Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 68 references

Enhancing, Refining, and Fusing: Towards Robust Multi-Scale and Dense Ship Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CASS-Det, a one-stage SAR ship detector, reports state-of-the-art mAP of 0.992 on SSDD, 0.931 on HRSID, and 0.821 on LS-SSDD by combining center enhancement, neighbor attention, and cross-connected feature fusion.

desk verdict Useful SAR ship detector with strong benchmark numbers, but the comparison protocol is unverifiable and Eq. (2) has a clear math error; worth a serious referee after major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06053 v1 pith:PKQGJBMU submitted 2025-01-10 cs.CV

Congxia Zhao , Xiongjun Fu , Jian Dong , Shen Cao , Chunyan Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords syntheticapertureradarSARshipdetectioncenterenhancementmodulerotationalconvolutionneighborattentioncross-connectedfeaturepyramidmulti-scaledensetarget
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 proposes CASS-Det, a one-stage object detector for synthetic aperture radar (SAR) ship images, and claims it outperforms all compared detectors on three public benchmarks. A one-stage detector predicts ship boxes directly from feature maps, without a separate proposal step. CASS-Det's reported gains come from three added modules: a center enhancement module that highlights ship centers through rotated convolution, a neighbor attention module that refines boundaries between touching ships using cross-level long-range dependencies, and a cross-connected feature pyramid that fuses shallow and deep features across more scales. The reported margins over the second-best method are 0.012, 0.018, and 0.018 mAP on SSDD, HRSID, and LS-SSDD, respectively. A sympathetic reading treats these results as evidence that explicitly targeting center localization, dense-target separation, and scale variation in one architecture pushes SAR detection accuracy forward.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the rotational-convolution identity $[a \ast [R b]](x) = R^{-1}[(R a) \ast b](x)$, which lets CEM obtain multi-orientation responses by rotating the input feature map by $k\pi/2$ for $k=0,1,2,3$, convolving once, and concatenating the four rotated views before a $1\times1$ convolution. NAM builds queries and keys from a shallower feature level and values from a deconvolved deeper level, applies a softmax affinity matrix, and adds the aggregated result back to both inputs, propagating global context across adjacent pyramid levels to refine boundaries between touching ships. CC-FPN adds a direct shallow connection, dilated convolutions, concatenations with higher-level maps, and an extra $P_6$ level so small and large ships both get strong features.

What would settle it

Re-run CASS-Det and the three strongest competing detectors on SSDD, HRSID, and LS-SSDD using one shared evaluation script, the same train/test splits, the same image resizing, and the same COCO-style mAP code; if the reported 0.012–0.018 mAP margins shrink to noise or reverse, the central claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CASS-Det's central claim is that the three main failure modes of SAR ship detection—cluttered backgrounds, densely packed inshore ships, and extreme scale variation—can be addressed jointly by modular additions to a standard CSPDarknet backbone with a YOLO-series detection head. The center enhancement module uses the rotational-convolution property to reinforce ship centers while suppressing clutter. The neighbor attention module computes long-range affinities between adjacent pyramid levels so that touching ships are separated. The cross-connected feature pyramid extends the standard fusion structure with a direct shallow-level connection, dilated convolutions, and an extra top level $P_6$, giving both small and large ships strong features. On SSDD, HRSID, and LS-SSDD-v1.0, the full model reaches 0.992, 0.931, and 0.821 mAP, exceeding the second-best compared detector by 0.012, 0.018, and 0.018.

Load-bearing premise

The central SOTA claim depends on the assumption that all comparison methods in Tables I–III were evaluated under the same data splits, image resizing, and mAP computation as CASS-Det, since the paper does not state whether competitor numbers were re-run locally or transcribed from their original papers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CASS-Det reports the highest mAP on all three datasets, with the largest absolute gains on HRSID and LS-SSDD, the two benchmarks dominated by small ships.
  • The ablation study supports a cumulative design: CEM adds recall, NAM adds recall and large-ship average precision, and CC-FPN adds precision and large-ship average precision, together moving the SSDD baseline from 0.977 to 0.992 mAP.
  • The module transfer experiment shows recall rising by 4.3 to 5 percentage points when CEM, NAM, and CC-FPN are added to existing YOLO-style detectors on SSDD.
  • CC-FPN outperforms both FPN and PAFPN under the same backbone, improving SSDD mAP from 0.970 and 0.977 to 0.980 and raising large-ship average precision by 5.8 points over PAFPN.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The center-versus-boundary decomposition is not SAR-specific; a natural test is applying CEM and NAM to optical aerial imagery where objects touch, such as parked vehicles or roof segments, and measuring whether recall on dense scenes rises similarly.
  • The paper does not isolate whether CEM's gain comes from rotational convolution itself or simply from multi-view concatenation; an ablated variant that feeds the same four rotated inputs through standard convolutions would separate those effects.
  • NAM's full affinity matrix scales as $HW \times HW$ per level pair, so the module may need approximation for very large images; a testable extension is replacing full affinities with criss-cross or local windows and comparing the mAP-versus-compute trade-off.
  • The reported margins are conditional on a shared evaluation protocol; re-implementing the baselines under one codebase with identical splits and resizing would reveal whether the 0.012–0.018 gaps persist.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CASS-Det, a one-stage SAR ship detector built on CSPDarknet and YOLOX, and attributes its performance to three modules: CEM, based on rotational convolution to strengthen ship centers; NAM, a neighbor cross-attention module fusing adjacent feature levels; and CC-FPN, a cross-connected feature pyramid with extra shallow/deep fusion. Experiments are reported on SSDD, HRSID, and LS-SSDD-v1.0 with mAP 0.992, 0.931, and 0.821, beating the second-best methods by 0.012, 0.018, and 0.018. The paper also provides per-module ablations, FPN/PAFPN/CC-FPN comparisons, NAM versus In-NAM analysis, and transfer experiments to YOLOv7 and YOLOv8.

Significance. If the reported results hold, CASS-Det would be a useful modular detector for dense, multi-scale SAR ship detection, with practical engineering value: the modules are simple enough to be inserted into several YOLO-style frameworks, and the evaluation covers three widely used datasets with scale-aware AP metrics. The ablation design is a strength, and the transfer tests give some evidence of generality. However, the headline state-of-the-art margins are small, and the manuscript currently lacks the protocol-uniformity evidence needed to validate them; in addition, the CEM derivation contains a mathematical error and the ablation baseline is inconsistent between the text and Table V. These are load-bearing issues for the central claims, so the paper needs major revision before it can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [III-A, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is not a consequence of Eq. (1). Equation (1) states a * [R b] = R^{-1}[(R a) * b], so the correct identity for the CEM branches is Concat(C_i * R^{k pi/2} f) = Concat(R^{-k pi/2}(R^{k pi/2} C_i) * f), with the inverse rotation applied to each branch. As written, the manuscript drops the inverse rotation and equates the left-hand side to Concat(R^{k pi/2} C_i * f), which is wrong except for k=2. If the implementation rotates kernels rather than feature maps, the left-hand side of Eq. (2) should be presented as the definition and the equality to the right-hand side should be removed. As written, the derivation does not support the rotation-equivariance claim for CEM.
  2. [III-B, Eqs. (4)-(7)] The dimensions in the NAM equations are not reconciled. Q and K are computed from F_j in R^{C x H x W}, while F_{j+1} is in R^{2C x H/2 x W/2}. Equation (7) adds H to F_{j+1} through a 3x3 convolution, but no stride or resampling is specified for that convolution; a stride-1 3x3 convolution would preserve the H x W spatial size of H and cannot be added to an H/2 x W/2 tensor. The channel dimensions are also unspecified for the addition to F_{j+1}. Please specify the stride, padding, and output channels for the Conv3x3(H) term and for the DeConv3x3 operator in Eq. (4); otherwise the NAM equations are not implementable as written.
  3. [IV-A, Tables I-III] The paper does not state whether all competitor results in Tables I-III were obtained by re-running the comparison methods under CASS-Det's protocol, or were transcribed from the original papers. Section IV-A describes the authors' protocol (SSDD suffix-based split, HRSID 0.65/0.35 split, LS-SSDD 6000/600 sub-images, 512x512 or 800x800 resizing, 500 epochs, Adam, batch size 8), but no equivalent provenance is given for the baselines. The reported margins over the second-best methods are only 0.012-0.018 mAP, so differences in data split, mAP definition, NMS settings, input resolution, or training budget could change baseline scores by more than these margins. The manuscript needs a clear provenance statement for every comparison entry, and ideally re-run baselines or variance estimates, before the state-of-the-art claim can be validated.
  4. [IV-D, Tables IV-V] The ablation baseline is inconsistent between the text and the tables. Section IV-D states that the ablation baseline is the combination of CSPDarknet and FPN, but the baseline row of Table IV (mAP 0.977, F1 0.946, recall 0.928, precision 0.965, APs 0.543, APm 0.663, APl 0.634) is identical to the PAFPN row of Table V, not to the FPN row of Table V (mAP 0.970, F1 0.925, recall 0.947, precision 0.904, APs 0.570, APm 0.690, APl 0.657). Consequently, the ablation increments attributed to CEM, NAM, and CC-FPN are computed against PAFPN while being described as FPN improvements. This mismatch must be corrected, and the textual claims about FPN baselines should be re-derived from the correct table entries.
minor comments (6)
  1. [III-C, Eq. (10)] Equation (10) writes DConv1x1, while the text immediately after the equation says that DConv 3x3 represents a 3x3 dilated convolution; a 1x1 dilated convolution is not standard, so the notation should be aligned.
  2. [IV-A and IV-C] Section IV-A says 'Experiments in Section III are all implemented' but the experiments are described in Section IV; similarly, the last paragraph of Section IV-C says the comparison is shown in 'Section III-C', which should be Section IV-C.
  3. [IV-D] The first sentence of Section IV-D refers to the proposed modules as 'CEM, NAM, and CC-Net'; this should be CC-FPN for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  4. [Table III] For LS-SSDD, only mAP and precision are reported, while Tables I-II also include F1, recall, and scale-wise AP; reporting the same metric set would make the cross-dataset comparison complete.
  5. [III-B] Equation (5) computes an HW x HW affinity matrix, which can be prohibitively large at the higher input resolutions used in this paper; please report where NAM is inserted, the spatial size at which the attention is computed, and the resulting memory/computation overhead.
  6. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'our medules' should be 'our modules'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are empirical evaluations of newly proposed modules against public benchmarks, with no derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

CASS-Det is an empirical detection framework: CEM, NAM, and CC-FPN are newly proposed architectural components, and their contributions are validated by ablation studies on public datasets (SSDD, HRSID, LS-SSDD-v1.0). There is no theoretical derivation whose output is equivalent to its input by construction. The rotational convolution identity (Eq. 1) is a standard Fourier/rotation property and is not used to force any experimental result; it merely justifies an implementation choice. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction: the reported mAP values come from held-out test splits described in Section IV-A, and the ablation table (Table IV) compares complete configurations against a baseline. The single self-citation (ref. [28], a prior YOLO-v4 ship detection paper by one co-author) appears only in a general survey sentence about CNN-based SAR detection and is not load-bearing for any module, benchmark claim, or design choice. The main caveat, that competitor numbers in Tables I-III may come from different protocols, is a valid correctness/fair-comparison risk but is not circularity: it concerns external validity of comparisons, not the reduction of a claimed output to an input. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced. The three modules (CEM, NAM, CC-FPN) are architectural components with empirical validation. The free parameters listed are manually chosen training settings that influence the reported numbers; the paper does not justify them or report sensitivity.

free parameters (3)
  • training epochs = 500
    Chosen by hand; no learning curve, early stopping, or sensitivity analysis is reported, and the value affects the final performance.
  • batch size = 8
    Chosen by hand; no analysis of how batch size interacts with optimizer or GPU memory is provided.
  • optimizer = Adam
    Chosen without comparison to SGD or other optimizers; learning rate and schedule are not stated.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math The convolution-rotation property in Eq. (1): a * [R b] = R^{-1}[(R a) * b].
    Used to justify CEM's rotational convolution, but the paper's Eq. (2) misapplies it by dropping the inverse rotation.
  • domain assumption The public benchmarks SSDD, HRSID, and LS-SSDD-v1.0 with the stated train/test splits are a valid proxy for SAR ship detection performance.
    All conclusions about detection quality rest on these three datasets; no experiments on other SAR imagery or real-time operational data are provided.
  • domain assumption Competitor results in Tables I-III were obtained under compatible evaluation protocols (same data splits, image processing, and metric definitions).
    The paper does not state whether baselines were re-run locally or transcribed from source papers, so the SOTA margin depends on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing, Refining, and Fusing: Towards Robust Multi-Scale and Dense Ship Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PKQGJBMU

@misc{pith2026250106053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing, Refining, and Fusing: Towards Robust Multi-Scale and Dense Ship Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PKQGJBMU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06053}
}
read the original abstract

Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imaging, celebrated for its high resolution, all-weather capability, and day-night operability, is indispensable for maritime applications. However, ship detection in SAR imagery faces significant challenges, including complex backgrounds, densely arranged targets, and large scale variations. To address these issues, we propose a novel framework, Center-Aware SAR Ship Detector (CASS-Det), designed for robust multi-scale and densely packed ship detection. CASS-Det integrates three key innovations: (1) a center enhancement module (CEM) that employs rotational convolution to emphasize ship centers, improving localization while suppressing background interference; (2) a neighbor attention module (NAM) that leverages cross-layer dependencies to refine ship boundaries in densely populated scenes; and (3) a cross-connected feature pyramid network (CC-FPN) that enhances multi-scale feature fusion by integrating shallow and deep features. Extensive experiments on the SSDD, HRSID, and LS-SSDD-v1.0 datasets demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance of CASS-Det, excelling at detecting multi-scale and densely arranged ships.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06053 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images from SSDD and HRSID. The ground truth in the images are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The structure of center enhancement module (CEM) and neighbor attention module (NAM). In (a), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Structure of FPN, PAFPN, and CC-FPN (Ours). Compared with FPN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overall architecture of CASS-Det. CEM and NAM represent center enhancement module and neighbor attention module, respectively. CASS-Det [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Detection Results of Different Methods on SSDD. The green box is the ground truth. Red box is the detection result. The yellow circle indicates false [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Detection Results of Different Methods on HRSID. The green box is the ground truth. Red box is the detection result. The yellow circle indicates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Heatmaps of networks with different modules. Green boxes are ground truth. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Detection results of different modules. Green boxes are ground truth. Red boxes are the detection results. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Experimental results of NAM and In-NAM. is 0.6% lower than that of In-NAM, the APs and APl of NAM are 1.1% and 3.7% higher than those of In-NAM. NAM is superior to In-NAM in detecting small and large ships as NAM has finer granularities, bringing a better perception of…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Recalls of original YOLOs and those combined with our medules. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ship detection in spaceborne infrared image based on lightweight cnn and multisource feature cascade decision,

    N. Wang, B. Li, X. Wei, Y . Wang, and H. Yan, “Ship detection in spaceborne infrared image based on lightweight cnn and multisource feature cascade decision,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 4324–4339, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Fishing vessel classification in sar images using a novel deep learning model,

    Y . Guan, X. Zhang, S. Chen, G. Liu, Y . Jia, Y . Zhang, G. Gao, J. Zhang, Z. Li, and C. Cao, “Fishing vessel classification in sar images using a novel deep learning model,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–21, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Ship detection based on complex signal kurtosis in single-channel sar imagery,

    X. Leng, K. Ji, S. Zhou, and X. Xing, “Ship detection based on complex signal kurtosis in single-channel sar imagery,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 6447–6461, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Git: Graph interactive transformer for vehicle re-identification,

    F. Shen, Y . Xie, J. Zhu, X. Zhu, and H. Zeng, “Git: Graph interactive transformer for vehicle re-identification,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 32, pp. 1039–1051, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Sar ship detection based on explainable evidence learning under intraclass imbalance,

    Y . Liu, G. Yan, F. Ma, Y . Zhou, and F. Zhang, “Sar ship detection based on explainable evidence learning under intraclass imbalance,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–15, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Oriented gaussian function- based box boundary-aware vectors for oriented ship detection in mul- tiresolution sar imagery,

    J. Zhang, M. Xing, G.-C. Sun, and N. Li, “Oriented gaussian function- based box boundary-aware vectors for oriented ship detection in mul- tiresolution sar imagery,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–15, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    An adaptive and fast cfar algorithm based on automatic censoring for target detection in high- resolution sar images,

    G. Gao, L. Liu, L. Zhao, G. Shi, and G. Kuang, “An adaptive and fast cfar algorithm based on automatic censoring for target detection in high- resolution sar images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1685–1697, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Ship detection in sar images based on lognormal ρ -metric,

    M. Yang and C. Guo, “Ship detection in sar images based on lognormal ρ -metric,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1372–1376, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Analysis of the ship target detection in high-resolution sar images based on information theory and harris corner detection,

    Y . Deng, H. Wang, S. Liu, M. Sun, and X. Li, “Analysis of the ship target detection in high-resolution sar images based on information theory and harris corner detection,” Eurasip Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking , vol. 2018, no. 1, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    A novel algorithm for ship detection in sar imagery based on the wavelet transform,

    M. Tello, C. Lopez-Martinez, and J. Mallorqui, “A novel algorithm for ship detection in sar imagery based on the wavelet transform,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 201–205, 2005

    2005

  3. [11]

    A novel ship detection method based on gradient and integral feature for single-polarization synthetic aperture radar imagery,

    H. Shi, Q. Zhang, M. Bian, H. Wang, Z. Wang, L. Chen, and J. Yang, “A novel ship detection method based on gradient and integral feature for single-polarization synthetic aperture radar imagery,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 2, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    An improved bilateral cfar ship detection algorithm for sar image in complex envi- ronment,

    J. Ai, Z. Cao, Y . Mao, Z. Wang, F. Wang, and J. Jin, “An improved bilateral cfar ship detection algorithm for sar image in complex envi- ronment,” Journal of Radars , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 499 – 515, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    A survey of convolutional neural networks: Analysis, applications, and prospects,

    Z. Li, F. Liu, W. Yang, S. Peng, and J. Zhou, “A survey of convolutional neural networks: Analysis, applications, and prospects,” IEEE Transac- tions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 6999–7019, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

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

    S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1137– 1149, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Enhancing landslide segmentation with guide attention mechanism and fast fourier transformer,

    K. Yan, F. Shen, and Z. Li, “Enhancing landslide segmentation with guide attention mechanism and fast fourier transformer,” in International Conference on Intelligent Computing . Springer, 2024, pp. 296–307

    2024

  8. [16]

    Cascade r-cnn: Delving into high quality object detection,

    Z. Cai and N. Vasconcelos, “Cascade r-cnn: Delving into high quality object detection,” in 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 6154–6162

    2018

  9. [17]

    Ssd: Single shot multibox detector,

    L. Wei, A. Dragomir, E. Dumitru, S. Christian, R. Scott, F. Cheng-Yang, and A. C. Berg, “Ssd: Single shot multibox detector,” Springer , Cham, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

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

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2016, pp. 779–788

    2016

  11. [19]

    Yolov3: An incremental improvement,

    J. Redmon and A. Farhadi, “Yolov3: An incremental improvement,” arXiv e-prints , 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Yolov4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection,

    A. Bochkovskiy, C. Y . Wang, and H. Y . M. Liao, “Yolov4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection,” 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

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

    C. Y . Wang, A. Bochkovskiy, and H. Y . M. Liao, “Yolov7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors,” arXiv e-prints , 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Yolox: Exceeding yolo series in 2021,

    Z. Ge, S. Liu, F. Wang, Z. Li, and J. Sun, “Yolox: Exceeding yolo series in 2021,” arXiv e-prints , 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Focal loss for dense object detection,

    T.-Y . Lin, P. Goyal, R. Girshick, K. He, and P. Doll ´ar, “Focal loss for dense object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 318–327, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Fcos: Fully convolutional one- stage object detection,

    Z. Tian, C. Shen, H. Chen, and T. He, “Fcos: Fully convolutional one- stage object detection,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2019, pp. 9626–9635. 11

    2019

  17. [25]

    Centernet: Keypoint triplets for object detection,

    K. Duan, S. Bai, L. Xie, H. Qi, Q. Huang, and Q. Tian, “Centernet: Keypoint triplets for object detection,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2019, pp. 6568–6577

    2019

  18. [26]

    Ship detection in large-scale sar images via spatial shuffle-group enhance attention,

    Z. Cui, X. Wang, N. Liu, Z. Cao, and J. Yang, “Ship detection in large-scale sar images via spatial shuffle-group enhance attention,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 379–391, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    An improved deep neural network for small-ship detection in sar imagery,

    B. Hu and H. Miao, “An improved deep neural network for small-ship detection in sar imagery,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 17, pp. 2596–2609, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    High-speed lightweight ship detection algorithm based on yolo-v4 for three-channels rgb sar image,

    J. Jiang, X. Fu, R. Qin, X. Wang, and Z. Ma, “High-speed lightweight ship detection algorithm based on yolo-v4 for three-channels rgb sar image,” Remote Sensing , vol. 13, no. 10, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Feature pyramid networks for object detection,

    T. Y . Lin, P. Dollar, R. Girshick, K. He, B. Hariharan, and S. Belongie, “Feature pyramid networks for object detection,” IEEE Computer Soci- ety, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Path aggregation network for instance segmentation,

    S. Liu, L. Qi, H. Qin, J. Shi, and J. Jia, “Path aggregation network for instance segmentation,” in 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 8759–8768

    2018

  23. [31]

    Ship detection in sar images based on an improved faster r-cnn,

    J. Li, C. Qu, and J. Shao, “Ship detection in sar images based on an improved faster r-cnn,” in Sar in Big Data Era: Models, Methods & Applications, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Hrsid: A high-resolution sar images dataset for ship detection and instance segmentation,

    S. Wei, X. Zeng, Q. Qu, M. Wang, H. Su, and J. Shi, “Hrsid: A high-resolution sar images dataset for ship detection and instance segmentation,” IEEE Access , vol. 8, pp. 120 234–120 254, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Ls-ssdd-v1.0: A deep learning dataset dedicated to small ship detection from large-scale sentinel-1 sar images,

    T. Zhang, X. Zhang, X. Ke, X. Zhan, J. Shi, S. Wei, D. Pan, J. Li, H. Su, Y . Zhou, and D. Kumar, “Ls-ssdd-v1.0: A deep learning dataset dedicated to small ship detection from large-scale sentinel-1 sar images,” Remote Sensing , vol. 12, no. 18, 2020. [Online]. Available: http...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Srt- net: Scattering region topology network for oriented ship detection in large-scale sar images,

    D. Pan, X. Gao, W. Dai, J. Fu, Z. Wang, X. Sun, and Y . Wu, “Srt- net: Scattering region topology network for oriented ship detection in large-scale sar images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 62, pp. 1–18, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Dense attention pyramid networks for multi-scale ship detection in sar images,

    Z. Cui, Q. Li, Z. Cao, and N. Liu, “Dense attention pyramid networks for multi-scale ship detection in sar images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 8983–8997, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Cbam: Convolutional block attention module,

    S. Woo, J. Park, J. Y . Lee, and I. S. Kweon, “Cbam: Convolutional block attention module,” Springer , Cham, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    A robust one-stage detector for multiscale ship detection with complex background in massive sar images,

    X. Yang, X. Zhang, N. Wang, and X. Gao, “A robust one-stage detector for multiscale ship detection with complex background in massive sar images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–12, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Banet: A balance attention network for anchor-free ship detection in sar images,

    Q. Hu, S. Hu, and S. Liu, “Banet: A balance attention network for anchor-free ship detection in sar images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–12, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Multi scale ship detection based on attention and weighted fusion model for high resolution sar images,

    L. Zhang, Z. Chu, and B. Zou, “Multi scale ship detection based on attention and weighted fusion model for high resolution sar images,” in IGARSS 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium , 2022, pp. 631–634

    2022

  32. [40]

    Coordinate attention for efficient mobile network design,

    Q. Hou, D. Zhou, and J. Feng, “Coordinate attention for efficient mobile network design,” in 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2021, pp. 13 708–13 717

    2021

  33. [41]

    Ppa-net: Pyramid pooling attention network for multi-scale ship detection in sar images,

    G. Tang, H. Zhao, C. Claramunt, W. Zhu, S. Wang, Y . Wang, and Y . Ding, “Ppa-net: Pyramid pooling attention network for multi-scale ship detection in sar images,” Remote Sensing , vol. 15, no. 11, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Imagpose: A unified conditional framework for pose-guided person generation,

    F. Shen and J. Tang, “Imagpose: A unified conditional framework for pose-guided person generation,” in The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Imagdressing-v1: Customizable virtual dressing,

    F. Shen, X. Jiang, X. He, H. Ye, C. Wang, X. Du, Z. Li, and J. Tang, “Imagdressing-v1: Customizable virtual dressing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12705, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Boosting consistency in story visualization with rich-contextual condi- tional diffusion models,

    F. Shen, H. Ye, S. Liu, J. Zhang, C. Wang, X. Han, and W. Yang, “Boosting consistency in story visualization with rich-contextual condi- tional diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02482 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Advancing pose-guided image synthesis with progressive conditional diffusion models,

    F. Shen, H. Ye, J. Zhang, C. Wang, X. Han, and W. Yang, “Advancing pose-guided image synthesis with progressive conditional diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06313 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Non-local neural net- works,

    X. Wang, R. Girshick, A. Gupta, and K. He, “Non-local neural net- works,” in 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018, pp. 7794–7803

    2018

  39. [47]

    Gcnet: Non-local networks meet squeeze-excitation networks and beyond,

    Y . Cao, J. Xu, S. Lin, F. Wei, and H. Hu, “Gcnet: Non-local networks meet squeeze-excitation networks and beyond,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshop (ICCVW), 2019, pp. 1971–1980

    2019

  40. [48]

    Dual attention network for scene segmentation,

    J. Fu, J. Liu, H. Tian, Y . Li, Y . Bao, Z. Fang, and H. Lu, “Dual attention network for scene segmentation,” 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Ccnet: Criss-cross attention for semantic segmentation,

    Z. Huang, X. Wang, Y . Wei, L. Huang, H. Shi, W. Liu, and T. S. Huang, “Ccnet: Criss-cross attention for semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 6896–6908, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Squeeze and excitation rank faster r-cnn for ship detection in sar images,

    Z. Lin, K. Ji, X. Leng, and G. Kuang, “Squeeze and excitation rank faster r-cnn for ship detection in sar images,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 751–755, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Dynamic r-cnn: Towards high quality object detection via dynamic training

    H. Zhang, H. Chang, B. Ma, N. Wang, and X. Chen, “Dynamic r-cnn: Towards high quality object detection via dynamic training.” Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58555-6 16

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    Rethinking classification and localization for object detection,

    Y . Wu, Y . Chen, L. Yuan, Z. Liu, L. Wang, H. Li, and Y . Fu, “Rethinking classification and localization for object detection,” in 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020, pp. 10 183–10 192

    2020

  45. [53]

    A cascade rotated anchor-aided detector for ship detection in remote sensing images,

    Y . Yu, X. Yang, J. Li, and X. Gao, “A cascade rotated anchor-aided detector for ship detection in remote sensing images,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–14, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Fcos: Fully convolutional one- stage object detection,

    Z. Tian, C. Shen, H. Chen, and T. He, “Fcos: Fully convolutional one- stage object detection,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2019, pp. 9626–9635

    2019

  47. [55]

    Learning to match anchors for visual object detection,

    X. Zhang, F. Wan, C. Liu, X. Ji, and Q. Ye, “Learning to match anchors for visual object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 3096–3109, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Frequency- adaptive learning for sar ship detection in clutter scenes,

    L. Zhang, Y . Liu, W. Zhao, X. Wang, G. Li, and Y . He, “Frequency- adaptive learning for sar ship detection in clutter scenes,” IEEE Trans- actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–14, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

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

    R. Varghese and S. 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) , 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  50. [58]

    Yolox: Exceeding yolo series in 2021,

    Z. Ge, S. Liu, F. Wang, Z. Li, and J. Sun, “Yolox: Exceeding yolo series in 2021,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.08430

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A sidelobe-aware small ship detection network for synthetic aperture radar imagery,

    Y . Zhou, H. Liu, F. Ma, Z. Pan, and F. Zhang, “A sidelobe-aware small ship detection network for synthetic aperture radar imagery,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–16, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

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

    C.-Y . Wang, A. Bochkovskiy, and H.-Y . M. 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 Recog- nition (CVPR) , 2023, pp. 7464–7475

    2023

  53. [61]

    Atsd: Anchor-free two-stage ship detection based on feature enhancement in sar images,

    C. Yao, P. Xie, L. Zhang, and Y . Fang, “Atsd: Anchor-free two-stage ship detection based on feature enhancement in sar images,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 23, 2022

    2022

  54. [62]

    Dbw-yolo: A high-precision sar ship detection method for complex environments,

    X. Tang, J. Zhang, Y . Xia, and H. Xiao, “Dbw-yolo: A high-precision sar ship detection method for complex environments,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 17, pp. 7029–7039, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    A rotational libra r-cnn method for ship detection,

    H. Guo, X. Yang, N. Wang, B. Song, and X. Gao, “A rotational libra r-cnn method for ship detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 5772–5781, 2020

    2020

  56. [64]

    Deformable convolutional networks,

    J. Dai, H. Qi, Y . Xiong, Y . Li, G. Zhang, H. Hu, and Y . Wei, “Deformable convolutional networks,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2017, pp. 764–773

    2017

  57. [65]

    Msif: Multisize inference fusion-based false alarm elimination for ship detection in large-scale sar images,

    C. Zhang, C. Yang, K. Cheng, N. Guan, H. Dong, and B. Deng, “Msif: Multisize inference fusion-based false alarm elimination for ship detection in large-scale sar images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–11, 2022

    2022

  58. [66]

    Lemon-yolo: an efficient object detection method for lemons in the natural environment,

    G. Li, X. Huang, J. Ai, Z. Yi, and W. Xie, “Lemon-yolo: an efficient object detection method for lemons in the natural environment,” IET Image Processing, vol. 15, pp. 1998–2009, 2021

    1998

  59. [67]

    Sii-net: Spatial information integration network for small target detection in sar images,

    N. Su, J. He, Y . Yan, C. Zhao, and X. Xing, “Sii-net: Spatial information integration network for small target detection in sar images,” Remote Sensing , vol. 14, no. 3, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/3/442

    2022

  60. [68]

    A high-effective implementation of ship detector for sar images,

    S. Gao, J. M. Liu, Y . H. Miao, and Z. J. He, “A high-effective implementation of ship detector for sar images,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 19, pp. 1–5, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.