Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

A Simple Detector with Frame Dynamics is a Strong Tracker

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A plain object detector is turned into a top infrared drone tracker by feeding it frame differences or optical flow and filtering detections with a constant-velocity trajectory constraint.

desk verdict Credible core, over-attributed headline: the Track 1 win leans on an unablated LoRAT fallback, but the frame-dynamics detector evidence stands on its own. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04917 v1 pith:3WPTTM6L submitted 2025-05-08 cs.CV

Chenxu Peng , Chenxu Wang , Minrui Zou , Danyang Li , Zhengpeng Yang , Yimian Dai , Ming-Ming Cheng , Xiang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords infraredtiny-objecttrackingobjectdetectionframedifferenceopticalflowtrajectoryconstraintfilteringtemporalpriorAnti-UAVsmalltarget
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 argues that a standard object detector can become a state-of-the-art infrared tiny-object tracker without any tracker-specific architecture. The two key ingredients are frame dynamics, where the current frame is concatenated with either two frame-difference maps or horizontal and vertical optical-flow components, and a trajectory-constrained filtering step at inference that keeps only detections near a constant-velocity extrapolation of the target's previous centers. On the 4th Anti-UAV Challenge, this detector-plus-motion recipe places first in Track 1 and second in Track 2. The work matters because, if right, the expensive template-cropping machinery of modern trackers can be replaced by simply giving motion to a detector and enforcing motion continuity at the output.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the frame-dynamics input, which turns temporal information into extra image channels so an ordinary detector can learn appearance consistency and motion from adjacent frames. For frame difference the input is $\mathrm{cat}(x_t, x_t-x_{t-1}, x_t-x_{t-2})$; for optical flow it is $\mathrm{cat}(x_t, f(x_t,x_{t-1})_v, f(x_t,x_{t-1})_u)$, computed with the Farneback method. The second mechanism is the trajectory-constrained filter: from the previous two centers $C_{t-2}, C_{t-1}$ it estimates instantaneous velocity, predicts the current center as $C_t = C_{t-1}+V_{t-1}\Delta t$, and accepts a candidate only if its center lies within $d_{\max}$. The filter is what converts high-recall detection boxes into a temporally stable track, and the fallback to LoRAT covers cases where the motion window rejects everything.

What would settle it

Run the reported pipeline on sequences containing abrupt acceleration or a complete stop, sweep $d_{\max}$ across a range of values, and measure AOA: if the metric collapses for small windows or TC-Filtering drops ground-truth centers on such frames, the constant-velocity window is the fragile component.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for infrared tiny-object tracking, motion-aware input and temporal-prior filtering, not tracker-specific architecture, carry the performance. Concretely, the method concatenates the current infrared frame with either two frame-difference maps, $x^{fd} = \mathrm{cat}(x_t, x_t-x_{t-1}, x_t-x_{t-2})$, or the horizontal and vertical optical-flow components, $x^{of} = \mathrm{cat}(x_t, f_v, f_u)$, and trains detection models on these three-channel inputs. During inference, TC-Filtering extrapolates the target center from the previous two frames by constant-velocity motion, $C_t = (2x_{t-1}-x_{t-2}, 2y_{t-1}-y_{t-2})$, keeps only candidate boxes within the radius $d_{\max}$ of that prediction, and falls back to a separate tracker (LoRAT) when no candidate survives. With five detectors fused by weighted box fusion, the pipeline places first in Track 1 (AOA 73.23) and second in Track 2 (57.12) of the 4th Anti-UAV Challenge. The paper also reports that frame-difference inputs consistently improve detection AP@50 across all five detectors on four-fold validation, and that adding TC-Filtering improves AOA on those folds.

Load-bearing premise

The whole gain from TC-Filtering rests on assuming the drone moves with roughly constant velocity between frames, so its next center lies within a fixed, never-specified radius $d_{\max}$ of the extrapolated position; a sharp turn, a pause, or a temporary miss would push the correct detection outside the window and discard it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detector that sees frame dynamics can track without cropping a template, so targets whose initial location is unknown (Track 2) remain trackable from pure detection.
  • Because the input carries motion, the model suppresses static background clutter, which is the main failure mode in infrared tiny-object tracking.
  • TC-Filtering rejects false positives outside the predicted motion window, raising AOA on validation folds, for example from 77.1 to 80.8 on Fold 3.
  • Detection quality and tracking quality move together: improving small-object AP@50 through larger input scale, the p2 head, and the AFPN decoder transfers directly to tracking AOA.
  • The no-template pipeline removes the error-propagation path where a false detection in one frame crops the wrong region and corrupts the next frame.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the radius $d_{\max}$ is never given a value or swept in the ablations, so the filter's robustness to acceleration, stops, and occlusion is unmeasured; a sweep over $d_{\max}$ on sequences with abrupt motion would expose how much of the leaderboard gain depends on the window size.
  • Beyond the paper: because infrared targets are small, low-texture blobs, frame-difference maps mainly isolate moving heat signatures; the same recipe could be tested in visible-light small-object tracking or in other background-dominated detection tasks where temporal consistency is available.
  • Beyond the paper: the final challenge scores are an ensemble effect that includes five detectors, weighted box fusion, and a LoRAT fallback, and the ablations do not isolate each component on the challenge test set; a reader should not attribute the entire leaderboard margin to the frame-dynamics input alone.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes turning a standard object detector into an infrared tiny-object tracker by (1) concatenating the current frame with frame-difference maps or optical flow as input "frame dynamics," and (2) applying a trajectory-constrained filtering (TC-Filtering) post-processing step that keeps only detections near a constant-velocity extrapolation of the previous target centers. The detector is an ensemble of five models whose outputs are fused with Weighted Box Fusion, and Track 1 additionally uses a LoRAT tracker as a fallback when no detection passes the TC-filtering window. Experiments report first place in Track 1 and second place in Track 2 of the 4th Anti-UAV Challenge, plus four-fold cross-validation results on the training set showing AP@50 and AOA gains from frame dynamics and TC-filtering. The central claim is that a plain detector, equipped with motion-aware input and temporal post-processing, becomes a state-of-the-art infrared tiny-object tracker.

Significance. If fully established, the result is valuable: it offers a conceptually simple, reproducible alternative to dedicated tracking architectures on a challenging benchmark, and it quantifies the benefits of input-level motion encoding and temporal priors. The paper includes several concrete strengths: a public code link, a carefully designed four-fold validation protocol with similarity-based leakage prevention, systematic detector selection, and ablations of image scale, optimizer, normalization, sampling stride, and inference thresholds. The main limitation is attribution: the Track 1 pipeline includes a LoRAT fallback that is never ablated, and the d_max radius of the TC-filtering window is never specified, so the headline claim that a simple detector with frame dynamics is the source of the state-of-the-art result is not yet proven. The Track 2 result, which does not use LoRAT, still shows a 9.64-point gap to the first-place team, which makes the need for this ablation especially clear.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1 Inferencing Details, Eq. (5)] The Track 1 pipeline uses a LoRAT fallback whenever no fused detection falls inside the TC-filtering window (S(i)_t = 0), but the paper never ablates this fallback, never reports how often it fires, and never gives the value of d_max. As a result, the 73.23 AOA in Track 1 cannot be attributed to the detector with frame dynamics rather than to LoRAT. Please provide the Track 1 AOA with the LoRAT fallback disabled, the fraction of frames in which the LoRAT output was used, and the actual d_max value; this is essential because Track 2, where LoRAT is absent, shows a 9.64-point gap to first place (57.12 vs 66.76 in Table 1).
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (5)] The d_max radius of the motion-constraint window is never specified anywhere in the paper, and no sensitivity analysis over d_max is reported. Since the TC-Filtering gains in Table 3 depend on this unstated hyperparameter, the reproducibility and robustness of the method are not yet established. Please state the value used and provide an ablation over d_max, including discussion of failure modes such as target acceleration, occlusion, and temporary target loss.
  3. [Table 3 and §4.2] The tracking rows of Table 3 ('Tracking WBF' and 'Tracking WBF + TC-filtering') do not state which detector ensemble, which input variant (Raw, Raw+FD, or Raw+OF), and which fusion settings produce the reported AOA values. The table structure with dashes and only two numbers per row is also ambiguous. Please clarify the exact configuration for the tracking comparisons so that the claimed benefit of TC-filtering can be interpreted and reproduced.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 3 and §4.2] The four-fold AOA results are reported as point estimates with no standard deviations, no per-seed variability, and no significance tests; adding mean±std across folds or repeats would strengthen the 'consistently outperforms' statement.
  2. [Algorithm 1] In Algorithm 1, the threshold d_v used in Step 1 is not defined; please define it in the text or caption.
  3. [Related Work and Eq. (2)] The optical-flow implementation uses the Farneback method, but reference [39] is cited as the source for Farneback optical flow; please cite the original Farneback reference or clarify the relationship.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting issues, including 'detecter' in the Introduction, 'S(i)t' in the inference details, and a GitHub URL with spaces ('A- Simple-Detector-is-a-Strong-Tracker'); these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the method is evaluated against an external benchmark, and neither the frame-dynamics input nor the TC-filtering post-process reduces to the tracked outputs it is claimed to predict.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The frame-dynamics inputs in Eqs. (1)-(2) are deterministic functions of raw frames (frame differences and Farneback optical flow), constructed before training and not fitted to the final AOA scores. The TC-filtering rule in Eqs. (3)-(5) is a fixed constant-velocity motion prior with an unstated radius d_max; it is a hand-specified heuristic rather than a parameter fitted to the benchmark result, and its effect is reported as an ablation in Table 3. The central performance claims are evaluated on an external benchmark, the 4th Anti-UAV Challenge test set (Table 1), against anonymous competing teams, and the detector selection and ensemble choices are justified with four-fold validation on the training set. The paper's self-citations (e.g., [7], [8], [27]) are background references for infrared small-target detection and backbones; none is invoked as the unique justification for the central tracking claim. The most serious issue is a confound, not a circularity: Section 4.1 states that 'when the target position in the current frame deviates significantly from the previous frame (i.e., S(i)_t = 0 in Eq. 5), the LoRAT tracking result is used as the final prediction,' and the paper never reports d_max or the invocation frequency of this LoRAT fallback. This makes the attribution of the Track 1 result to 'frame dynamics' partially unverified, and the missing ablation weakens the headline claim, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs by construction. Similarly, leaving d_max unspecified is an incomplete hyperparameter report, not a circular step. Therefore no self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation-load-bearing circularity is present, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several unverified domain assumptions about motion estimation and target dynamics, plus a set of manually tuned hyperparameters. The most fragile is the unmeasured d_max radius for TC-Filtering. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • d_max (TC-filtering window radius) = not specified
    Radius of the motion constraint window in Eq. 5; its value is never given, yet it determines which detections are kept and is central to one of the two key innovations.
  • Confidence threshold = 0.2
    Tuned on validation; used to filter detections during YOLO and MMDetection inference.
  • IoU threshold = 0.2
    Set via ablation in Fig. 5b; affects NMS and detection selection.
  • WBF fusion weight = 0.1
    Weight for weighted box fusion, set by the authors without ablation.
  • Sampling stride = 5
    Training images sampled every 5th frame; chosen via ablation in Fig. 5a.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Farneback optical flow provides a reliable motion field for tiny, low-contrast infrared targets.
    The optical-flow input channels (Eq. 2) rely on motion estimates being informative rather than noise; no validation of flow quality is provided, and tiny moving targets in infrared may not produce stable flow.
  • domain assumption Target motion is smooth enough that the constant-velocity extrapolation in Eq. 4 approximates the next position.
    TC-Filtering (Eq. 5) discards detections outside a window centered at the extrapolated position; abrupt or erratic target motion, common for drones, would break this assumption.
  • domain assumption The authors' manual correction of ~5% of training annotations improves label quality.
    Section 4.1 reports the corrected dataset yields +1.5 AP, but the correction criteria are not described, so the improvement could partly reflect the authors' expectations or introduce bias.
  • domain assumption SuperPoint + LightGlue keypoint matching can detect near-duplicate sequences for leakage prevention.
    The validation split relies on this matching, but no analysis of matching errors is provided, and the threshold of 100 matches is chosen ad hoc.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Simple Detector with Frame Dynamics is a Strong Tracker." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3WPTTM6L

@misc{pith2026250504917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Simple Detector with Frame Dynamics is a Strong Tracker},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3WPTTM6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04917}
}
read the original abstract

Infrared object tracking plays a crucial role in Anti-Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (Anti-UAV) applications. Existing trackers often depend on cropped template regions and have limited motion modeling capabilities, which pose challenges when dealing with tiny targets. To address this, we propose a simple yet effective infrared tiny-object tracker that enhances tracking performance by integrating global detection and motion-aware learning with temporal priors. Our method is based on object detection and achieves significant improvements through two key innovations. First, we introduce frame dynamics, leveraging frame difference and optical flow to encode both prior target features and motion characteristics at the input level, enabling the model to better distinguish the target from background clutter. Second, we propose a trajectory constraint filtering strategy in the post-processing stage, utilizing spatio-temporal priors to suppress false positives and enhance tracking robustness. Extensive experiments show that our method consistently outperforms existing approaches across multiple metrics in challenging infrared UAV tracking scenarios. Notably, we achieve state-of-the-art performance in the 4th Anti-UAV Challenge, securing 1st place in Track 1 and 2nd place in Track 2.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04917 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of heatmaps from different detection mod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between the conventional object trackers and the proposed object tracker. Figure (c) only utilizes the frame difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of frame difference maps and optical flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The visualization of our method’s inference results on the test set. Each row represents a different video sequence. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Impact of the sampling stride on detection perfor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yolov11 for vehicle detection: Advancements, performance, and applications in intelligent transportation systems

    Mujadded Al Rabbani Alif. Yolov11 for vehicle detection: Advancements, performance, and applications in intelligent transportation systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22898 ,

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Cascade r-cnn: Delv- ing into high quality object detection

    Zhaowei Cai and Nuno Vasconcelos. Cascade r-cnn: Delv- ing into high quality object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 6154–6162, 2018. 2, 3, 5

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Backbone is all your need: A simplified architecture for visual object tracking

    Boyu Chen, Peixia Li, Lei Bai, Lei Qiao, Qiuhong Shen, Bo Li, Weihao Gan, Wei Wu, and Wanli Ouyang. Backbone is all your need: A simplified architecture for visual object tracking. In European conference on computer vision, pages 375–392. Springer, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Seqtrack: Sequence to sequence learning for visual ob- ject tracking

    Xin Chen, Houwen Peng, Dong Wang, Huchuan Lu, and Han Hu. Seqtrack: Sequence to sequence learning for visual ob- ject tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 14572– 14581, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Transformer tracking

    Xin Chen, Bin Yan, Jiawen Zhu, Dong Wang, Xiaoyun Yang, and Huchuan Lu. Transformer tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8126–8135, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Mixformer: End-to-end tracking with iterative mixed atten- tion

    Yutao Cui, Cheng Jiang, Limin Wang, and Gangshan Wu. Mixformer: End-to-end tracking with iterative mixed atten- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition , pages 13608–13618,

  7. [7]

    One-stage cascade refinement networks for infrared small target detection

    Yimian Dai, Xiang Li, Fei Zhou, Yulei Qian, Yaohong Chen, and Jian Yang. One-stage cascade refinement networks for infrared small target detection. IEEE transactions on geo- science and remote sensing, 61:1–17, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Pick of the bunch: Detecting infrared small targets beyond hit-miss trade-offs via selective rank-aware attention

    Yimian Dai, Peiwen Pan, Yulei Qian, Yuxuan Li, Xiang Li, Jian Yang, and Huan Wang. Pick of the bunch: Detecting infrared small targets beyond hit-miss trade-offs via selective rank-aware attention. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Superpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description

    Daniel DeTone, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabi- novich. Superpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops , pages 224–236, 2018. 4

    2018

  2. [10]

    Use hirescam in- stead of grad-cam for faithful explanations of convolutional neural networks

    Rachel Lea Draelos and Lawrence Carin. Use hirescam in- stead of grad-cam for faithful explanations of convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.08891, 2020. 1

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Centernet: Keypoint triplets for object detection

    Kaiwen Duan, Song Bai, Lingxi Xie, Honggang Qi, Qing- ming Huang, and Qi Tian. Centernet: Keypoint triplets for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 6569–6578,

  4. [12]

    Querytrack: joint-modality query fusion net- work for rgbt tracking

    Huijie Fan, Zhencheng Yu, Qiang Wang, Baojie Fan, and Yandong Tang. Querytrack: joint-modality query fusion net- work for rgbt tracking. IEEE Transactions on Image Pro- cessing, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  5. [13]

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

    Chengjian Feng, Yujie Zhong, Yu Gao, Matthew R Scott, and Weilin Huang. Tood: Task-aligned one-stage object detec- tion. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision (ICCV), pages 3490–3499. IEEE Computer So- ciety, 2021. 5

    2021

  6. [14]

    Generalized relation modeling for transformer tracking

    Shenyuan Gao, Chunluan Zhou, and Jun Zhang. Generalized relation modeling for transformer tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 18686–18695, 2023. 2

    2023

  7. [15]

    Fast r-cnn

    Ross Girshick. Fast r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 1440–1448,

  8. [16]

    A twofold siamese network for real-time object tracking

    Anfeng He, Chong Luo, Xinmei Tian, and Wenjun Zeng. A twofold siamese network for real-time object tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4834–4843, 2018. 1

    2018

  9. [17]

    Motion matters: Difference-based multi- scale learning for infrared uav detection

    Ruian He, Shili Zhou, Ri Cheng, Yuqi Sun, Weimin Tan, and Bo Yan. Motion matters: Difference-based multi- scale learning for infrared uav detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3006–3015, 2023. 2

    2023

  10. [18]

    Determining opti- cal flow

    Berthold KP Horn and Brian G Schunck. Determining opti- cal flow. Artificial Intelligence, 1981. 2

    1981

  11. [19]

    Bo Huang, Jianan Li, Junjie Chen, Gang Wang, Jian Zhao, and Tingfa Xu. Anti-uav410: A thermal infrared benchmark and customized scheme for tracking drones in the wild.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(5):2852–2865, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  12. [20]

    Globaltrack: A simple and strong baseline for long-term tracking

    Lianghua Huang, Xin Zhao, and Kaiqi Huang. Globaltrack: A simple and strong baseline for long-term tracking. In Pro- ceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 34, pages 11037–11044, 2020. 1

    2020

  13. [21]

    Anti-uav: A large multi-modal benchmark for uav tracking

    Nan Jiang, Kuiran Wang, Xiaoke Peng, Xuehui Yu, Qiang Wang, Junliang Xing, Guorong Li, Jian Zhao, Guodong Guo, and Zhenjun Han. Anti-uav: A large multi-modal benchmark for uav tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.08466, 2021. 1

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Asf-yolo: A novel yolo model with attentional scale sequence fusion for cell instance segmentation

    Ming Kang, Chee-Ming Ting, Fung Fung Ting, and Rapha ¨el C-W Phan. Asf-yolo: A novel yolo model with attentional scale sequence fusion for cell instance segmentation. Image and Vision Computing, 147:105057, 2024. 5

    2024

  15. [23]

    Yolov11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements

    Rahima Khanam and Muhammad Hussain. Yolov11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17725, 2024. 3, 5

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Probabilistic anchor assign- ment with iou prediction for object detection

    Kang Kim and Hee Seok Lee. Probabilistic anchor assign- ment with iou prediction for object detection. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXV 16 , pages 355–371. Springer, 2020. 2, 3, 5 9

    2020

  17. [25]

    Slim-neck by gsconv: A better design paradigm of detector architectures for autonomous vehicles

    Hulin Li, Jun Li, Hanbing Wei, Zheng Liu, Zhenfei Zhan, and Qiliang Ren. Slim-neck by gsconv: A better design paradigm of detector architectures for autonomous vehicles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02424, 10, 2022. 5

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

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

    Xiang Li, Wenhai Wang, Lijun Wu, Shuo Chen, Xiaolin Hu, Jun Li, Jinhui Tang, and Jian Yang. Generalized focal loss: Learning qualified and distributed bounding boxes for dense object detection. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:21002–21012, 2020. 5

    2020

  19. [27]

    Lsknet: A foundation lightweight backbone for remote sensing

    Yuxuan Li, Xiang Li, Yimain Dai, Qibin Hou, Li Liu, Yongx- iang Liu, Ming-Ming Cheng, and Jian Yang. Lsknet: A foundation lightweight backbone for remote sensing. Inter- national Journal of Computer Vision, pages 1–22, 2024. 2

    2024

  20. [28]

    Tracking meets lora: Faster training, larger model, stronger performance

    Liting Lin, Heng Fan, Zhipeng Zhang, Yaowei Wang, Yong Xu, and Haibin Ling. Tracking meets lora: Faster training, larger model, stronger performance. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision , pages 300–318. Springer, 2024. 6

    2024

  21. [29]

    Swintrack: A simple and strong baseline for trans- former tracking

    Liting Lin, Heng Fan, Zhipeng Zhang, Yong Xu, and Haibin Ling. Swintrack: A simple and strong baseline for trans- former tracking. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:16743–16754, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  22. [30]

    Focal loss for dense object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Doll´ar. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2980–2988, 2017. 1, 5

    2017

  23. [31]

    Lightglue: Local feature matching at light speed

    Philipp Lindenberger, Paul-Edouard Sarlin, and Marc Polle- feys. Lightglue: Local feature matching at light speed. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 17627–17638, 2023. 4

    2023

  24. [32]

    Path aggregation network for instance segmentation

    Shu Liu, Lu Qi, Haifang Qin, Jianping Shi, and Jiaya Jia. Path aggregation network for instance segmentation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition, pages 8759–8768, 2018. 5, 6

    2018

  25. [33]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021. 5

    2021

  26. [34]

    Libra r-cnn: Towards balanced learning for object detection

    Jiangmiao Pang, Kai Chen, Jianping Shi, Huajun Feng, Wanli Ouyang, and Dahua Lin. Libra r-cnn: Towards balanced learning for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 821–830, 2019. 5

    2019

  27. [35]

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

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. Advances in neural information process- ing systems, 28, 2015. 1

    2015

  28. [36]

    No more strided convolutions or pooling: A new CNN building block for low-resolution im- ages and small objects

    Raja Sunkara and Tie Luo. No more strided convolutions or pooling: A new CNN building block for low-resolution im- ages and small objects. In European Conference on Machine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Dis- covery in Databases (ECML PKDD) , pages 443–459, Sept

  29. [37]

    Fcos: Fully convolutional one-stage object detection

    Zhi Tian, Chunhua Shen, Hao Chen, and Tong He. Fcos: Fully convolutional one-stage object detection. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9627–9636, 2019. 5

    2019

  30. [38]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 2

    2017

  31. [39]

    Optical flow in deep visual tracking

    Mikko Vihlman and Arto Visala. Optical flow in deep visual tracking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 12112–12119, 2020. 3

    2020

  32. [40]

    Siam r-cnn: Visual tracking by re-detection

    Paul V oigtlaender, Jonathon Luiten, Philip HS Torr, and Bas- tian Leibe. Siam r-cnn: Visual tracking by re-detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 6578–6588, 2020. 1

    2020

  33. [41]

    Pvt v2: Improved baselines with pyramid vision transformer

    Wenhai Wang, Enze Xie, Xiang Li, Deng-Ping Fan, Kaitao Song, Ding Liang, Tong Lu, Ping Luo, and Ling Shao. Pvt v2: Improved baselines with pyramid vision transformer. Computational visual media, 8(3):415–424, 2022. 5

    2022

  34. [42]

    Con- vnext v2: Co-designing and scaling convnets with masked autoencoders

    Sanghyun Woo, Shoubhik Debnath, Ronghang Hu, Xinlei Chen, Zhuang Liu, In So Kweon, and Saining Xie. Con- vnext v2: Co-designing and scaling convnets with masked autoencoders. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 16133– 16...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Pfinder: Real-time tracking of the human body

    Christopher Richard Wren, Ali Azarbayejani, Trevor Darrell, and Alex Paul Pentland. Pfinder: Real-time tracking of the human body. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 19(7):780–785, 1997. 2

    1997

  36. [44]

    Dropmae: Masked autoen- coders with spatial-attention dropout for tracking tasks

    Qiangqiang Wu, Tianyu Yang, Ziquan Liu, Baoyuan Wu, Ying Shan, and Antoni B Chan. Dropmae: Masked autoen- coders with spatial-attention dropout for tracking tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 14561–14571, 2023. 2

    2023

  37. [45]

    Back- ground semantics matter: Cross-task feature exchange net- work for clustered infrared small target detection with sky- annotated dataset

    Mengxuan Xiao, Qun Dai, Yiming Zhu, Kehua Guo, Huan Wang, Xiangbo Shu, Jian Yang, and Yimian Dai. Back- ground semantics matter: Cross-task feature exchange net- work for clustered infrared small target detection with sky- annotated dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20078, 2024. 2

    2024

  38. [46]

    Learning spatio-temporal transformer for vi- sual tracking

    Bin Yan, Houwen Peng, Jianlong Fu, Dong Wang, and Huchuan Lu. Learning spatio-temporal transformer for vi- sual tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 10448–10457, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  39. [47]

    Afpn: Asymptotic feature pyra- mid network for object detection

    Guoyu Yang, Jie Lei, Zhikuan Zhu, Siyu Cheng, Zunlei Feng, and Ronghua Liang. Afpn: Asymptotic feature pyra- mid network for object detection. In 2023 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pages 2184–2189. IEEE, 2023. 5

    2023

  40. [48]

    Mhaf-yolo: Multi-branch heterogeneous auxiliary fusion yolo for ac- curate object detection

    Zhiqiang Yang, Qiu Guan, Zhongwen Yu, Xinli Xu, Haixia Long, Sheng Lian, Haigen Hu, and Ying Tang. Mhaf-yolo: Multi-branch heterogeneous auxiliary fusion yolo for ac- curate object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04656 ,

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Reppoints: Point set representation for object detection

    Ze Yang, Shaohui Liu, Han Hu, Liwei Wang, and Stephen Lin. Reppoints: Point set representation for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9657–9666, 2019. 2, 3, 5

    2019

  42. [50]

    Joint feature learning and relation modeling for 10 tracking: A one-stream framework

    Botao Ye, Hong Chang, Bingpeng Ma, Shiguang Shan, and Xilin Chen. Joint feature learning and relation modeling for 10 tracking: A one-stream framework. In European conference on computer vision, pages 341–357. Springer, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  43. [51]

    Sctransnet: Spatial-channel cross transformer net- work for infrared small target detection

    Shuai Yuan, Hanlin Qin, Xiang Yan, Naveed Akhtar, and Aj- mal Mian. Sctransnet: Spatial-channel cross transformer net- work for infrared small target detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2024. 2

    2024

  44. [52]

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

    Hongkai Zhang, Hong Chang, Bingpeng Ma, Naiyan Wang, and Xilin Chen. Dynamic r-cnn: Towards high quality object detection via dynamic training. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23– 28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XV 16, pages 260–275. Springer,

    2020

  45. [53]

    Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to-end object detection

    Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Shilong Liu, Lei Zhang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Lionel M Ni, and Heung-Yeung Shum. Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to-end object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03605, 2022. 2, 3, 5

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Varifocalnet: An iou-aware dense object detector

    Haoyang Zhang, Ying Wang, Feras Dayoub, and Niko Sun- derhauf. Varifocalnet: An iou-aware dense object detector. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 8514–8523, 2021. 5

    2021

  47. [55]

    Bridging the gap between anchor-based and anchor-free detection via adaptive training sample selection

    Shifeng Zhang, Cheng Chi, Yongqiang Yao, Zhen Lei, and Stan Z Li. Bridging the gap between anchor-based and anchor-free detection via adaptive training sample selection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 9759–9768, 2020. 5

    2020

  48. [56]

    The 3rd anti-uav workshop & challenge: Methods and results

    Jian Zhao, Jianan Li, Lei Jin, Jiaming Chu, Zhihao Zhang, Jun Wang, Jiangqiang Xia, Kai Wang, Yang Liu, Sadaf Gul- shad, et al. The 3rd anti-uav workshop & challenge: Methods and results. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07290, 2023. 4

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Autoassign: Differ- entiable label assignment for dense object detection

    Benjin Zhu, Jianfeng Wang, Zhengkai Jiang, Fuhang Zong, Songtao Liu, Zeming Li, and Jian Sun. Autoassign: Differ- entiable label assignment for dense object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.03496, 2020. 5

    2007 arXiv

  50. [58]

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

    Xizhou Zhu, Weijie Su, Lewei Lu, Bin Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. Deformable detr: Deformable trans- formers for end-to-end object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04159, 2020. 5 11

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

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