Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Insect-Foundation: A Foundation Model and Large Multimodal Dataset for Vision-Language Insect Understanding

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new vision-language assistant specialized in insects claims state-of-the-art species identification by pretraining a patch-matching encoder on one million taxonomically labeled images.

desk verdict A potentially valuable dataset and a plausible method whose headline VQA/iNat numbers rest on an unstated data-disjointness assumption that must be fixed before the 'state-of-the-art' claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09906 v1 pith:KWORCUMF submitted 2025-02-14 cs.CV

Thanh-Dat Truong , Hoang-Quan Nguyen , Xuan-Bac Nguyen , Ashley Dowling , Xin Li , Khoa Luu This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords insectrecognitionvision-languageassistantvisualquestionansweringself-supervisedlearningpatch-wiserelevantattentionfine-grainedclassificationmultimodaldatasetprecisionagriculture
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

Insect-LLaVA is a conversational vision-language assistant built specifically for insects. The paper's central claim is that domain-specific pretraining on a large, taxonomically labeled insect dataset lets a vision encoder learn the small diagnostic features—wing venation, limb shape, body segmentation—that general encoders overlook. To support that claim, the authors assemble a cleaned dataset of 1,017,036 images covering 34,212 species with six hierarchical taxonomic levels, each paired with a written description, plus multi-turn visual instruction data generated from those descriptions. They train an Insect Foundation Model with a Patch-wise Relevant Attention pretext task, an image-text contrastive loss, and a Description Consistency loss. They then plug this encoder into a LLaVA-style assistant and report state-of-the-art accuracy on insect classification, detection, zero-shot recognition, and insect question-answering benchmarks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is Patch-wise Relevant Attention (PRA), a self-supervised pretext task on image patches. The encoder sees a partially masked image, forms a global contextual token via attention pooling, and then scores each candidate patch from a shared pool with a cosine-similarity function $H(z_{\mathrm{ct}}, z_p)$, trained with a binary cross-entropy loss $L_{\mathrm{PRS}}$ that asks whether the patch came from the same image. This forces the model to use small discriminative structures rather than reconstructing generic appearance. Two auxiliary objectives tie vision to language: an image-text contrastive loss $L_{\mathrm{con}}$ on contextual tokens, and an autoregressive multi-modal description-decoding loss $L_{\mathrm{desc}}$ that generates the textual description from the image latents; together they anchor the learned micro-features to the taxonomic text that defines each species.

What would settle it

For a fixed set of insect species questions, compare accuracy when the assistant is shown (a) the correct image, (b) an image of a different species from the same taxonomic order, and (c) no image. If accuracy on (b) and (c) stays close to (a), the reported VQA gains are explained by linguistic priors in the instruction data, not by image-grounded micro-feature understanding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a self-supervised pretext task built around patch membership can make a vision transformer encode the micro-features used to tell insect species apart. From each image, the model randomly keeps 50% of the 16x16 patches and encodes them; attention pooling condenses them into a contextual token; and a binary cross-entropy loss scores the similarity between that token and every other patch drawn from a global pool, training the encoder to judge whether a patch belongs to the same image. This Patch-wise Relevant Attention objective is combined with an image-text contrastive loss and an autoregressive description-decoding loss that generate the species' taxonomic description from the image latents. When the resulting Insect Foundation encoder is used in place of a CLIP encoder in a conversational assistant, the paper reports consistent gains across IP102 classification (75.8% top-1 with descriptions vs. 72.0% for MAE), zero-shot classification (49.9% vs. 45.3% for CoCa), insect detection (36.6% vs. 32.8% AP), and two visual question-answering benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the multi-turn question-answer pairs, which were written by a large language model from text descriptions alone, genuinely describe each image's visible contents; the paper validates only 15% of those pairs and applies no visual-grounding check, so this assumption is not empirically secured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Replacing the CLIP encoder with the Insect Foundation encoder improves IP102-derived VQA accuracy from 45.10% to 48.53% with a 13B language model, and from 56.5% to 57.2% on the new Multimodal Insect VQA benchmark.
  • On IP102 classification, the proposed encoder reaches 75.8% top-1 accuracy with text descriptions, compared with 72.0% for MAE pretrained on the same Insect-1M data; zero-shot accuracy reaches 49.9%, versus 45.3% for CoCa.
  • On the IP102 detection benchmark, the Insect Foundation encoder as a Faster R-CNN backbone improves average precision from 32.8% to 36.6% at the same model scale.
  • Using multi-turn rather than single-turn instruction data raises VQA accuracy by roughly 3.8 to 4.6 percentage points across the reported configurations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cleanest unstated test of the paper's visual-grounding claim is an image-swap experiment: ask the same species questions with the correct image, a wrong image, and no image at all, and check whether accuracy collapses when the image is wrong.
  • Because the Patch-wise Relevant Attention loss weights background and foreground patches equally—a limitation the authors note—weighting patches by foreground saliency or segmentation maps is a natural extension that could further separate insect micro-features from their surroundings.
  • The same recipe of hierarchical labels, per-level text descriptions, and patch-matching pretraining should transfer to other fine-grained visual domains where species or classes differ by small parts, such as fungi, lichens, or skin lesions, given a comparably large labeled taxonomy.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Insect-LLaVA, a vision-language assistant for insect understanding, together with a large multimodal dataset (Insect-1M / Multimodal Insect) of one million images with hierarchical taxonomic labels, textual descriptions, and synthetically generated multi-turn instruction data. The method contributions are: (1) a self-supervised pretraining scheme, Patch-wise Relevant Attention (PRA), that scores image patches against a global contextual token to capture micro-features; (2) an image-text contrastive loss and an autoregressive description-decoding loss that align visual and textual insect knowledge; and (3) an Insect-LLaVA model that combines the resulting vision encoder with a Vicuna LLM. Experiments report state-of-the-art results on IP102 classification, IP102 detection, zero-shot classification on IP102, iNat-2021 insect classification, fine-grained zero-shot learning on INSECT, and two VQA benchmarks, one based on IP102 and one sampled from the proposed Multimodal Insect dataset.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to a relatively underexplored application area: domain-specific vision-language assistants for entomology and precision agriculture. The scale of the dataset (1M images, 34K species, six-level hierarchy) is a clear asset, and the authors build on a CVPR 2024 preliminary version, so the dataset lineage is established. The encoder-level claims are independently supported by external benchmarks: IP102 classification (Table 4) and fine-grained zero-shot learning on INSECT (Table 7) compare methods on data not used in the authors' instruction-tuning, and the gains over MAE, DINO, MoCo, and CoCa are meaningful. The paper does not provide code or evaluation scripts, but the dataset is promised for academic use, which would be valuable. However, the headline VQA and iNat-2021 generalization claims currently rest on uncontrolled evaluation sets, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Table 3] The second Visual Insect QA benchmark samples 10,000 images 'from our Multimodal Insect dataset,' but the same dataset is used for both pretraining (Sec 3.2) and instruction fine-tuning (Sec 4.1), and no held-out split, image-ID exclusion, or near-duplicate removal is described. Without such a disjointness control, the 55.7% (7B) and 57.2% (13B) accuracies in Table 3 cannot be interpreted as generalization performance; they may reflect memorization of training images or their captions. The authors must document the exact split construction, verify that no sampled question's answer appears verbatim in the instruction data, and report the performance gap between held-out and in-training samples if such a gap exists.
  2. [§5.1, Table 5] The iNat-2021 insect classification evaluation is conducted after pretraining on Insect-1M, but the paper does not state whether iNat-2021 images were excluded from Insect-1M. Since Sec 3.1 describes Insect-1M as collected from naturalist-contributed images with taxonomic labels, and iNat-2021 is itself a naturalist-contributed collection, image-level overlap or near-duplicates are plausible. If overlapping images appear in pretraining, the reported 89.23% and 90.40% Acc@1 numbers are inflated. The authors should report an explicit overlap analysis (e.g., exact-duplicate hash match and perceptual near-duplicate statistics) between Insect-1M and the iNat-2021 test subset used in Table 5, and rerun the comparison on the disjoint subset if necessary.
  3. [§3.2, Tables 2-3] The multi-turn instruction data is generated by prompting LLaMA-3 with text descriptions only ('prompting only language to the large language model'), with responses written 'as if' the model could see the image. Only 15% of samples are manually validated, and no visual-grounding filter is applied beyond text-based heuristics. Because the VQA benchmarks in Tables 2 and 3 ask for species names and fine-grained characteristics, the instruction data created this way may teach the model to answer from taxonomic priors and language patterns rather than from image content. The authors should either (i) provide evidence that the generated conversations are visually grounded, for example by presenting a human evaluation protocol that verifies answers against the image, or (ii) add an ablation that removes questions whose answers are not visually verifiable and reruns the VQA comparison, so that the contribution of visual understanding can be separated from language-prior memorization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.4 / Abstract] The abstract calls the proposed objective 'Description Consistency loss,' but Section 4.2.4 names it 'Multi-modal Image Description Decoding' and the ablation tables call it 'Description Loss (Ldesc).' Please unify the terminology.
  2. [§5.1, Tables 2-3] The VQA accuracy computation is not described: please state the exact prompt format, whether free-form generation is scored by exact match or by a parser, and how ties or refusal responses are handled.
  3. [Table 1] The 'Venue' column for the proposed dataset rows is inconsistent: 'CVPR2024' appears in one cell and '−' in another, and the Multimodal Insect row's year is listed as 2024 while the paper is dated 2025. Please correct these entries.
  4. [§5.3, Table 5] The iNat-2021 row states 'the full training dataset' is used; please specify whether the evaluation is on the official validation or test split, and clarify the number of species and images in the insect subset actually used.
  5. [§5.2, Figure 14] The qualitative comparison would be more informative if the images themselves were shown alongside the conversations; currently the figure contains only text, so the reader cannot judge whether the responses are image-consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

In-house Insect-VQA benchmark is built from the same dataset used to train the model, making the in-house SOTA claim partly self-referential; external IP102/INSECT evaluations keep the core method non-circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.2, Sec. 4.1, Sec. 5.1 (Visual Insect Instruction Data; Insect-LLaVA fine-tuning; Visual Insect QA benchmark)]
    "we further propose the Visual Insect Instruction Data based on our Multimodal Insect (Insect 1M) dataset. ... In the training phase, the entire Insect-LLaVA model is learned from our proposed insect instruction data. ... For the second set, we sample 10,000 images from our Multimodal Insect dataset."

    The instruction-tuning data is built from the Multimodal Insect dataset, the Insect-LLaVA model is optimized on that instruction data, and the second Insect-VQA benchmark is sampled from the same Multimodal Insect dataset. No held-out split or image-ID exclusion is described. By construction, the test pool and the training pool share the same source dataset, so the Table 3 accuracy partly measures how well the model matches its own training corpus, including species descriptions, rather than independent insect understanding. The reported in-house 'state-of-the-art' result is therefore a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the evaluation target is drawn from the same distribution used to fit the model.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular: the Insect Foundation Model is pre-trained on Insect-1M with self-supervised patch-relevance, contrastive, and description-decoding losses, and the main classification/detection results are measured against external IP102, INSECT, and nominally iNat-2021 benchmarks. Those external evaluations give the core claim independent content. The clearest circular element is the in-house Insect-VQA benchmark: the fine-tuning instruction data and the second VQA test set are both built from the Multimodal Insect dataset, and the paper never states that the 10,000 benchmark images were held out. Consequently, the Table 3 accuracy partly reflects in-distribution memorization rather than transfer, making the 'state-of-the-art on our proposed Visual Insect Question Answering benchmarks' claim self-referential. The iNat-2021 experiment raises a similar overlap concern because Insect-1M is assembled from naturalist-contributed images and no exclusion of iNat-2021 images is documented; I treat that as a missing control rather than a demonstrated circular step. The citation to the authors' prior work [27] is self-citation, but it supplies the dataset artifact rather than a uniqueness proof or the target result, so it is not load-bearing circularity. Overall, the external IP102 and INSECT benchmarks prevent the paper from being derivational; the self-referential in-house benchmark is a partial circularity, hence score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on unverified dataset quality, on the assumption that text descriptions transfer to individual images, and on the assumption that LLaMA-3-generated instruction text is image-grounded. No inter-annotator agreement, error analysis, or held-out split is reported for these.

free parameters (1)
  • Patch sampling ratio = 50%
    Selected as the best of {25%, 50%, 75%, 90%} on IP102 validation (Table 8); it is a tuned hyperparameter, not a predicted quantity.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption iNaturalist-derived taxonomic labels are correct for each image.
    Data collection (Sec 3.1) relies on naturalist identifications and a claimed expert verification step, but no inter-annotator agreement or error rate is reported.
  • domain assumption Crawled taxon-level descriptions apply to each individual image.
    Descriptions are written for taxa, not for a specific image; an image labeled as a species inherits the species text even if the photograph does not display the described traits (Sec 3.1, Fig 1).
  • domain assumption LLaMA-3-generated instruction conversations are grounded in the actual image content.
    Instruction data is generated from text descriptions alone (Sec 3.2); only 15% of samples are manually validated, so a portion of the training signal may be text-prior rather than visual.
  • domain assumption The IP102 test images are disjoint from the crawled Insect-1M images.
    The paper reports no overlap analysis between IP102 and the iNaturalist-based Insect-1M data, so external benchmark results could be inflated by duplicate or near-duplicate images.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Insect-Foundation: A Foundation Model and Large Multimodal Dataset for Vision-Language Insect Understanding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KWORCUMF

@misc{pith2026250209906,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Insect-Foundation: A Foundation Model and Large Multimodal Dataset for Vision-Language Insect Understanding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KWORCUMF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09906}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal conversational generative AI has shown impressive capabilities in various vision and language understanding through learning massive text-image data. However, current conversational models still lack knowledge about visual insects since they are often trained on the general knowledge of vision-language data. Meanwhile, understanding insects is a fundamental problem in precision agriculture, helping to promote sustainable development in agriculture. Therefore, this paper proposes a novel multimodal conversational model, Insect-LLaVA, to promote visual understanding in insect-domain knowledge. In particular, we first introduce a new large-scale Multimodal Insect Dataset with Visual Insect Instruction Data that enables the capability of learning the multimodal foundation models. Our proposed dataset enables conversational models to comprehend the visual and semantic features of the insects. Second, we propose a new Insect-LLaVA model, a new general Large Language and Vision Assistant in Visual Insect Understanding. Then, to enhance the capability of learning insect features, we develop an Insect Foundation Model by introducing a new micro-feature self-supervised learning with a Patch-wise Relevant Attention mechanism to capture the subtle differences among insect images. We also present Description Consistency loss to improve micro-feature learning via text descriptions. The experimental results evaluated on our new Visual Insect Question Answering benchmarks illustrate the effective performance of our proposed approach in visual insect understanding and achieve State-of-the-Art performance on standard benchmarks of insect-related tasks.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Comprehensive Survey of Deep Research: Systems, Methodologies, and Applications

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey of 80+ Deep Research systems that proposes a four-layer taxonomy (foundation models, tool use, planning, synthesis) and compares commercial and open-source implementations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 23716–23736 (2022)

    Alayrac, J.-B., Donahue, J., Luc, P., Miech, A., Barr, I., Hasson, Y., Lenc, K., Mensch, A., Millican, K., Reynolds, M.,et al.: Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 23716–23736 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17421 9(1), 1 (2023)

    Yang, Z., Li, L., Lin, K., Wang, J., Lin, C.-C., Liu, Z., Wang, L.: The dawn of lmms: Preliminary explorations with gpt-4v (ision). arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17421 9(1), 1 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Foundations and Trends® in Computer Graphics and Vision 16(1-2), 1–214 (2024)

    Li, C., Gan, Z., Yang, Z., Yang, J., Li, L., Wang, L., Gao, J., et al.: Multimodal foundation models: From specialists to general-purpose assistants. Foundations and Trends® in Computer Graphics and Vision 16(1-2), 1–214 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 36 (2024)

    Liu, H., Li, C., Wu, Q., Lee, Y.J.: Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Liu, H., Li, C., Li, Y., Lee, Y.J.: Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 26296–26306 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024) 30

    Li, C., Wong, C., Zhang, S., Usuyama, N., Liu, H., Yang, J., Naumann, T., Poon, H., Gao, J.: Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024) 30

    2024

  7. [7]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al.: Learning transferable visual mod- els from natural language supervision. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 8748–8763 (2021). PMLR

    2021

  8. [8]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Li, J., Li, D., Savarese, S., Hoi, S.: Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre- training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 19730–19742 (2023). PMLR

    2023

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13022 (2024)

    Zhang, X., Kuang, H., Mou, X., Lyu, H., Wu, K., Chen, S., Luo, J., Huang, X., Wei, Z.: Somelvlm: A large vision language model for social media processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13022 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    In: Oh, A., Neumann, T., Globerson, A., Saenko, K., Hardt, M., Levine, S

    Gharaee, Z., Gong, Z., Pellegrino, N., Zarubiieva, I., Haurum, J.B., Lowe, S.C., McKeown, J.T.A., Ho, C.Y., McLeod, J., Wei, Y.C., Agda, J., Ratnasingham, S., Steinke, D., Chang, A.X., Taylor, G.W., Fieguth, P.: A step towards worldwide biodiversity assessment: The BIOSCAN-1M ...

    2023

  3. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00861 (2021)

    Askell, A., Bai, Y., Chen, A., Drain, D., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., Jones, A., Joseph, N., Mann, B., DasSarma, N., et al.: A general language assistant as a laboratory for alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00861 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Foundations and Trends ® in Computer Graphics and Vision 14(3–4), 163–352 (2022)

    Gan, Z., Li, L., Li, C., Wang, L., Liu, Z., Gao, J., et al.: Vision-language pre- training: Basics, recent advances, and future trends. Foundations and Trends ® in Computer Graphics and Vision 14(3–4), 163–352 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 9287–9301 (2022)

    Li, C., Liu, H., Li, L., Zhang, P., Aneja, J., Yang, J., Jin, P., Hu, H., Liu, Z., Lee, Y.J., et al.: Elevater: A benchmark and toolkit for evaluating language- augmented visual models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 9287–9301 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    International Journal of Computer Engineering Science (IJCES) 2(6), 1–13 (2012)

    Samanta, R., Ghosh, I.: Tea insect pests classification based on artificial neural networks. International Journal of Computer Engineering Science (IJCES) 2(6), 1–13 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Knowledge-Based Systems 33, 102–110 (2012)

    Wang, J., Lin, C., Ji, L., Liang, A.: A new automatic identification system of insect images at the order level. Knowledge-Based Systems 33, 102–110 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing 4(1), 1 (2014) 31

    Venugoban, K., Ramanan, A.: Image classification of paddy field insect pests using gradient-based features. International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing 4(1), 1 (2014) 31

    2014

  9. [17]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture119, 123–132 (2015)

    Xie, C., Zhang, J., Li, R., Li, J., Hong, P., Xia, J., Chen, P.: Automatic classification for field crop insects via multiple-task sparse representation and multiple-kernel learning. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture119, 123–132 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Scientific reports 6(1), 20410 (2016)

    Liu, Z., Gao, J., Yang, G., Zhang, H., He, Y.: Localization and classification of paddy field pests using a saliency map and deep convolutional neural network. Scientific reports 6(1), 20410 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 152, 233–241 (2018)

    Xie, C., Wang, R., Zhang, J., Chen, P., Dong, W., Li, R., Chen, T., Chen, H.: Multi-level learning features for automatic classification of field crop pests. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 152, 233–241 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Biosystems Engineering 169, 139–148 (2018)

    Deng, L., Wang, Y., Han, Z., Yu, R.: Research on insect pest image detection and recognition based on bio-inspired methods. Biosystems Engineering 169, 139–148 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    In: Proceedings of 2018 International Conference on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, pp

    Alfarisy, A.A., Chen, Q., Guo, M.: Deep learning based classification for paddy pests & diseases recognition. In: Proceedings of 2018 International Conference on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 21–25 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Ieee Access 7, 45301–45312 (2019)

    Liu, L., Wang, R., Xie, C., Yang, P., Wang, F., Sudirman, S., Liu, W.: Pestnet: An end-to-end deep learning approach for large-scale multi-class pest detection and classification. Ieee Access 7, 45301–45312 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Wu, X., Zhan, C., Lai, Y.-K., Cheng, M.-M., Yang, J.: Ip102: A large-scale benchmark dataset for insect pest recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 8787–8796 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Sensors 21(5), 1601 (2021)

    Wang, R., Liu, L., Xie, C., Yang, P., Li, R., Zhou, M.: Agripest: A large-scale domain-specific benchmark dataset for practical agricultural pest detection in the wild. Sensors 21(5), 1601 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34, 19352–19362 (2021)

    Badirli, S., Akata, Z., Mohler, G., Picard, C., Dundar, M.M.: Fine-grained zero- shot learning with dna as side information. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34, 19352–19362 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Van Horn, G., Cole, E., Beery, S., Wilber, K., Belongie, S., Mac Aodha, O.: Benchmarking representation learning for natural world image collections. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 12884–12893 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Nguyen, H.-Q., Truong, T.-D., Nguyen, X.B., Dowling, A., Li, X., Luu, K.: Insect-foundation: A foundation model and large-scale 1m dataset for visual insect understanding. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 21945–21955 ...

    2024

  20. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    He, K., Fan, H., Wu, Y., Xie, S., Girshick, R.: Momentum contrast for unsu- pervised visual representation learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 9729–9738 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04297 (2020)

    Chen, X., Fan, H., Girshick, R., He, K.: Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04297 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M., Hinton, G.: A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1597–1607 (2020). PMLR

    2020

  23. [31]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Xie, Z., Zhang, Z., Cao, Y., Lin, Y., Bao, J., Yao, Z., Dai, Q., Hu, H.: Simmim: A simple framework for masked image modeling. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 9653–9663 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    He, K., Chen, X., Xie, S., Li, Y., Doll´ ar, P., Girshick, R.: Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 16000–16009 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Caron, M., Touvron, H., Misra, I., J´ egou, H., Mairal, J., Bojanowski, P., Joulin, A.: Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 9650–9660 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193 (2023)

    Oquab, M., Darcet, T., Moutakanni, T., Vo, H., Szafraniec, M., Khalidov, V., Fernandez, P., Haziza, D., Massa, F., El-Nouby, A., et al.: Dinov2: Learn- ing robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Jia, C., Yang, Y., Xia, Y., Chen, Y.-T., Parekh, Z., Pham, H., Le, Q., Sung, Y.-H., Li, Z., Duerig, T.: Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 4904–4916 (2021). PMLR

    2021

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01917 (2022)

    Yu, J., Wang, Z., Vasudevan, V., Yeung, L., Seyedhosseini, M., Wu, Y.: Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01917 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    In: 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., Fei-Fei, L.: Imagenet: A large- scale hierarchical image database. In: 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 248–255 (2009). Ieee

    2009

  30. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Zhai, X., Kolesnikov, A., Houlsby, N., Beyer, L.: Scaling vision transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 12104–12113 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 25278–25294 (2022)

    Schuhmann, C., Beaumont, R., Vencu, R., Gordon, C., Wightman, R., Cherti, 33 M., Coombes, T., Katta, A., Mullis, C., Wortsman, M.,et al.: Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35,...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 174, 105488 (2020)

    Alves, A.N., Souza, W.S., Borges, D.L.: Cotton pests classification in field-based images using deep residual networks. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 174, 105488 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pp

    Bollis, E., Pedrini, H., Avila, S.: Weakly supervised learning guided by acti- vation mapping applied to a novel citrus pest benchmark. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pp. 70–71 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Stork, N.E.: How many species of insects and other terrestrial arthropods are there on earth? Annual review of entomology 63, 31–45 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    barcodinglife

    Ratnasingham, S., Hebert, P.D.: Bold: The barcode of life data system (http://www. barcodinglife. org). Molecular ecology notes 7(3), 355–364 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    in 2021 ieee

    Chen, X., Xie, S., He, K.: An empirical study of training self-supervised vision transformers. in 2021 ieee. In: CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 9620–9629 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Pattern Recognition Letters 166, 53–60 (2023)

    Chen, Y., Shen, X., Liu, Y., Tao, Q., Suykens, J.A.: Jigsaw-vit: Learning jigsaw puzzles in vision transformer. Pattern Recognition Letters 166, 53–60 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Truong, T.-D., Bui, Q.-H., Duong, C.N., Seo, H.-S., Phung, S.L., Li, X., Luu, K.: Direcformer: A directed attention in transformer approach to robust action recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 20030–20040 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Nguyen, X.-B., Duong, C.N., Li, X., Gauch, S., Seo, H.-S., Luu, K.: Micron- bert: Bert-based facial micro-expression recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1482–1492 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Nguyen, X.-B., Bui, D.T., Duong, C.N., Bui, T.D., Luu, K.: Clusformer: A transformer based clustering approach to unsupervised large-scale face and visual landmark recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10847–108...

    2021

  41. [49]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Truong, T.-D., Duong, C.N., Le, N., Phung, S.L., Rainwater, C., Luu, K.: Bimal: Bijective maximum likelihood approach to domain adaptation in semantic scene segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 8548–8557 (2021) 34

    2021

  42. [50]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    Truong, T.-D., Nguyen, H.-Q., Raj, B., Luu, K.: Fairness continual learn- ing approach to semantic scene understanding in open-world environments. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    In: IEEE/CVF Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    Truong, T.-D., Le, N., Raj, B., Cothren, J., Luu, K.: Fredom: Fairness domain adaptation approach to semantic scene understanding. In: IEEE/CVF Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Neurocomputing 543, 126198 (2023)

    Truong, T.-D., Duong, C.N., Quach, K.G., Le, N., Bui, T.D., Luu, K.: Liaad: Lightweight attentive angular distillation for large-scale age-invariant face recognition. Neurocomputing 543, 126198 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00236 (2023)

    Nguyen, X.-B., Li, X., Khan, S.U., Luu, K.: Brainformer: Modeling mri brain functions to machine vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00236 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07408 (2023)

    Nguyen, X.-B., Duong, C.N., Savvides, M., Roy, K., Luu, K.: Fairness in visual clustering: A novel transformer clustering approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07408 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    IEEE Access 8, 162973–162981 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3021469

    Nguyen, X.-B., Lee, G.S., Kim, S.H., Yang, H.J.: Self-supervised learning based on spatial awareness for medical image analysis. IEEE Access 8, 162973–162981 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3021469

    2020

  48. [56]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15948 (2022)

    Nguyen, X.B., Bisht, A., Churchill, H., Luu, K.: Two-dimensional quantum material identification via self-attention and soft-labeling in deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15948 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08254 (2021)

    Bao, H., Dong, L., Piao, S., Wei, F.: Beit: Bert pre-training of image transform- ers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08254 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Zhai, X., Wang, X., Mustafa, B., Steiner, A., Keysers, D., Kolesnikov, A., Beyer, L.: Lit: Zero-shot transfer with locked-image text tuning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 18123–18133 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Neurocomputing 555, 126658 (2023)

    Pham, H., Dai, Z., Ghiasi, G., Kawaguchi, K., Liu, H., Yu, A.W., Yu, J., Chen, Y.-T., Luong, M.-T., Wu, Y., et al.: Combined scaling for zero-shot transfer learning. Neurocomputing 555, 126658 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.10904 (2021)

    Wang, Z., Yu, J., Yu, A.W., Dai, Z., Tsvetkov, Y., Cao, Y.: Simvlm: Sim- ple visual language model pretraining with weak supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.10904 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Wang, P., Yang, A., Men, R., Lin, J., Bai, S., Li, Z., Ma, J., Zhou, C., Zhou, J., Yang, H.: Ofa: Unifying architectures, tasks, and modalities through a sim- ple sequence-to-sequence learning framework. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 23318–23340 (2022). PMLR 35

    2022

  54. [62]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Li, J., Li, D., Xiong, C., Hoi, S.: Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 12888–12900 (2022). PMLR

    2022

  55. [63]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15343 (2023)

    Zhai, X., Mustafa, B., Kolesnikov, A., Beyer, L.: Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15343 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Luo, Z., Zhao, P., Xu, C., Geng, X., Shen, T., Tao, C., Ma, J., Lin, Q., Jiang, D.: Lexlip: Lexicon-bottlenecked language-image pre-training for large-scale image- text sparse retrieval. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 11206–112...

    2023

  57. [65]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14465 (2023)

    Wang, T., Lin, K., Li, L., Lin, C.-C., Yang, Z., Zhang, H., Liu, Z., Wang, L.: Equivariant similarity for vision-language foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14465 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03384 (2024)

    Weng, Y., Han, M., He, H., Chang, X., Zhuang, B.: Longvlm: Efficient long video understanding via large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03384 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Zhao, Y., Misra, I., Kr¨ ahenb¨ uhl, P., Girdhar, R.: Learning video representations from large language models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 6586–6597 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11255 (2023)

    Hussain, A.S., Liu, S., Sun, C., Shan, Y.: M2ugen: Multi-modal music under- standing and generation with the power of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11255 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13731 (2023)

    Ghosal, D., Majumder, N., Mehrish, A., Poria, S.: Text-to-audio genera- tion using instruction-tuned llm and latent diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13731 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    In: Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning (2024)

    Chen, J., Zhang, A.: FedMBridge: Bridgeable multimodal federated learning. In: Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning (2024). https:// openreview.net/forum?id=jrHUbftLd6

    2024

  63. [71]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Ren, Z., Huang, Z., Wei, Y., Zhao, Y., Fu, D., Feng, J., Jin, X.: Pixellm: Pixel reasoning with large multimodal model. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 26374–26383 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Yuan, Y., Li, W., Liu, J., Tang, D., Luo, X., Qin, C., Zhang, L., Zhu, J.: Osprey: Pixel understanding with visual instruction tuning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 28202–28211 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    In: The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2024)

    Zhang, T., Li, X., Fei, H., Yuan, H., Wu, S., Ji, S., Loy, C.C., YAN, 36 S.: OMG-LLaV A: Bridging image-level, object-level, pixel-level reasoning and understanding. In: The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2024). https://openreview.net...

    2024

  66. [74]

    CoRR (2024)

    Fei, H., Wu, S., Zhang, H., Chua, T.-S., Yan, S.: VITRON: A Unified Pixel-level Vision LLM for Understanding, Generating, Segmenting, Editing. CoRR (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Wu, S., Fei, H., Qu, L., Ji, W., Chua, T.-S.: NExT-GPT: Any-to-any multimodal LLM. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 53366–53397 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Yue, X., Ni, Y., Zhang, K., Zheng, T., Liu, R., Zhang, G., Stevens, S., Jiang, D., Ren, W., Sun, Y., Wei, C., Yu, B., Yuan, R., Sun, R., Yin, M., Zheng, B., Yang, Z., Liu, Y., Huang, W., Sun, H., Su, Y., Chen, W.: Mmmu: A massive multi- discipline multimodal understanding and ...

    2024

  69. [77]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17126 (2024)

    Ye, W., Zheng, G., Ma, Y., Cao, X., Lai, B., Rehg, J.M., Zhang, A.: Mm- spubench: Towards better understanding of spurious biases in multimodal llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17126 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

    Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F.L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al.: Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Yang, A., Fan, A., et al.: The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    https://lmsys

    Chiang, W.-L., Li, Z., Lin, Z., Sheng, Y., Wu, Z., Zhang, H., Zheng, L., Zhuang, S., Zhuang, Y., Gonzalez, J.E., Stoica, I., Xing, E.P.: Vicuna: An Open-Source Chatbot Impressing GPT-4 with 90%* ChatGPT Quality (2023). https://lmsys. org/blog/2023-03-30-vicuna/

    2023

  73. [81]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Noroozi, M., Favaro, P.: Unsupervised learning of visual representations by solv- ing jigsaw puzzles. In: European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 69–84 (2016). Springer

    2016

  74. [82]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

    Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., Toutanova, K.: Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019) 37

    Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Stoyanov, V.: Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019) 37

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461 (2019)

    Lewis, M., Liu, Y., Goyal, N., Ghazvininejad, M., Mohamed, A., Levy, O., Stoy- anov, V., Zettlemoyer, L.: Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    The Journal of Machine Learning Research 21(1), 5485–5551 (2020)

    Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., Liu, P.J.: Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to- text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 21(1), 5485–5551 (2020)

    2020

  78. [86]

    In: The 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2022)

    Lu, P., Mishra, S., Xia, T., Qiu, L., Chang, K.-W., Zhu, S.-C., Tafjord, O., Clark, P., Kalyan, A.: Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering. In: The 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2022)

    2022

  79. [87]

    In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 13, pp

    Lin, T.-Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., Doll´ ar, P., Zitnick, C.L.: Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 13, pp. 740–7...

    2014

  80. [88]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., et al.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., Antiga, L., et al.: Pytorch: An imperative style, high- performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  82. [90]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03983 (2016)

    Loshchilov, I., Hutter, F.: Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03983 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  83. [91]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017)

    Loshchilov, I., Hutter, F.: Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Ecological Informatics 57, 101089 (2020)

    Nanni, L., Maguolo, G., Pancino, F.: Insect pest image detection and recognition based on bio-inspired methods. Ecological Informatics 57, 101089 (2020)

    2020

  85. [93]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 179, 105809 (2020)

    Ayan, E., Erbay, H., Var¸ cın, F.: Crop pest classification with a genetic algorithm- based weighted ensemble of deep convolutional neural networks. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 179, 105809 (2020)

    2020

  86. [94]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024) 38

    He, C., Li, K., Zhang, Y., Xu, G., Tang, L., Zhang, Y., Guo, Z., Li, X.: Weakly-supervised concealed object segmentation with sam-based pseudo label- ing and multi-scale feature grouping. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024) 38

    2024

  87. [95]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Fan, D.-P., Ji, G.-P., Sun, G., Cheng, M.-M., Shen, J., Shao, L.: Camouflaged object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2777–2787 (2020)

    2020

  88. [96]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    He, C., Li, K., Zhang, Y., Tang, L., Zhang, Y., Guo, Z., Li, X.: Camou- flaged object detection with feature decomposition and edge reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 22046–22055 (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 25 (2012)

    Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., Hinton, G.E.: Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 25 (2012)

    2012

  90. [98]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Szegedy, C., Liu, W., Jia, Y., Sermanet, P., Reed, S., Anguelov, D., Erhan, D., Vanhoucke, V., Rabinovich, A.: Going deeper with convolutions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1–9 (2015)

    2015

  91. [99]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 (2014)

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

    2014 arXiv

  92. [100]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recogni- tion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 770–778 (2016)

    2016

  93. [101]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015)

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

    2015

  94. [102]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Lin, T.-Y., Doll´ ar, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Hariharan, B., Belongie, S.: Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2117–2125 (2017)

    2017

  95. [103]

    In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 14, pp

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

    2016

  96. [104]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Zhang, S., Wen, L., Bian, X., Lei, Z., Li, S.Z.: Single-shot refinement neural net- work for object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 4203–4212 (2018)

    2018

  97. [105]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02767 (2018) 39

    Redmon, J., Farhadi, A.: Yolov3: An incremental improvement. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02767 (2018) 39

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.