Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

RS-YOLOX: A High Precision Detector for Object Detection in Satellite Remote Sensing Images

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A modified YOLOX detector, RS-YOLOX, outperforms all compared models on three satellite remote sensing benchmarks, making small-object detection in large images more practical.

desk verdict Incremental YOLOX recipe with a systematic ablation, but the headline accuracy gains are compromised by likely train/test leakage in two of three datasets. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02850 v1 pith:G4URVMNS submitted 2025-02-05 cs.CV

Lei Yang , Guowu Yuan , Hao Zhou , Hongyu Liu , Jian Chen , Hao Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords objectdetectionremotesensingimageYOLOXEfficientChannelAttentionAdaptivelySpatialFeatureFusionVarifocalLossSlicingAidedHyperInferencesmall
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 establish that a modified YOLOX detector, called RS-YOLOX, can detect objects in satellite and aerial remote sensing images more accurately than previous YOLO-family models. The motivation is that remote sensing images are large, contain many small objects, and have imbalanced foreground and background samples, all of which make standard detectors miss targets. RS-YOLOX addresses these problems by adding an efficient channel attention module to the backbone, attaching adaptive spatial feature fusion to the neck, replacing the binary cross-entropy confidence loss with Varifocal Loss, and using a slicing-aided inference step for high-resolution inputs. On DOTA-v1.5, TGRS-HRRSD, and RSOD, the paper reports the highest accuracy among the models it compares, with the main DOTA-v1.5 ablation giving 78.49% mAP50-95 versus 73.57% for the original YOLOX.

What carries the argument

Four components carry the argument. Efficient Channel Attention (ECA) replaces the channel-reduction design of squeeze-and-excitation blocks with a one-dimensional convolution over channels after global average pooling, so the backbone emphasizes important channels without adding parameters. Adaptively Spatial Feature Fusion (ASFF) learns per-pixel weight maps for the three PAFPN feature scales, letting small-object features from coarser scales be folded into the fine-scale map. Varifocal Loss (VFL) is an asymmetric loss that weights positive samples by their IoU with the ground-truth box and applies focal-style down-weighting to negatives, countering the background-heavy imbalance of remote sensing scenes. Slicing Aided Hyper Inference (SAHI) cuts a large image into overlapping tiles, runs the detector on each tile, maps the boxes back to the original coordinates, and removes duplicates with non-maximum suppression.

What would settle it

Apply the same data augmentation only to the training split of DOTA-v1.5 and RSOD, keep the test set untouched, and rerun the evaluation; if mAP50-95 falls materially below the reported 78.49% and 78.56%, the central accuracy claim is inflated by augmented copies leaking into the test set.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that RS-YOLOX is a high-precision detector for remote sensing images, outperforming all compared one-stage and two-stage detectors on the three chosen datasets. On DOTA-v1.5 the model reaches 78.49% mAP50-95 and 92.83% mAP50, compared with 73.57% and 90.12% for YOLOX; on TGRS-HRRSD it reaches 68.26% mAP50-95 and 88.04% mAP50; on RSOD it reaches 78.56% mAP50-95 and 93.07% mAP50. Here mAP50-95 is the mean average precision averaged over Intersection-over-Union thresholds from 0.50 to 0.95, and mAP50 uses the 0.50 threshold. The ablation shows that each modification contributes: ECA adds 2.01 percentage points, ASFF adds 1.58, and VFL adds 1.33 on DOTA-v1.5. The paper also claims that combining the improved detector with the slicing-aided inference pipeline enables direct, reliable detection on large high-resolution images that miss many objects when fed whole into the model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reported test accuracy reflects generalization to genuinely unseen images: the paper augments the full DOTA-v1.5 and RSOD datasets and only then splits them into training, validation, and test sets, so if augmented copies of training images leak into the test set, the mAP numbers are inflated by near-duplicates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers are taken at face value, RS-YOLOX would be the most accurate detector among the compared YOLO-family models on all three datasets, with DOTA-v1.5 mAP50-95 rising from 73.57% to 78.49%.
  • The ablation indicates that the three training-side changes are additive, so the ECA-plus-ASFF-plus-VFL recipe could transfer to other anchor-free detectors facing small-object and sample-imbalance problems.
  • SAHI integration means the model can be applied directly to full-size remote sensing images, avoiding the missed detections and false positives shown when a large image is resized and fed whole.
  • The accuracy gains come with a real cost: parameters on DOTA-v1.5 grow from 8.94M to 14.38M and latency from 13.66ms to 17.86ms, so the method favors accuracy over real-time speed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be applying the same ECA-plus-ASFF-plus-VFL recipe to other one-stage detectors and checking whether the per-component gains are as stable as they are here, since the paper only demonstrates the combination on YOLOX.
  • The reported superiority is tied to the paper's own cropping and augmentation protocol; comparing against official DOTA-v1.5 leaderboard entries would be a more stringent test of the 'highest accuracy' claim.
  • Because SAHI works with any detector, the accuracy gains and the large-image handling are separable contributions: a user could adopt only the slicing pipeline with another detector, or only the training-side modifications on already-tiled inputs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RS-YOLOX, a remote sensing object detector obtained by adding Efficient Channel Attention (ECA) to the YOLOX backbone, Adaptively Spatial Feature Fusion (ASFF) to the neck, replacing the confidence loss with Varifocal Loss (VFL), and combining the detector with the SAHI inference framework. The method is evaluated on DOTA-v1.5, TGRS-HRRSD, and RSOD, and the central claim is that RS-YOLOX achieves the highest detection accuracy on these datasets, with Table 7 reporting 78.49% mAP50-95 on DOTA-v1.5 versus 73.57% for YOLOX and analogous gains on the other two datasets.

Significance. The paper is a purely empirical engineering contribution that assembles existing modules (ECA, ASFF, VFL, SAHI) into a YOLOX-based detector; it contains no new architecture or theory. The entire significance rests on the claimed accuracy improvement. If the experimental results were reliable, the combination could be useful for practitioners who need a turnkey high-accuracy detector for satellite imagery. However, the evaluation is compromised by a likely train/test leakage in two of the three datasets, by single-run results without error bars, and by an incompletely specified SAHI component. The paper also does not release code or split lists, so the reported numbers cannot be independently verified. These issues are load-bearing because the only claim of the paper is the empirical accuracy claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] The preprocessing order for DOTA-v1.5 and RSOD introduces a likely train/test leakage. The text states that DOTA-v1.5 images were cropped to 640×640, 'then we used data augmentation techniques' yielding 42,831 images, and only then split into 6:2:2 train/validation/test. For RSOD the same order is described: augmentation to 1,916 images before the 6:2:2 split. Because augmentation is applied to the full set before splitting, augmented versions of a training crop can appear in the test set, so the reported mAP values in Table 7 (78.49% vs 73.57% on DOTA-v1.5, 78.56% vs 76.27% on RSOD) may be inflated by near-duplicate recognition rather than by genuine generalization. The paper does not state that augmented copies were restricted to the training split, and no split lists or code are provided. This directly undermines the central accuracy claim.
  2. [Section 4.4 and Table 7] All accuracy results are reported from a single training run, with no error bars, multiple seeds, or statistical significance tests. The claimed improvements are small in several cases (e.g., the +1.33 mAP for VFL in Table 5, and the +0.07 mAP difference between YOLOX+NAM and YOLOX+ECA in Table 1), and run-to-run variance in training stochastic detectors is typically on the order of a few tenths of a percent. The authors should report the mean and standard deviation over at least three independent runs, or otherwise justify that the differences are not noise.
  3. [Tables 1, 2, 5, and 7] The latency numbers are internally inconsistent. YOLOX+ECA is reported at 13.26 ms in Tables 1 and 2, but the same configuration shows 14.46 ms in Table 5. Similarly, RS-YOLOX (the +VFL row in Table 5) has 17.67 ms latency on DOTA-v1.5, while Table 7 reports 17.86 ms for RS-YOLOX on the same dataset. Because latency is one of the two evaluation metrics claimed in Section 4.3, the paper must specify the exact measurement protocol (warm-up, batch size, precision, input resolution) and reconcile these contradictions, or the speed claims cannot be assessed.
  4. [Section 3.5 and Table 7] The contribution of the SAHI component is not quantified. SAHI is presented in Section 3.5 as a central part of RS-YOLOX, yet Table 7 reports mAP and latency on cropped 640×640 images, where SAHI does not apply, and the table does not state whether SAHI was used for the reported numbers. The slice size, overlap ratio, and NMS settings for the SAHI inference pipeline are not given. The paper should include an explicit ablation with and without SAHI on full-resolution images, and report SAHI hyperparameters, so that the reader can separate the effect of the network modifications from the effect of the inference framework.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'highest accuracy in detecting objects in remote sensing image datasets' is overbroad; the claim should be qualified to the three evaluated datasets and to the specific evaluation protocol.
  2. [Section 3.2, Equation (2)] The formula for the ECA kernel size k contains OCR-like formatting artifacts ('|୪୭୥ మ େ ஓ ൅ ୠ ஓ |୭ୢୢ') and is not readable; the typeset equation should be fixed.
  3. [Section 4.3, Equations (7)-(8)] The definition of AP in Equation (7) lacks the integration limits and the variable name in the integrand; the equation should be written as AP = ∫₀¹ P(r) dr.
  4. [General] There are numerous typographical and grammatical errors (e.g., 'the modelʹs', 'mode' instead of 'model', 'respectivel' in the introduction, and inconsistent unit spacing). A thorough language editing pass is needed.
  5. [References] Reference [19] is a GitHub repository without version or commit information, and reference [58] appears to be incompletely cited; both should be completed or updated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: RS-YOLOX is an empirical combination of externally published modules (ECA, ASFF, VFL, SAHI) benchmarked on public datasets; no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: adding ECA, ASFF, and VFL to YOLOX and invoking SAHI improves detection mAP on DOTA-v1.5, TGRS-HRRSD, and RSOD. Each component is cited to external prior work (references [37], [38], [39], [40]), and none of the components is derived from the target result. The ablation tables report direct measurements of the same model with and without each module, and the final mAP values are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own work. The augmentation-before-split protocol for DOTA-v1.5 and RSOD in Section 4.2 is a possible data-leakage validity concern, but it is not circularity: the reported accuracy is not equivalent by construction to the training objective or to any equation in the paper. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. Its reliance is on the correctness of the base detector (YOLOX), the compatibility of four external modules, and the assumption that the custom data splits and baseline comparisons are unbiased. The most consequential assumption is the leakage-free split, which the text suggests may be violated.

free parameters (3)
  • Training hyperparameters (learning rate, epochs, batch size) = not reported
    Chosen by hand by the authors and not stated; without them the experiments cannot be reproduced and the reported mAP depends on these choices.
  • VFL hyperparameters (alpha, gamma) = not reported
    Inherited from VarifocalNet but not specified in this paper; they influence the loss weighting and therefore the final accuracy.
  • SAHI slice size and overlap ratio = not reported
    These parameters determine how large images are sliced and merged, but the paper only shows qualitative SAHI results without giving the settings.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Data augmentation is applied without creating train/test overlap.
    Section 4.2 states that images are augmented and then split into train/validation/test; the reported mAP assumes no leakage from augmented copies.
  • domain assumption The random 6:2:2 splits of DOTA-v1.5 and RSOD are representative and comparable to official benchmarks.
    The paper uses custom splits and does not validate them against the official evaluation protocols, so cross-paper comparison may be unfair.
  • domain assumption Baseline models in Table 7 are trained and evaluated under equivalent settings.
    The origin and training details of the baseline numbers are not given, so the claimed superiority could stem from inconsistent protocols.
  • domain assumption YOLOX is a valid base model and the integration of ECA, ASFF, VFL, and SAHI does not change its operating assumptions.
    The paper relies on the correctness and compatibility of these externally published components without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RS-YOLOX: A High Precision Detector for Object Detection in Satellite Remote Sensing Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G4URVMNS

@misc{pith2026250202850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RS-YOLOX: A High Precision Detector for Object Detection in Satellite Remote Sensing Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G4URVMNS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02850}
}
read the original abstract

Automatic object detection by satellite remote sensing images is of great significance for resource exploration and natural disaster assessment. To solve existing problems in remote sensing image detection, this article proposes an improved YOLOX model for satellite remote sensing image automatic detection. This model is named RS-YOLOX. To strengthen the feature learning ability of the network, we used Efficient Channel Attention (ECA) in the backbone network of YOLOX and combined the Adaptively Spatial Feature Fusion (ASFF) with the neck network of YOLOX. To balance the numbers of positive and negative samples in training, we used the Varifocal Loss function. Finally, to obtain a high-performance remote sensing object detector, we combined the trained model with an open-source framework called Slicing Aided Hyper Inference (SAHI). This work evaluated models on three aerial remote sensing datasets (DOTA-v1.5, TGRS-HRRSD, and RSOD). Our comparative experiments demonstrate that our model has the highest accuracy in detecting objects in remote sensing image datasets.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Land Cover Change Detection and Subsistence Farming Dynamics in the Fringes of Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda from 1978–2020

    Opedes, H.; Mücher, S.; Baartman, J.E.M.; Nedala, S.; Mugagga, F. Land Cover Change Detection and Subsistence Farming Dynamics in the Fringes of Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda from 1978–2020. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2423. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14102423

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14102423 1978

  2. [2]

    Estimation of Pb Content Using Reflectance Spectroscopy in Farmland Soil near Metal Mines, Central China

    Zhao, D.; Xie, D.; Yin, F.; Liu, L.; Feng, J.; Ashraf, T. Estimation of Pb Content Using Reflectance Spectroscopy in Farmland Soil near Metal Mines, Central China. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2420. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14102420

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14102420 2022

  3. [3]

    Dynamic Simulation of Land Use/Cover Change and Assessment of Forest Eco‐ system Carbon Storage under Climate Change Scenarios in Guangdong Province, China

    Tian, L.; Tao, Y.; Fu, W.; Li, T.; Ren, F.; Li, M. Dynamic Simulation of Land Use/Cover Change and Assessment of Forest Eco‐ system Carbon Storage under Climate Change Scenarios in Guangdong Province, China. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2330. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14102330

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14102330 2022

  4. [4]

    Ijlil, S.; Essahlaoui, A.; Mohajane, M.; Essahlaoui, N.; Mili, E.M.; Van Rompaey, A. Machine Learning Algorithms for Model‐ ing and Mapping of Groundwater Pollution Risk: A Study to Reach Water Security and Sustainable Development (Sdg) Goals in a Mediterranean Aquifer System. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2379. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14102379

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14102379 2022

  5. [5]

    Characterizing the Patterns and Trends of Urban Growth in Saudi Arabia’s 13 Capital Cities Using a Landsat Time Series

    Aljaddani, A.H.; Song, X.‐P.; Zhu, Z. Characterizing the Patterns and Trends of Urban Growth in Saudi Arabia’s 13 Capital Cities Using a Landsat Time Series. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2382. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14102382

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14102382 2022

  6. [6]

    Remote Sensing of Global Sea Surface pH Based on Massive Un‐ derway Data and Machine Learning

    Jiang, Z.; Song, Z.; Bai, Y.; He, X.; Yu, S.; Zhang, S.; Gong, F. Remote Sensing of Global Sea Surface pH Based on Massive Un‐ derway Data and Machine Learning. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2366. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14102366

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14102366 2022

  7. [7]

    Effect of Assimilating SMAP Soil Moisture on CO 2 and CH 4 Fluxes through Direct Insertion in a Land Surface Model

    Zhang, Z.; Chatterjee, A.; Ott, L.; Reichle, R.; Feldman, A.F.; Poulter, B. Effect of Assimilating SMAP Soil Moisture on CO 2 and CH 4 Fluxes through Direct Insertion in a Land Surface Model. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2405. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14102405

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14102405 2022

  8. [8]

    Bubble Plume Target Detection Method of Multibeam Water Column Images Based on Bags of Visu‐ al Word Features

    Meng, J.; Yan, J.; Zhao, J. Bubble Plume Target Detection Method of Multibeam Water Column Images Based on Bags of Visu‐ al Word Features. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 3296. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14143296

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14143296 2022

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Study of the Automatic Recognition of Landslides by Using InSAR Images and the Improved Mask R‐CNN Model in the Eastern Tibet Plateau

    Liu, Y.; Yao, X.; Gu, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Liu, X.; Chen, X.; Wei, S. Study of the Automatic Recognition of Landslides by Using InSAR Images and the Improved Mask R‐CNN Model in the Eastern Tibet Plateau. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 3362. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14143362

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Rich Feature Hierarchies for Accurate Object Detection and Semantic Segmenta‐ tion

    Girshick, R.; Donahue, J.; Darrell, T.; Malik, J. Rich Feature Hierarchies for Accurate Object Detection and Semantic Segmenta‐ tion. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2014, pp. 580‐587. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6909475

    2014

  3. [11]

    Fast R‐CNN

    Girshick, R. Fast R‐CNN. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). 2015, pp. 1440‐1448. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7410526

    2015

  4. [12]

    Faster R‐CNN:Towards real‐time object detection with region proposal networks

    Ren, S.; He, K.; Girshick, R.; Sun, J. Faster R‐CNN:Towards real‐time object detection with region proposal networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis&Machine Intelligence. 2017, 39(6), 1137‐1149. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27295650

    2017

  5. [14]

    Ranga, A.; Tyagi, A.; Berg, A.C

    Fu, C.Y.; Liu, W. ; Ranga, A.; Tyagi, A.; Berg, A.C. DSSD: Deconvolutional Single Shot Detector. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1701.06659. https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.06659

    2017 arXiv

  6. [15]

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

    Redmon, J.; Divvala, S.; Girshick, R.; Farhadi, A. You only look once: Unified, real‐time object detection. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2016, pp. 779‐788. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7780460

    2016

  7. [16]

    Yolo9000: Better, faster,stronger

    Redmon, J.; Farhadi, A. Yolo9000: Better, faster,stronger. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 6517‐6525. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8100173

    2017

  8. [17]

    Yolov3: An incrementalimprovement

    Redmon, J.; Farhadi, A. Yolov3: An incrementalimprovement. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1804.02767. https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02767

    2018 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Yolov4: Optimal speed and accuracy ofobject detection

    Bochkovskiy, A.; Wang, C.Y.; Liao, H.Y.M. Yolov4: Optimal speed and accuracy ofobject detection. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2004.10934. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.10934

    2020 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    Glenn, J. Yolov5. 2020. https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5

    2020

  11. [20]

    YOLOX: Exceeding YOLO Series in 2021

    Ge, Z.; Liu, S.; Wang, F.; Li, Z.; Sun, J. YOLOX: Exceeding YOLO Series in 2021. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2107.08430. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.08430

    2021 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    An Improved Faster R‐CNN Method to Detect Tailings Ponds from High‐Resolution Remote Sensing Images

    Yan, D.; Li, G.; Li, X.; Zhang, H.; Lei, H.; Lu, K.; Cheng, M.; Zhu, F. An Improved Faster R‐CNN Method to Detect Tailings Ponds from High‐Resolution Remote Sensing Images. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2052. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13112052

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    Mapping Fire Susceptibility in the Brazilian Ama‐ zon Forests Using Multitemporal Remote Sensing and Time‐Varying Unsupervised Anomaly Detection

    Luz, A.E.O.; Negri, R.G.; Massi, K.G.; Colnago, M.; Silva, E.A.; Casaca, W. Mapping Fire Susceptibility in the Brazilian Ama‐ zon Forests Using Multitemporal Remote Sensing and Time‐Varying Unsupervised Anomaly Detection. Remote Sens. 2022, 14,

    2022

  14. [23]

    You Only Look Twice: Rapid Multi‐Scale Object Detection In Satellite Imagery

    Etten, A.V. You Only Look Twice: Rapid Multi‐Scale Object Detection In Satellite Imagery. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1805.09512. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1805.09512

    2018 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    Remote sensing images object detection based on YOLOv5

    Xie, Y.; Li, D.; Ye, F. Remote sensing images object detection based on YOLOv5. Jiangxi Science. 2021, 39(4), 725‐732. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal‐JSKX202104029.htm

    2021

  16. [25]

    Spatial Transformer Networks

    Jaderberg, M.; Simonyan, K.; Zisserman, K.; Kavukcuoglu, K. Spatial Transformer Networks. arXiv 2015, arXiv:1506.02025. https://arxiv .org/abs/1506.02025

    2015 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Squeeze‐and‐Excitation Networks

    Jie, H.; Li, S.; Samuel A.; Gang S.; Enhua W. Squeeze‐and‐Excitation Networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Ma‐ chine Intelligence, vol. 42, no. 8, 2020, pp. 2011‐2023. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8701503 21 of 22

    2020

  18. [27]

    CBAM: Convolutional block attention module

    Woo, S.; Park, J.; Lee, J.Y.; Kweon, I.S. CBAM: Convolutional block attention module. European Conference on Computer Vision. 2018, pp. 3‐19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐01234‐2_1

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    One‐Stage Disease Detection Method for Maize Leaf Based on Multi‐Scale Feature Fusion

    Li, Y.; Sun, S.; Zhang, C.; Yang, G.; Ye, Q. One‐Stage Disease Detection Method for Maize Leaf Based on Multi‐Scale Feature Fusion. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 7960. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12167960

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    Human Action Recognition Based on Improved Two‐Stream Convolution Network

    Wang, Z.; Lu, H.; Jin, J.; Hu, K. Human Action Recognition Based on Improved Two‐Stream Convolution Network. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5784. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12125784

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    Cervical Cell Segmentation Method Based on Global Dependency and Local Atten‐ tion

    Li, G.; Sun, C.; Xu, C.; Zheng, Y.; Wang, K. Cervical Cell Segmentation Method Based on Global Dependency and Local Atten‐ tion. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 7742. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12157742

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    Spatial Pyramid Pooling in Deep Convolutional Networks for Visual Recognition

    He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S..; Sun, J. Spatial Pyramid Pooling in Deep Convolutional Networks for Visual Recognition. arXiv 2015, arXiv:1406.4729. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7005506

    2015 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Path aggregation network for instance segmentation

    Liu, S.; Qi, L.; Qin, H.; Shi, J.; Jia, J. Path aggregation network for instance segmentation. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2018, pp. 8759‐8768. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8579011

    2018

  24. [33]

    Fcos:Fully convolutional one‐stage object detection

    Tian, Z.; Shen, C.; Chen, H.; He, T. Fcos:Fully convolutional one‐stage object detection. IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). 2019, pp. 9626‐9635. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9010746

    2019

  25. [34]

    CornerNet: Detecting Objects as Paired Keypoints

    Law, H.; Deng, J. CornerNet: Detecting Objects as Paired Keypoints. Int J Comput Vis, 2020, 128, 642–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263‐019‐01204‐1

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    Jiang, Y

    Sun, P. ; Jiang, Y. ; Xie, E.; Shao, W. ; Yuan, Z.; Wang, C.; Luo, P. OneNet: Towards End‐to‐End One‐Stage Object Detection. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2012.05780. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.05780

    2020 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    Wang, X

    Song, G.; Liu, Y. ; Wang, X. Revisiting the Sibling Head in Object Detector. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2003.07540. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.07540

    2020 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    ECA‐Net: Efficient Channel Attention for Deep Convolutional Neural Net‐ works

    Wang, Q.; Wu, B.; Zhu, P.; Li, P.; Zuo, W.; Hu, Q. ECA‐Net: Efficient Channel Attention for Deep Convolutional Neural Net‐ works. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020, pp. 11531‐11539. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9156697

    2020

  29. [38]

    Learning Spatial Fusion for Single‐Shot Object Detection

    Liu, S.; Huang, D.; Wang, Y. Learning Spatial Fusion for Single‐Shot Object Detection. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1911.09516. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.09516

    2019 arXiv

  30. [39]

    VarifocalNet: An IoU‐aware Dense Object Detector

    Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Dayoub, F.; Sünderhauf, N. VarifocalNet: An IoU‐aware Dense Object Detector. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021, pp. 8510‐8519. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9578034

    2021

  31. [40]

    Slicing Aided Hyper Inference and Fine‐tuning for Small Object Detection

    Akyon, F.C.; Altinuc, S.O.; Temizel, A. Slicing Aided Hyper Inference and Fine‐tuning for Small Object Detection. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2202.06934. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.06934

    2022 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection

    Lin, T.Y.; Goyal, P.; Girshick, R.; He, K.; Dollár, P. Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017, pp. 2999‐3007. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8237586

    2017

  33. [42]

    DOTA: A Large‐scale Dataset for Object Detection in Aerial Images

    Xia, G.S.; Bai, X.; Ding, J.; Zhu, Z.; Belongie, S.; Luo, J.; Datcu, M.; Pelillo, M.; Zhang, L. DOTA: A Large‐scale Dataset for Object Detection in Aerial Images. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018, pp. 3974‐3983. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/d...

    2018

  34. [43]

    Learning RoI Transformer for Oriented Object Detection in Aerial Images

    Ding, J.; Xue, N.; Long, Y.; Xia, G.S.; Liu, Q. Learning RoI Transformer for Oriented Object Detection in Aerial Images. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019, pp. 2844‐2853. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8953881

    2019

  35. [44]

    Object Detection in Aerial Images: A Large‐Scale Benchmark and Challenges

    Ding, J.; Xue, N.; Long, Y.; Xia, G.S.; Bai, X.; Yang, W.; Yang, M.Y.; Belongie, S.; Luo, J.; Datcu, M.; Pelillo, M.; Zhang, L. Object Detection in Aerial Images: A Large‐Scale Benchmark and Challenges. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2102.12219. https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.12219

    2021 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Yuan, Y

    Zhang, Y. ; Yuan, Y. ; Feng, Y.; Lu, X. Hierarchical and Robust Convolutional Neural Network for Very High‐Resolution Remote Sensing Object Detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. 2019, pp. 5535‐5548. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8676107

    2019

  37. [46]

    Yuan, Y

    Lu, X.; Zhang, Y. ; Yuan, Y. Feng, Y. Gated and Axis‐Concentrated Localization Network for Remote Sensing Object Detectio. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. 2020, pp. 179‐192. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8827601

    2020

  38. [47]

    Gong, Y.; Xiao, Z

    Long, Y. ; Gong, Y.; Xiao, Z. Liu, Q. Accurate Object Localization in Remote Sensing Images Based on Convolutional Neural Network. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. 2017, pp. 2486‐2498. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7827088

    2017

  39. [48]

    Elliptic Fourier transformation‐based histograms of oriented gradients for rotationally in‐ variant object detection in remote‐sensing images

    Xiao, Z.; Liu, Q.; Tang, G.; Zhai, X. Elliptic Fourier transformation‐based histograms of oriented gradients for rotationally in‐ variant object detection in remote‐sensing images. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2015, pp. 618‐644. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1080/0...

    2015

  40. [49]

    NAM: Normalization‐based Attention Module

    Liu, Y.; Shao, Z.; Teng, Y.; Hoffman, N. NAM: Normalization‐based Attention Module. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2111.12419. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.12419

    2021 arXiv

  41. [50]

    ULSAM: Ultra‐Lightweight Subspace Attention Module for Compact Con‐ volutional Neural Networks

    Saini, R.; Jha, N.K.; Das, B.; Mittal, S.; Mohan, K. ULSAM: Ultra‐Lightweight Subspace Attention Module for Compact Con‐ volutional Neural Networks. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2006.15102. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.15102

    2020 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Change Detection for High‐Resolution Remote Sensing Images Based on a Multi‐Scale Attention Siamese Network

    Li, J.; Zhu, S.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, G.; Xu, Y. Change Detection for High‐Resolution Remote Sensing Images Based on a Multi‐Scale Attention Siamese Network. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 3464. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14143464

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    A Spatial–Spectral Joint Attention Network for Change Detection in Multispec‐ tral Imagery

    Zhang, W.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, S.; Pan, X.; Lu, X. A Spatial–Spectral Joint Attention Network for Change Detection in Multispec‐ tral Imagery. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 3394. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14143394

    2022 doi

  44. [53]

    Pitaya detection in orchards using the MobileNet‐YOLO model

    Li, X.; Yi, Q.; Wang, F.; Guo, F.; Yeow, J.T.W. Pitaya detection in orchards using the MobileNet‐YOLO model. Chinese Control 22 of 22 Conference, 2020, pp. 6274‐6278. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9189186

    2020

  45. [54]

    Remote Sensing Image Target Detection: Improvement of the YOLOv3 Model with Auxiliary Net‐ works

    Qu, Z.; Zhu, F.; Qi, C. Remote Sensing Image Target Detection: Improvement of the YOLOv3 Model with Auxiliary Net‐ works. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3908. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13193908

    2021 doi

  46. [55]

    Generalized Intersection over Union: A Metric and A Loss for Bounding Box Regression

    Rezatofighi, H.; Tsoi, N.; Gwak, J.Y.; Sadeghian, A.; Reid, L.; Savarese, S. Generalized Intersection over Union: A Metric and A Loss for Bounding Box Regression. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1902.09630. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.09630

    2019 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Distance‐IoU Loss: Faster and Better Learning for Bounding Box Regression

    Zheng, Z.; Wang, P.; Liu, W.; Li, J.; Ye, R.; Ren, D. Distance‐IoU Loss: Faster and Better Learning for Bounding Box Regression. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1911.08287. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08287

    2019 arXiv

  48. [57]

    SIoU Loss: More Powerful Learning for Bounding Box Regression Zhora Gevorgyan

    Gevorgyan, Z. SIoU Loss: More Powerful Learning for Bounding Box Regression Zhora Gevorgyan. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2205.12740. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12740

    2022 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Potentials of Low‐Budget Microdrones: Processing 3D Point Clouds and Images for Representing Post‐Industrial Landmarks in Immersive Virtual Environments

    Weißmann, M.; Edler, D.; Rienow, A. Potentials of Low‐Budget Microdrones: Processing 3D Point Clouds and Images for Representing Post‐Industrial Landmarks in Immersive Virtual Environments. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 2022, 10, 3389. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.886240

    2022

  50. [2429]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14102429

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.