, Chenchen Zhu, Tianheng Cheng, Qijie Zhao, Buyu Li, Xin Lu, Rui Zhu, Yue Wu, Kangcheng Liu, Jifeng Dai, Jingdong Wang, Jianping Shi...

    1906 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Torchscale: A toolkit for foundation model training

    Microsoft Research Asia. Torchscale: A toolkit for foundation model training. https://github.com/ microsoft/fb.resnet.torch?tab=readme-ov-file#resnet-training-in-torch , 2023. Accessed: 2025-04-18

    2023

  38. [46]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 248–255, 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    Cascade r-cnn: High quality object detection and instance segmentation

    Zhaowei Cai and Nuno Vasconcelos. Cascade r-cnn: High quality object detection and instance segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 43(5):1483–1498, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Yolact: Real-time instance segmentation

    Daniel Bolya, Chong Zhou, Fanyi Xiao, and Yong Jae Lee. Yolact: Real-time instance segmentation. In 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 9156–9165, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Schwing, Alexander Kirillov, and Rohit Girdhar

    Bowen Cheng, Ishan Misra, Alexander G. Schwing, Alexander Kirillov, and Rohit Girdhar. Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 1280–1289, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Yolov8: A novel object detection algorithm with enhanced performance and robustness

    Rejin Varghese and Sambath M. Yolov8: A novel object detection algorithm with enhanced performance and robustness. In 2024 International Conference on Advances in Data Engineering and Intelligent Computing Systems (ADICS), pages 1–6, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Yolov11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements

    Rahima Khanam and Muhammad Hussain. Yolov11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements. ArXiv, abs/2410.17725, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Densebox: Unifying landmark localization with end to end object detection

    Lichao Huang, Yi Yang, Yafeng Deng, and Yinan Yu. Densebox: Unifying landmark localization with end to end object detection. ArXiv, abs/1509.04874, 2015. 21

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.