Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

CLDA-YOLO: Visual Contrastive Learning Based Domain Adaptive YOLO Detector

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes CLDA-YOLO, a teacher-student framework that makes single-stage YOLO detectors adapt to unlabeled target domains and reports state-of-the-art mAP on four domain-shift benchmarks while keeping inference speed unchanged.

desk verdict Strong YOLO UDA results, but the central contrastive loss equation suppresses the high-confidence pairs it should trust, and no code or ablations let you check whether the reported tables match the paper's formulas. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11812 v1 pith:VFDNEBSY submitted 2024-12-16 cs.CV

Tianheng Qiu , Ka Lung Law , Guanghua Pan , Jufei Wang , Xin Gao , Xuan Huang , Hu Wei This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords unsuperviseddomainadaptationYOLOobjectdetectionteacher-studentlearningpseudo-labeluncertaintycontrastiveshiftsingle-stagedetectorautonomousdriving
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 tries to show that unsupervised domain adaptation, which usually targets two-stage detectors, can be made to work for single-stage YOLO detectors without any extra cost at inference time. It builds a teacher-student YOLO system where the teacher produces pseudo-labels on target-domain images, an uncertainty rule decides whether each pseudo-box is positive, uncertain, or negative, and data augmentation strength grows as the teacher-student pair stabilizes. To give the one-stage detector the multi-stage alignment two-stage detectors get, it adds a sigmoid-based contrastive alignment loss that compares instance features from backbone and head against dynamic queues of source and target boxes. On Cityscapes to Foggy Cityscapes, Cityscapes to BDD100k, Sim10k to Cityscapes, and KITTI to Cityscapes, it reports mAP@.5 of 57.7, 43.2, 66.5, and 57.2 respectively, all with an anchor-free YOLOv5 head and no inference slowdown.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Contrastive Align (CA) module: at each of several backbone layers and at the head, instance features of predicted boxes are extracted by ROI-Pooling, matched against source and target queues of length $K$, and scored by a sigmoid contrastive loss, $$L_{\mathrm{CA}} = -\frac{1}{K}\sum_{i=1}^K\sum_{j=1}^n (1 - $p_i^{{\alpha/2}}$ $q_j^{{\beta/2}}$) \log \frac{1}{1 + $e^{{-x_i y_j \, \mathrm{mask}}$_{ij} \, \tau}},$$ where $\mathrm{mask}_{ij}$ is $+1$ for same-category pairs and $-1$ for different-category pairs and $\tau = \ln T$ is the temperature. The surrounding machinery is a teacher-student system with exponential-moving-average parameter transfer, pseudo-labels split by confidence thresholds $p_l$ and $p_h$ into positive, uncertain, and negative groups with different losses, and a dynamic augmentation strength controlled by the teacher-student JS divergence and pseudo-label entropy.

What would settle it

Rerun the Cityscapes to Foggy Cityscapes setting with the confidence-weight factor in Eq. (8) disabled (set $\alpha=\beta=0$) while keeping the queues and sigmoid loss. If mAP@.5 stays near the reported 57.7, the confidence weighting is not the source of the alignment gain; if it drops sharply, the term is doing real work but is also unvalidated as written.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the standard teacher-student recipe for semi-supervised and domain-adaptive detection, when equipped with uncertainty-graded pseudo-label losses, dynamic augmentation, and a contrastive instance-alignment term that is sigmoid-based rather than softmax-based, transfers to YOLO and surpasses prior domain-adaptive detectors. The paper argues that softmax contrastive losses fail in detection because one image has many positive and negative boxes at once, turning the problem into multi-label learning. Its contrastive alignment loss computes cosine similarity per pair with category-equality masks and confidence weights, and maintains separate source and target queues so the comparison is global rather than batch-local. The reported results are on four benchmark shifts, and the authors also show the framework transfers to YOLOv8. A corroborating ablation attributes the largest single gain to the teacher-student and uncertainty components, with contrastive alignment adding further improvement on top of a gradient-reversal domain discriminator.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the confidence-weighted sigmoid contrastive loss in Eq. (8) pulls same-category instances across domains together, even though its weight factor applies uniformly to positive and negative pairs and the paper reports no ablation of the weighting exponents.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, single-stage YOLO detectors can be adapted to unlabeled target domains with no inference-time cost, which covers a wider deployment class than Faster R-CNN or DETR-based domain adaptation.
  • The sigmoid-based contrastive alignment, instead of softmax InfoNCE, gives detectors a multi-stage alignment mechanism that behaves like two-stage multi-level alignment despite YOLO's single-pass regression design.
  • Because the framework is anchor-free, it can be dropped onto newer YOLO versions; the paper shows YOLOv8 gains from 46.6 to 58.6 mAP@.5 on Cityscapes to Foggy Cityscapes.
  • Uncertainty-graded pseudo-labels let the teacher-student system keep low-confidence boxes alive as regressable negatives, which should reduce false negatives compared to hard pseudo-label thresholds.
  • Domain shift due to weather, scene, and synthetic-to-real gaps can be handled by one unsupervised adaptation recipe without retraining a separate image-translation or restoration model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable follow-up is to ablate the confidence-weight exponents $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in the contrastive loss; the paper gives no sensitivity study, so it is not yet known whether the gain comes from the sigmoid formulation, the queues, or the per-pair weighting.
  • Because the authors note the contrastive alignment design steps outside the binary-domain adversarial paradigm, the same contrastive queues could be extended to multi-target or continual domain adaptation, where multiple domain queues would replace the source-target pair.
  • The dynamic augmentation schedule is keyed to teacher-student agreement; a similar schedule could be paired with other semi-supervised detectors to make augmentation strength self-tuning rather than hand-set.
  • The per-pair confidence weight multiplies both positive and negative pairs, so for very confident positive pairs it tends to zero; if that behavior is unintended, a gated mask that applies the weight only to negative pairs would be a direct variant to test.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CLDA-YOLO, an unsupervised domain adaptive object detector built on a YOLO-style single-stage detector with a teacher-student framework. The method combines uncertainty-graded pseudo-label distillation, dynamic data augmentation whose strength grows with teacher-student agreement, a gradient-reversal layer for feature alignment, and a sigmoid-based contrastive learning loss that aligns instance features at both backbone and head stages. The paper reports state-of-the-art results on four domain-shift benchmarks: Cityscapes to Foggy Cityscapes (mAP@.5 57.7), Cityscapes to BDD100k (43.2), Sim10k to Cityscapes (66.5), and KITTI to Cityscapes (57.2), all without increasing the baseline model's inference cost. Ablations in Table 5 attribute the gains to the teacher-student framework, uncertainty learning, dynamic augmentation, GRL, and the proposed contrastive alignment, and a YOLOv8-based variant is also evaluated.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper addresses a practical gap: most domain-adaptive detection methods target two-stage or DETR-based detectors, while real-time single-stage YOLO-family detectors are widely deployed. The work is genuinely useful in its scope. Its strengths are the breadth of benchmark evaluations (four standard UDA settings), comparisons with many recent methods including transformer-based detectors, a componentwise ablation, a generalization experiment on YOLOv8, and qualitative feature/t-SNE evidence. The central novelty, however, is the contrastive alignment loss in Eq. (8), whose written form is questionable and whose implementation is not sufficiently specified. Because that loss is the paper's main claimed contribution, the verification status of the reported gains is currently incomplete. No code is released, and no repeated-seed statistics are provided, so the reported mAP differences are not accompanied by variance estimates.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (8)] The confidence weight (1 - p_i^{α/2} q_j^{β/2}) in Eq. (8) is applied to both positive and negative pairs. For a high-confidence positive pair, p_i and q_j are both near 1, so the weight is near 0 and the most reliable cross-domain positive attraction is almost entirely suppressed; a low-confidence pair receives a larger weight. This is the opposite of the usual pseudo-label reliability assumption and is not reconciled with the uncertainty learning in §3.1, where high-confidence teacher outputs are treated as the trustworthy supervision. The paper reports no values for α and β and no ablation over them. Moreover, τ is written as a multiplier (τ = ln T), whereas a temperature in a contrastive objective normally appears as a divisor of the similarity. Please state the intended loss precisely, report the hyperparameters used, and provide a sensitivity analysis; if the implemented loss differs from Eq. (8), the equation and the text must be corrected.
  2. [§4.4, Table 5] Table 5 does not isolate the contribution of contrastive alignment (CA) from the gradient-reversal layer (GRL). The last row adds CA on top of a model that already contains GRL, so the gain from 48.8 to 51.6 is a combined/interaction effect. The text asserts that the gain from domain-adversarial alignment is slightly less than that from CA, but there is no condition with CA and without GRL. Please add that condition, or revise the claim accordingly.
  3. [§3.2 and §4.4, Appendix] The manuscript refers to an appendix that is not present: §3.2 says the pseudocode for LCA is in the Appendix, §4.3 says more experimental results will be shown in the Appendix, and §4.4 says more analysis is in the Appendix. Because Eq. (8) is ambiguous about feature definitions, mask handling, queue update, and normalization, the missing pseudocode prevents verification of the central loss. Please include the appendix material in the revision.
  4. [§4.2 Implementation Details] The implementation details list only the optimizer, learning rate, epochs, and batch size. The hyperparameters that control the method are never given: pseudo-label thresholds p_l and p_h, EMA decay α, augmentation-strength exponent γ, queue length K, temperature T or τ, and the CA exponents α and β. Without these values, the experiments are not reproducible from the text. Please provide a complete hyperparameter table or state all values in the implementation section.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) uses symbols P_t^k, P̄_t^0, and γ_t without definitions, and the text says the dynamic parameter includes an entropy weighting of the teacher pseudo-labels that is not visible in the formula. Please clarify the equation and the role of the entropy term.
  2. [§4.4] The text contains a broken reference 'Table reftab:4' and the abbreviation 'UC' is not expanded in the Table 5 caption; the caption should state that UC denotes uncertainty learning.
  3. [§4.1] The sentence 'Following the setup of our previous work, we ignored the train label' is unexplained; if this refers to an earlier publication by the authors, it should be cited and described.
  4. [Abstract and §1] The claim that the method achieves a result 'without any reduction in inference speed' is not supported by any measured latency or FPS comparison. If the claim is retained, report the inference speed of the baseline and the proposed system.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos, including 'Sigmoid Contract Align Loss' in §3.2 (should likely be 'Contrast') and 'DETR-basaed' in §2; these should be corrected in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CLDA-YOLO pipeline is an empirical teacher-student/contrastive system whose reported gains are measured against held-out target ground truth, not derived from its own fitted inputs.

full rationale

CLDA-YOLO is an empirical UDA detector evaluated on standard Cityscapes/Foggy/BDD100k/Sim10k/KITTI benchmarks, and I found no step where a reported result reduces by construction to an input or to a self-citation. The teacher-student loop (Eq. 1; Eqs. 3-5) is a standard self-training bootstrap: the teacher is an EMA of the student and its pseudo-labels supervise the student, but the final mAP is computed against target-domain ground-truth labels, not against the teacher's own outputs, so the evaluation is not closed by the training objective. The contrastive alignment loss (Eq. 8) is an independent loss term whose contribution is ablated in Table 5; whether its confidence weight (1 - p^{α/2} q^{β/2}) is correctly formulated is a correctness/validation question (no α, β values or ablations are given), not a circularity. The only self-referential manuscript passage is Table 2's note, 'Following the setup of our previous work, we ignored the "train" label'; this concerns the evaluation protocol and comparability, and it is not load-bearing for any derivation of the stated results. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked, and no known result is repackaged under new coordinates. Hence no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unreported hyperparameters and four domain-specific heuristics: pseudo-label reliability, JS-divergence as a stability measure, queue consistency without a momentum encoder, and the sigmoid contrastive objective. None of these heuristics are derived or externally validated, and no code is shipped, so the reader must accept the authors' implicit assumptions at face value.

free parameters (7)
  • pl
    Lower confidence threshold separating uncertain from negative pseudo-labels in Eq. 3; value not reported.
  • ph
    Upper confidence threshold separating positive from uncertain pseudo-labels in Eq. 3; value not reported.
  • EMA decay alpha
    Momentum in Eq. 1 and Eq. 6; typical value 0.999 but not stated in the paper.
  • gamma
    Control factor in Eq. 6 for dynamic data augmentation; not reported.
  • Temperature T (tau = ln T)
    Scales logits in Eq. 8; T is not specified.
  • Exponents alpha and beta
    Confidence exponents in Eq. 8; affect how strongly pair confidence modulates the loss; no values given.
  • Queue length K
    Length of the source and target queues in Section 3.2; value not reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Teacher-generated pseudo-labels on the target domain are sufficiently accurate for student training after burn-in
    The whole teacher-student distillation (Eq. 3-5) depends on this; standard in UDA but not verified per class.
  • ad hoc to paper JS divergence between teacher and student regression outputs measures adaptation stability
    Eq. 6 uses this heuristic to schedule augmentation strength; no theoretical or empirical justification beyond the authors' claim.
  • domain assumption Dynamic queue without a momentum encoder preserves feature consistency
    Section 3.2 asserts object-detection queues update fast enough; this replaces MoCo's momentum encoder [19] without validation.
  • ad hoc to paper Sigmoid contrastive loss with a +/- 1 mask is a valid multi-label alignment objective
    Eq. 8 extends SigLIP [58] to detection boxes with per-pair confidence weights; correctness and convergence properties are not analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CLDA-YOLO: Visual Contrastive Learning Based Domain Adaptive YOLO Detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFDNEBSY

@misc{pith2026241211812,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CLDA-YOLO: Visual Contrastive Learning Based Domain Adaptive YOLO Detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFDNEBSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11812}
}
read the original abstract

Unsupervised domain adaptive (UDA) algorithms can markedly enhance the performance of object detectors under conditions of domain shifts, thereby reducing the necessity for extensive labeling and retraining. Current domain adaptive object detection algorithms primarily cater to two-stage detectors, which tend to offer minimal improvements when directly applied to single-stage detectors such as YOLO. Intending to benefit the YOLO detector from UDA, we build a comprehensive domain adaptive architecture using a teacher-student cooperative system for the YOLO detector. In this process, we propose uncertainty learning to cope with pseudo-labeling generated by the teacher model with extreme uncertainty and leverage dynamic data augmentation to asymptotically adapt the teacher-student system to the environment. To address the inability of single-stage object detectors to align at multiple stages, we utilize a unified visual contrastive learning paradigm that aligns instance at backbone and head respectively, which steadily improves the robustness of the detectors in cross-domain tasks. In summary, we present an unsupervised domain adaptive YOLO detector based on visual contrastive learning (CLDA-YOLO), which achieves highly competitive results across multiple domain adaptive datasets without any reduction in inference speed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11812 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of mAP@.5 results under two experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall architecture of the proposed CLDA-YOLO. Following the teacher-student cooperative learning architecture, we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simple schema of our Contrastive Learning-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of CLDA-YOLO’s prediction visualization, with images of normal weather, rainy day, and foggy day, from left to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Feature visualization of Cityscapes → Foggy Cityscapes by T-SNE, which generated by each detector head. Categories and domains are distinguish by marker and color respectively. Zoom in for more detailed view. Method Setting person rider car truck bus train mcycle bicyc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Generalization and equilibrium in generative adver- sarial nets (gans)

    Sanjeev Arora, Rong Ge, Yingyu Liang, Tengyu Ma, and Yi Zhang. Generalization and equilibrium in generative adver- sarial nets (gans). In International conference on machine learning, pages 224–232. PMLR, 2017. 2

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Contrastive mean teacher for domain adaptive ob- ject detectors

    Shengcao Cao, Dhiraj Joshi, Liang-Yan Gui, and Yu-Xiong Wang. Contrastive mean teacher for domain adaptive ob- ject detectors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 23839– 23848, 2023. 6

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Label matching semi-supervised object detection

    Binbin Chen, Weijie Chen, Shicai Yang, Yunyi Xuan, Jie Song, Di Xie, Shiliang Pu, Mingli Song, and Yueting Zhuang. Label matching semi-supervised object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14381–14390, 2022. 2, 4

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Homm: Higher- order moment matching for unsupervised domain adaptation

    Chao Chen, Zhihang Fu, Zhihong Chen, Sheng Jin, Zhaowei Cheng, Xinyu Jin, and Xian-Sheng Hua. Homm: Higher- order moment matching for unsupervised domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelli- gence, pages 3422–3429, 2020. 1

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Harmonizing transferability and discrim- inability for adapting object detectors

    Chaoqi Chen, Zebiao Zheng, Xinghao Ding, Yue Huang, and Qi Dou. Harmonizing transferability and discrim- inability for adapting object detectors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8869–8878, 2020. 1, 2

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Learning domain adaptive ob- ject detection with probabilistic teacher

    Meilin Chen, Weijie Chen, Shicai Yang, Jie Song, Xin- chao Wang, Lei Zhang, Yunfeng Yan, Donglian Qi, Yuet- ing Zhuang, Di Xie, et al. Learning domain adaptive ob- ject detection with probabilistic teacher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.06293, 2022. 2, 6, 7

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Ge- offrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on ma- chine learning, pages 1597–1607. PMLR, 2020. 3

    2020

  8. [8]

    Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning

    Xinlei Chen, Haoqi Fan, Ross Girshick, and Kaiming He. Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04297, 2020. 3

    arXiv 2003

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Domain adaptive faster r-cnn for object de- tection in the wild

    Yuhua Chen, Wen Li, Christos Sakaridis, Dengxin Dai, and Luc Van Gool. Domain adaptive faster r-cnn for object de- tection in the wild. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3339–3348,

  2. [10]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding

    Marius Cordts, Mohamed Omran, Sebastian Ramos, Timo Rehfeld, Markus Enzweiler, Rodrigo Benenson, Uwe Franke, Stefan Roth, and Bernt Schiele. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern re...

    2016

  3. [11]

    Un- biased mean teacher for cross-domain object detection

    Jinhong Deng, Wen Li, Yuhua Chen, and Lixin Duan. Un- biased mean teacher for cross-domain object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 4091–4101, 2021. 2

    2021

  4. [12]

    Harmo- nious teacher for cross-domain object detection

    Jinhong Deng, Dongli Xu, Wen Li, and Lixin Duan. Harmo- nious teacher for cross-domain object detection. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 23829–23838, 2023. 2, 6

    2023

  5. [13]

    Multi-scale boosted de- hazing network with dense feature fusion

    Hang Dong, Jinshan Pan, Lei Xiang, Zhe Hu, Xinyi Zhang, Fei Wang, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Multi-scale boosted de- hazing network with dense feature fusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2157–2167, 2020. 1

    2020

  6. [14]

    Tood: Task-aligned one-stage object detec- tion

    Chengjian Feng, Yujie Zhong, Yu Gao, Matthew R Scott, and Weilin Huang. Tood: Task-aligned one-stage object detec- tion. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision (ICCV), pages 3490–3499. IEEE Computer So- ciety, 2021. 3

    2021

  7. [15]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation

    Yaroslav Ganin and Victor Lempitsky. Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1180–1189. PMLR, 2015. 4

    2015

  8. [16]

    Domain-adversarial training of neural networks

    Yaroslav Ganin, Evgeniya Ustinova, Hana Ajakan, Pas- cal Germain, Hugo Larochelle, Franc ¸ois Laviolette, Mario March, and Victor Lempitsky. Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. Journal of machine learning research , 17(59):1–35, 2016. 1

    2016

  9. [17]

    Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite

    Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, and Raquel Urtasun. Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. In 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition, pages 3354–3361. IEEE, 2012. 6

    2012

  10. [18]

    Improving transferability for domain adaptive detection transformers

    Kaixiong Gong, Shuang Li, Shugang Li, Rui Zhang, Chi Harold Liu, and Qiang Chen. Improving transferability for domain adaptive detection transformers. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 1543–1551, 2022. 2, 6

    2022

  11. [19]

    Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual rep- resentation learning

    Kaiming He, Haoqi Fan, Yuxin Wu, Saining Xie, and Ross Girshick. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual rep- resentation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 9729–9738, 2020. 3, 5

    2020

  12. [20]

    Integrated multiscale do- main adaptive yolo

    Mazin Hnewa and Hayder Radha. Integrated multiscale do- main adaptive yolo. IEEE Transactions on Image Process- ing, 32:1857–1867, 2023. 2, 3, 6, 7

    2023

  13. [21]

    Every pixel matters: Center-aware feature alignment for domain adaptive object detector

    Cheng-Chun Hsu, Yi-Hsuan Tsai, Yen-Yu Lin, and Ming- Hsuan Yang. Every pixel matters: Center-aware feature alignment for domain adaptive object detector. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part IX 16 , pages 73...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Progressive domain adaptation for object detection

    Han-Kai Hsu, Chun-Han Yao, Yi-Hsuan Tsai, Wei-Chih Hung, Hung-Yu Tseng, Maneesh Singh, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Progressive domain adaptation for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on ap- plications of computer vision, pages 749–757, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  15. [23]

    Dagl-faster: Domain adaptive faster r-cnn for vehicle object detection in rainy and foggy weather conditions

    Mingdi Hu, Yi Wu, Yize Yang, Jiulun Fan, and Bingyi Jing. Dagl-faster: Domain adaptive faster r-cnn for vehicle object detection in rainy and foggy weather conditions. Displays, 79:102484, 2023. 2

    2023

  16. [24]

    Dsnet: Joint semantic learning for object detection in inclement weather conditions

    Shih-Chia Huang, Trung-Hieu Le, and Da-Wei Jaw. Dsnet: Joint semantic learning for object detection in inclement weather conditions. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(8):2623–2633, 2020. 1

    2020

  17. [25]

    Aqt: Adversarial query transformers for domain adaptive object detection

    Wei-Jie Huang, Yu-Lin Lu, Shih-Yao Lin, Yusheng Xie, and Yen-Yu Lin. Aqt: Adversarial query transformers for domain adaptive object detection. In IJCAI, pages 972–979, 2022. 2, 6 9

    2022

  18. [26]

    YOLOv5 by Ultralytics, 2020

    Glenn Jocher. YOLOv5 by Ultralytics, 2020. 6

    2020

  19. [27]

    Ultralytics yolov8, 2023

    Glenn Jocher, Ayush Chaurasia, and Jing Qiu. Ultralytics yolov8, 2023. 3, 6, 7

    2023

  20. [28]

    Driving in the matrix: Can virtual worlds replace human- generated annotations for real world tasks? arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.01983, 2016

    Matthew Johnson-Roberson, Charles Barto, Rounak Mehta, Sharath Nittur Sridhar, Karl Rosaen, and Ram Vasudevan. Driving in the matrix: Can virtual worlds replace human- generated annotations for real world tasks? arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.01983, 2016. 6

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cat: Exploiting inter-class dynamics for domain adaptive object detection

    Mikhail Kennerley, Jian-Gang Wang, Bharadwaj Veeravalli, and Robby T Tan. Cat: Exploiting inter-class dynamics for domain adaptive object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16541–16550, 2024. 2, 5, 6

    2024

  22. [30]

    Supervised contrastive learning

    Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. Supervised contrastive learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:18661–18673,

  23. [31]

    Mila: memory-based instance-level adaptation for cross-domain object detection

    Onkar Krishna, Hiroki Ohashi, and Saptarshi Sinha. Mila: memory-based instance-level adaptation for cross-domain object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01086, 2023. 6

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Yolov6 v3.0: A full-scale reloading, 2023

    Chuyi Li, Lulu Li, Yifei Geng, Hongliang Jiang, Meng Cheng, Bo Zhang, Zaidan Ke, Xiaoming Xu, and Xiangx- iang Chu. Yolov6 v3.0: A full-scale reloading, 2023. 3

    2023

  25. [33]

    Sigma: Semantic- complete graph matching for domain adaptive object detec- tion

    Wuyang Li, Xinyu Liu, and Yixuan Yuan. Sigma: Semantic- complete graph matching for domain adaptive object detec- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5291–5300,

  26. [34]

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

    Xiang Li, Wenhai Wang, Lijun Wu, Shuo Chen, Xiaolin Hu, Jun Li, Jinhui Tang, and Jian Yang. Generalized focal loss: Learning qualified and distributed bounding boxes for dense object detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:21002–21012, 2020. 2, 3, 4

    2020

  27. [35]

    Cross-domain adaptive teacher for object detection

    Yu-Jhe Li, Xiaoliang Dai, Chih-Yao Ma, Yen-Cheng Liu, Kan Chen, Bichen Wu, Zijian He, Kris Kitani, and Peter Va- jda. Cross-domain adaptive teacher for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 7581–7590, 20...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Image-adaptive yolo for object detec- tion in adverse weather conditions

    Wenyu Liu, Gaofeng Ren, Runsheng Yu, Shi Guo, Jianke Zhu, and Lei Zhang. Image-adaptive yolo for object detec- tion in adverse weather conditions. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 1792–1800,

  29. [37]

    Unbiased teacher for semi-supervised object detec- tion

    Yen-Cheng Liu, Chih-Yao Ma, Zijian He, Chia-Wen Kuo, Kan Chen, Peizhao Zhang, Bichen Wu, Zsolt Kira, and Peter Vajda. Unbiased teacher for semi-supervised object detec- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.09480, 2021. 2, 3, 4

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Conditional adversarial domain adapta- tion

    Mingsheng Long, Zhangjie Cao, Jianmin Wang, and Michael I Jordan. Conditional adversarial domain adapta- tion. Advances in neural information processing systems , 31, 2018. 2

    2018

  31. [39]

    Ssal: Synergizing between self- training and adversarial learning for domain adaptive object detection

    Muhammad Akhtar Munir, Muhammad Haris Khan, M Sar- fraz, and Mohsen Ali. Ssal: Synergizing between self- training and adversarial learning for domain adaptive object detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 34:22770–22782, 2021. 2, 6, 7

    2021

  32. [40]

    Efficient non- maximum suppression

    Alexander Neubeck and Luc Van Gool. Efficient non- maximum suppression. In 18th international conference on pattern recognition (ICPR’06), pages 850–855. IEEE, 2006. 4

    2006

  33. [41]

    You only look once: Unified, real-time object de- tection

    Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. You only look once: Unified, real-time object de- tection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 779–788, 2016. 2

    2016

  34. [42]

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

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. Advances in neural information process- ing systems, 28, 2015. 2, 5, 6

    2015

  35. [43]

    Strong-weak distribution alignment for adaptive ob- ject detection

    Kuniaki Saito, Yoshitaka Ushiku, Tatsuya Harada, and Kate Saenko. Strong-weak distribution alignment for adaptive ob- ject detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 6956– 6965, 2019. 5

    2019

  36. [44]

    Seman- tic foggy scene understanding with synthetic data

    Christos Sakaridis, Dengxin Dai, and Luc Van Gool. Seman- tic foggy scene understanding with synthetic data. Interna- tional Journal of Computer Vision, 126:973–992, 2018. 5

    2018

  37. [45]

    Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation

    Baochen Sun and Kate Saenko. Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation. In Computer Vision– ECCV 2016 Workshops: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Oc- tober 8-10 and 15-16, 2016, Proceedings, Part III 14, pages 443–450. Springer, 2016. 1

    2016

  38. [46]

    Rethinking image restoration for object detection

    Shangquan Sun, Wenqi Ren, Tao Wang, and Xiaochun Cao. Rethinking image restoration for object detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:4461–4474,

  39. [47]

    Humble teachers teach better students for semi-supervised object detection

    Yihe Tang, Weifeng Chen, Yijun Luo, and Yuting Zhang. Humble teachers teach better students for semi-supervised object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 3132–3141, 2021. 4

    2021

  40. [48]

    Fcos: Fully convo- lutional one-stage object detection

    Z Tian, C Shen, H Chen, and T He. Fcos: Fully convo- lutional one-stage object detection. arxiv. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.01355, 2019. 2, 6

    1904 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Visualizing data using t-sne

    Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research , 9 (11), 2008. 8

    2008

  42. [50]

    Yolov9: Learning what you want to learn us- ing programmable gradient information

    Chien-Yao Wang, I-Hau Yeh, and Hong-Yuan Mark Liao. Yolov9: Learning what you want to learn us- ing programmable gradient information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13616, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Together- net: Bridging image restoration and object detection together via dynamic enhancement learning

    Yongzhen Wang, Xuefeng Yan, Kaiwen Zhang, Lina Gong, Haoran Xie, Fu Lee Wang, and Mingqiang Wei. Together- net: Bridging image restoration and object detection together via dynamic enhancement learning. In Computer Graphics Forum, pages 465–476. Wiley Online Library, 2022. 1

    2022

  44. [52]

    Unsupervised feature learning via non-parametric instance discrimination

    Zhirong Wu, Yuanjun Xiong, Stella X Yu, and Dahua Lin. Unsupervised feature learning via non-parametric instance discrimination. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3733–3742,

  45. [53]

    Ef- ficient teacher: Semi-supervised object detection for yolov5

    Bowen Xu, Mingtao Chen, Wenlong Guan, and Lulu Hu. Ef- ficient teacher: Semi-supervised object detection for yolov5. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07577, 2023. 4 10

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    End-to- end semi-supervised object detection with soft teacher

    Mengde Xu, Zheng Zhang, Han Hu, Jianfeng Wang, Lijuan Wang, Fangyun Wei, Xiang Bai, and Zicheng Liu. End-to- end semi-supervised object detection with soft teacher. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 3060–3069, 2021. 4

    2021

  47. [55]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation for one-stage object detector using off- sets to bounding box

    Jayeon Yoo, Inseop Chung, and Nojun Kwak. Unsupervised domain adaptation for one-stage object detector using off- sets to bounding box. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 691–708. Springer, 2022. 1

    2022

  48. [56]

    Bdd100k: A diverse driving dataset for heterogeneous multitask learning

    Fisher Yu, Haofeng Chen, Xin Wang, Wenqi Xian, Yingying Chen, Fangchen Liu, Vashisht Madhavan, and Trevor Dar- rell. Bdd100k: A diverse driving dataset for heterogeneous multitask learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition ...

    2020

  49. [57]

    Mttrans: Cross- domain object detection with mean teacher transformer

    Jinze Yu, Jiaming Liu, Xiaobao Wei, Haoyi Zhou, Yohei Nakata, Denis Gudovskiy, Tomoyuki Okuno, Jianxin Li, Kurt Keutzer, and Shanghang Zhang. Mttrans: Cross- domain object detection with mean teacher transformer. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 629–645. Spring...

    2022

  50. [58]

    Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training

    Xiaohua Zhai, Basil Mustafa, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Lucas Beyer. Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 11975–11986, 2023. 5

    2023

  51. [59]

    Domain adaptive yolo for one-stage cross-domain detection

    Shizhao Zhang, Hongya Tuo, Jian Hu, and Zhongliang Jing. Domain adaptive yolo for one-stage cross-domain detection. In Asian conference on machine learning , pages 785–797. PMLR, 2021. 2, 3, 6, 7

    2021

  52. [60]

    Masked retraining teacher- student framework for domain adaptive object detection

    Zijing Zhao, Sitong Wei, Qingchao Chen, Dehui Li, Yifan Yang, Yuxin Peng, and Yang Liu. Masked retraining teacher- student framework for domain adaptive object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 19039–19049, 2023. 2, 5, 6, 7

    2023

  53. [61]

    Ssda-yolo: Semi- supervised domain adaptive yolo for cross-domain object de- tection

    Huayi Zhou, Fei Jiang, and Hongtao Lu. Ssda-yolo: Semi- supervised domain adaptive yolo for cross-domain object de- tection. Computer Vision and Image Understanding , 229: 103649, 2023. 5, 6

    2023

  54. [62]

    Deformable detr: Deformable trans- formers for end-to-end object detection

    Xizhou Zhu, Weijie Su, Lewei Lu, Bin Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. Deformable detr: Deformable trans- formers for end-to-end object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04159, 2020. 2, 6 11

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

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