Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

PerioDet: Large-Scale Panoramic Radiograph Benchmark for Clinical-Oriented Apical Periodontitis Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PerioDet combines a new 3,673-image benchmark with noise- and small-lesion-aware modules to reach 53.5 AP.

desk verdict The dataset is a genuine contribution; the SOTA claim is not yet supported because hyperparameters were tuned on the test set and AP numbers are single runs without error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18958 v1 pith:6EJTSBV4 submitted 2025-07-25 cs.CV

Xiaocheng Fang , Jieyi Cai , Huanyu Liu , Chengju Zhou , Minhua Lu , Bingzhi Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords apicalperiodontitispanoramicradiographPerioXraysDetobjectdetectionsmallcomputer-aideddiagnosislabelassignment
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

This paper tries to establish that automated detection of apical periodontitis in panoramic dental X-rays is now feasible at a clinically useful level, and that the obstacle was missing data rather than model capacity. To that end it releases PerioXrays, 3,673 panoramic radiographs with 5,662 lesion boxes, split at the patient level into 3,000 training and 673 test images. On this benchmark, the proposed PerioDet detector, built on Background-Denoising Attention (BDA) and IoU-Dynamic Calibration (IDC), reports 53.5 AP, 84.2 AP50, and 55.6 AP75, outperforming twelve cited CNN and Transformer baselines, with the largest margin on small lesions. In a separate study, six dentists improved from 73.1% to 92.5% precision and from 74.3% to 96.1% recall when using PerioDet as an aid. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's aim to be demonstrating that this benchmark plus these two mechanisms makes computer-aided apical periodontitis diagnosis practical.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanisms are the Background-Denoising Attention (BDA) and IoU-Dynamic Calibration (IDC) modules. BDA takes each FPN feature level $P_i$, computes a channel importance vector $z_i = \mathrm{Sigmoid}(\mathrm{Conv}_{1\times1}(P_i))$, and builds a similarity map $S_i$ between the refined feature map and a scene embedding taken from the deepest level $C_5$; the output $P_i^{BD} = (1+z_i)\cdot P_i \odot S_i$ suppresses background while keeping target channels. IDC replaces fixed positive-sample IoU rules with an area-dependent threshold $T_{rp} = \max(0.25, 0.2 + 0.15(\sqrt{wh}/A_s)^\lambda)$ and a dynamic label assignment that scores anchors by $DIoU = \alpha AIoU + (1-\alpha)RIoU - (1-\alpha)|AIoU-RIoU|^\gamma$, gradually shifting weight to the regression box during training. The threshold's dependence on object area is what gives small lesions enough positive anchors, and the BDA gate is what keeps panoramic radiograph artifacts from suppressing true detections.

What would settle it

Take the 673 test images, have an independent panel of dentists re-annotate apical periodontitis lesions from the same clinical criteria, and compare their boxes to the released ones by bounding-box agreement (for example, an IoU >= 0.5 match rate or Cohen's kappa on lesion presence per tooth). If agreement is low, the 53.5 AP and the 92.5% precision figure would need to be recomputed on the new labels; if agreement is high, the numbers stand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that PerioXrays is the first large-scale benchmark for apical periodontitis detection and that PerioDet beats current detectors on it by explicit design for the two failure modes typical of periapical lesions: background clutter and small object size. Quantitatively, the paper reports 53.5 AP on the test split, a 3.2 point gain over the best Transformer baseline (Salience-DETR at 50.3 AP) and a 5.8 point gain over the best CNN baseline (CFINet at 47.7 AP); small-lesion AP rises to 42.3, 5.1 points above the best baseline. The ablation table attributes 1.8 AP to BDA alone, 2.4 AP to IDC alone, and 3.6 AP to both together relative to the Co-DINO base. The human-computer experiment claims that with the tool, professional dentists' precision rises from 73.1% to 92.5% and recall from 74.3% to 96.1%, which the paper reads as evidence of clinical applicability as an auxiliary diagnostic aid.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the PerioX-rays annotations being correct: each box was reviewed by four dentists, but the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement, no adjudication rule, and no independent reference standard, so if the labels are noisy or inconsistent the reported AP gains and dentist-improvement numbers would be measured against unreliable ground truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PerioXrays gives the community a fixed, patient-level split and a standardized evaluation protocol, so future apical periodontitis detectors can be compared on equal footing.
  • The 5.1-point small-object gain (APS 42.3 versus 37.0) implies the IDC label-assignment trick is doing real work for tiny lesions, the very cases dentists miss under fatigue.
  • Under the same ResNet-50 backbone and training schedule, the gap between PerioDet and each baseline is attributable to the BDA and IDC modules plus their synergy, since only the modules differ.
  • The dentist-collaboration result implies that CAD assistance, rather than full automation, is the immediate clinical use: it raises both precision and recall without requiring the dentist to accept or reject model output blindly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the same area-adaptive IoU threshold idea could transfer to other small-object medical tasks, such as microcalcification detection in mammograms, but PerioDet's gains would need to be re-estimated because that domain's noise profile differs.
  • My inference: since the human study used 100 images and six dentists, the 19-22 point clinician gains are a proof of concept; a multi-centre reader study with more images and varied expertise would show whether the benefit persists in routine workflow.
  • My inference: the paper does not report per-tooth or per-root localization accuracy; testing whether false positives sit on healthy roots near true lesions would tell whether the remaining errors are anatomical confusion or genuine misses.
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 introduces PerioXrays, a panoramic radiograph benchmark containing 3,673 images and 5,662 annotated instances of apical periodontitis, and proposes PerioDet, a detection pipeline with Background-Denoising Attention (BDA) and IoU-Dynamic Calibration (IDC). The method is evaluated against CNN- and transformer-based detectors, reporting AP 53.5, AP50 84.2, AP75 55.6, and APS 42.3, which the authors claim surpasses all compared baselines. A human-computer collaborative experiment with six dentists reports that PerioDet assistance raises precision from 73.1% to 92.5% and recall from 74.3% to 96.1%. The authors position the dataset as the first large-scale benchmark for automated apical periodontitis detection and the method as a clinically applicable auxiliary diagnostic tool.

Significance. If the evaluation is made sound, this would be a valuable contribution: the PerioXrays benchmark addresses a genuine gap in dental computer-aided diagnosis, the proposed BDA and IDC modules are simple and mechanistically plausible, and the human-computer experiment targets a clinically meaningful outcome. The authors also ship a public project page, which supports reproducibility if training code and trained models are released. However, the current experimental protocol does not yet establish the headline claims: the state-of-the-art comparison is compromised by test-set hyperparameter selection and single-run reporting, the human study is confounded by order and learning effects, and the annotation quality is not quantitatively documented. These are addressable issues, so the contribution is potentially strong but needs substantial verification.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.1, 4.3, Fig. 4] Section 4.1 defines only a training set of 3,000 images and a test set of 673 images, with no validation split. Section 4.3 and Fig. 4 then select the critical hyperparameters λ, α0, and γ by maximizing AP on 'the PerioXrays dataset', which, given the split in Section 4.1, can only be the training or test set. If it is the test set, the final AP numbers in Tables 1 and 2 are the result of test-set tuning, which systematically favors PerioDet over baselines whose hyperparameters are not optimized on the test set. If it is the training set, the reported FIGure 4 values are not an unbiased estimate. The authors must introduce a proper validation split, select hyperparameters on it, and report test-set metrics only once; alternatively, use nested cross-validation.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] Every AP number in Tables 1 and 2 appears to come from a single training run, with no standard deviation, number of seeds, or significance testing. The claimed advantage over the strongest baseline, Salience-DETR, is 3.2 AP points, which is within the range of run-to-run variation commonly observed for detection transformers. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over at least three to five seeds and, where appropriate, a paired significance test to support the state-of-the-art claim.
  3. [4.4, Table 3] The human-computer collaborative experiment has the same six dentists judge the same 100 images in two consecutive sessions, once without and once with PerioDet. With no washout period, no randomization of image order, and no cross-over design, the reported 19.4-point precision gain and 21.8-point recall gain may be attributable to learning, memory of previous responses, or fatigue effects rather than to PerioDet assistance. The experiment should use a controlled design, such as split-image or alternating-order conditions with a washout interval, or a cross-over protocol with distinct image subsets balanced across dentists, and should report per-group (junior, mediate, senior) results.
  4. [2.2] Section 2.2 states that each bounding box was reviewed by four experienced professional dentists, but no inter-annotator agreement, adjudication procedure, or validation against an external reference standard is reported. Because every AP number in Tables 1 and 2 and every precision/recall figure in Table 3 is measured against these boxes, the authors should report inter-annotator agreement (e.g., Fleiss' kappa on image-level lesion presence and mean pairwise IoU on box-level agreement) and describe how disagreements were resolved. Without this, the reliability of the ground truth, and therefore of all downstream comparisons, is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2] The captions and labels in Fig. 2 appear garbled or duplicated, with repeated counts and a stray 'Apical AP>0.5% 99' line; these should be cleaned and the plots should have clear legends.
  2. [Eq. 6] The term As, described as 'the minimal area definition', is never formally defined or given a value for the PerioXrays dataset; please specify its units, how it is set, and whether it is normalized by image resolution.
  3. [Fig. 4] The axis labels and tick values in Fig. 4 are nearly illegible; add readable axes, legends, and a note stating which data split the reported AP values are computed on.
  4. [4.2] When reporting differences such as '5.8% improvement' and '3.2% improvement', the authors should use 'percentage points' rather than '%' to avoid ambiguity about relative versus absolute change.
  5. [4.1] The training details for the baselines are underspecified: the text says all baseline models use a ResNet-50 backbone, but does not state whether the same schedule, augmentation, and hyperparameter settings were used across all methods, which is needed for a fair comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: PerioDet's reported gains are empirical comparisons on a held-out split, and the self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the introduction of the PerioXrays dataset and a detection architecture (PerioDet) with two new modules, BDA and IDC. The BDA and IDC mechanisms are specified by explicit formulas (Eqs. 1-8) and are not defined in terms of the evaluation metric or the final AP numbers; their contribution is assessed by training on a 3,000-image training split and testing on a disjoint 673-image patient-level split (Section 4.1). The AP, AP50, AP75, and APS values in Tables 1 and 2 come from comparing detector outputs against annotated boxes, so the superiority claim is not true by construction. The self-citations (OralXrays-9, CariesXrays, Salience-DETR) provide prior datasets and a baseline model; they are contextual and do not carry the argument for PerioDet's effectiveness. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The main methodological caveat, namely that Section 4.3 selects hyperparameters (λ, α0, γ) by maximizing AP on the PerioXrays dataset with no separate validation split and reports single-run results without error bars, is a legitimate evaluation-protocol concern, but it is not circularity: the hyperparameters are fitted to a performance curve, not used to define the metric or the ground truth, and the reported numbers remain measurements rather than identities. Accordingly, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The central performance claims depend on unmeasured ground-truth reliability, a stated but unverifiable patient-level split, and several hyperparameters fitted to test-set performance. The method introduces no new physical or conceptual entities; its modules are learned components inside a standard detector.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda in Eq. 6 = 0.55
    Optimal value selected from test-set performance in Fig. 4a; no separate validation split is reported.
  • alpha_0 in Eq. 8 = 0.6
    Optimal value selected from test-set performance in Fig. 4b.
  • gamma in Eq. 7 = 1.5
    Optimal value selected from test-set performance in Fig. 4c.
  • A_s minimal area definition in Eq. 6 = not reported
    Described as adjusted for different datasets, but the value used for PerioXrays is not given, so the adaptive threshold cannot be reproduced.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The four experienced dentists' annotations are correct and consistent enough to serve as ground truth.
    Section 2.2 states review by four dentists but gives no inter-annotator agreement or adjudication statistics; all AP scores inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption The patient-level random split prevents data leakage.
    Stated in Section 4.1, but no patient identifiers or leakage checks are shown.
  • domain assumption The 100-image clinical substudy is representative enough to support claims of clinical applicability.
    Section 4.4 uses six dentists and 100 images with no sample size calculation, no stratification, and no statistical test.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PerioDet: Large-Scale Panoramic Radiograph Benchmark for Clinical-Oriented Apical Periodontitis Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6EJTSBV4

@misc{pith2026250718958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PerioDet: Large-Scale Panoramic Radiograph Benchmark for Clinical-Oriented Apical Periodontitis Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6EJTSBV4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18958}
}
read the original abstract

Apical periodontitis is a prevalent oral pathology that presents significant public health challenges. Despite advances in automated diagnostic systems across various medical fields, the development of Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) applications for apical periodontitis is still constrained by the lack of a large-scale, high-quality annotated dataset. To address this issue, we release a large-scale panoramic radiograph benchmark called "PerioXrays", comprising 3,673 images and 5,662 meticulously annotated instances of apical periodontitis. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first benchmark dataset for automated apical periodontitis diagnosis. This paper further proposes a clinical-oriented apical periodontitis detection (PerioDet) paradigm, which jointly incorporates Background-Denoising Attention (BDA) and IoU-Dynamic Calibration (IDC) mechanisms to address the challenges posed by background noise and small targets in automated detection. Extensive experiments on the PerioXrays dataset demonstrate the superiority of PerioDet in advancing automated apical periodontitis detection. Additionally, a well-designed human-computer collaborative experiment underscores the clinical applicability of our method as an auxiliary diagnostic tool for professional dentists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18958 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Apical periodontitis in panoramic radiograph from PerioXrays. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comprehensive dataset statistics and distribution about PerioXrays. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of our proposed PerioDet paradigm, which incorporates BDA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Parameter analysis (%) on the PerioXrays dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of detections and heatmaps on the PerioXrays dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Endodontic topics8(1), 36–54 (2004)

    Abbott, P.V.: Classification, diagnosis and clinical manifestations of apical peri- odontitis. Endodontic topics8(1), 36–54 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Periodontology 2000 7(1), 39–53 (1995)

    Armitage, G.C.: Clinical evaluation of periodontal diseases. Periodontology 2000 7(1), 39–53 (1995)

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    In: CVPR

    Chen, B., Fu, S., Fang, X., Cai, J., Zhang, B., Lu, M., Liu, Y.: Oralxrays-9: Towards hospital-scale panoramic x-ray anomaly detection via personalized multi-object query-aware mining. In: CVPR. pp. 15570–15579 (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    In: AAAI

    Chen, B., Fu, S., Liu, Y., Pan, J., Lu, G., Zhang, Z.: Cariesxrays: Enhancing caries detection in hospital-scale panoramic dental x-rays via feature pyramid contrastive learning. In: AAAI. vol. 38, pp. 21940–21948 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence (2023)

    Chen, B., Liu, Y., Zhang, Z., Lu, G., Kong, A.W.K.: Transattunet: Multi-level attention-guided u-net with transformer for medical image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Forensic Sciences Research7(3), 456–466 (2022)

    Choi, H.R., Siadari, T.S., Kim, J.E., Huh, K.H., Yi, W.J., Lee, S.S., Heo, M.S.: Automatic detection of teeth and dental treatment patterns on dental panoramic radiographs using deep neural networks. Forensic Sciences Research7(3), 456–466 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Pattern Recognition137, 109256 (2023)

    Dong, C., Duoqian, M.: Control distance iou and control distance iou loss for better bounding box regression. Pattern Recognition137, 109256 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Brazilian dental journal19, 34–39 (2008) 10 Fang, Cai et al

    Estrela, C., Leles, C.R., Hollanda, A.C.B., Moura, M.S., Pécora, J.D.: Prevalence and risk factors of apical periodontitis in endodontically treated teeth in a selected population of brazilian adults. Brazilian dental journal19, 34–39 (2008) 10 Fang, Cai et al

    work page 2008

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08430 (2021)

    Ge, Z., Liu, S., Wang, F., Li, Z., Sun, J.: Yolox: Exceeding yolo series in 2021. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08430 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Nature biotechnology40(4), 555–565 (2022)

    Greenwald, N.F., Miller, G., Moen, E., Kong, A., Kagel, A., Dougherty, T., Full- away, C.C., McIntosh, B.J., Leow, K.X., Schwartz, M.S., et al.: Whole-cell seg- mentation of tissue images with human-level performance using large-scale data annotation and deep learning. Nature ...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Radiology290(2), 498–503 (2019)

    Halabi, S.S., Prevedello, L.M., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Mamonov, A.B., Bilbily, A., Cicero,M.,Pan,I.,Pereira,L.A.,Sousa,R.T.,Abdala,N.,etal.:Thersnapediatric bone age machine learning challenge. Radiology290(2), 498–503 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    In: CVPR

    Hou, X., Liu, M., Zhang, S., Wei, P., Chen, B.: Salience detr: Enhancing detection transformer with hierarchical salience filtering refinement. In: CVPR. pp. 17574– 17583 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Endodon- tic topics1(1), 3–25 (2002)

    Huumonen, S., Ørstavik, D.: Radiological aspects of apical periodontitis. Endodon- tic topics1(1), 3–25 (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences9(Suppl 1), S246 (2017)

    Karunakaran, J., Abraham, C.S., Karthik, A.K., Jayaprakash, N.: Successful non- surgical management of periapical lesions of endodontic origin: A conservative or- thograde approach. Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences9(Suppl 1), S246 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    In: CVPR

    Lin, T.Y., Dollár, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Hariharan, B., Belongie, S.: Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In: CVPR. pp. 2117–2125 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    In: ECCV

    Lin, T.Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., Dollár, P., Zitnick, C.L.: Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In: ECCV. pp. 740–755. Springer (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    In: ICLR (2021)

    Liu, S., Li, F., Zhang, H., Yang, X., Qi, X., Su, H., Zhu, J., Zhang, L.: Dab-detr: Dynamic anchor boxes are better queries for detr. In: ICLR (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Nature communications12(1), 6654 (2021)

    Lu, L., Dercle, L., Zhao, B., Schwartz, L.H.: Deep learning for the prediction of early on-treatment response in metastatic colorectal cancer from serial medical imaging. Nature communications12(1), 6654 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    In: ICCV

    Meng, D., Chen, X., Fan, Z., Zeng, G., Li, H., Yuan, Y., Sun, L., Wang, J.: Con- ditional detr for fast training convergence. In: ICCV. pp. 3651–3660 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.06957 (2017)

    Rajpurkar, P., Irvin, J., Bagul, A., Ding, D., Duan, T., Mehta, H., Yang, B., Zhu, K., Laird, D., Ball, R.L., et al.: Mura: Large dataset for abnormality detection in musculoskeletal radiographs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.06957 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    In: NeurIPS

    Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R., Sun, J.: Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object de- tection with region proposal networks. In: NeurIPS. vol. 28 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    In: CVPR

    Sun, P., Zhang, R., Jiang, Y., Kong, T., Xu, C., Zhan, W., Tomizuka, M., Li, L., Yuan, Z., Wang, C., et al.: Sparse r-cnn: End-to-end object detection with learnable proposals. In: CVPR. pp. 14454–14463 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    International endodontic journal54(5), 712–735 (2021)

    Tibúrcio-Machado, C., Michelon, C., Zanatta, F., Gomes, M.S., Marin, J.A., Bier, C.A.: The global prevalence of apical periodontitis: a systematic review and meta- analysis. International endodontic journal54(5), 712–735 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    In: CVPR

    Wang, X., Peng, Y., Lu, L., Lu, Z., Bagheri, M., Summers, R.M.: Chestx-ray8: Hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised clas- sification and localization of common thorax diseases. In: CVPR. pp. 2097–2106 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    In: ECCV

    Xu, C., Wang, J., Yang, W., Yu, H., Yu, L., Xia, G.S.: Rfla: Gaussian receptive field based label assignment for tiny object detection. In: ECCV. pp. 526–543. Springer (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    In: ICCV

    Yuan, X., Cheng, G., Yan, K., Zeng, Q., Han, J.: Small object detection via coarse- to-fine proposal generation and imitation learning. In: ICCV. pp. 6317–6327 (2023) PerioDet 11

    2023

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03605 (2022)

    Zhang, H., Li, F., Liu, S., Zhang, L., Su, H., Zhu, J., Ni, L.M., Shum, H.Y.: Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to-end object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03605 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    In: CVPR

    Zhang, S., Chi, C., Yao, Y., Lei, Z., Li, S.Z.: Bridging the gap between anchor- based and anchor-free detection via adaptive training sample selection. In: CVPR. pp. 9759–9768 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    In: ICLR (2020)

    Zhu, X., Su, W., Lu, L., Li, B., Wang, X., Dai, J.: Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection. In: ICLR (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    In: ICCV

    Zong, Z., Song, G., Liu, Y.: Detrs with collaborative hybrid assignments training. In: ICCV. pp. 6748–6758 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.