Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 3 cited by

Cross-modal Offset-guided Dynamic Alignment and Fusion for Weakly Aligned UAV Object Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 This paper claims that jointly aligning RGB features to an infrared reference and then adaptively fusing them resolves the two failure modes of weak cross-modal alignment and achieves 78.6% mAP@.5 on DroneVehicle.

desk verdict CoDAF is a credible new alignment-fusion combination that earns its DroneVehicle SOTA claim, but the M3FD claim is undermined by a non-standard split and a lambda inconsistency blocks reproducibility. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16737 v1 pith:CRRU6QRL submitted 2025-06-20 cs.CV

Liu Zongzhen , Luo Hui , Wang Zhixing , Wei Yuxing , Zuo Haorui , Zhang Jianlin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords multimodalobjectdetectionRGB-infraredfusionweakalignmentdeformableconvolutionattentionmechanismUAVcontrastivelearningoriented
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

Unmanned aerial vehicles that detect objects from both visible and infrared images face a problem the paper calls weak alignment: the two cameras rarely show the same object at the same pixel because the platform moves and the sensors capture at different moments. The paper claims that this misalignment produces two distinct failures—semantic inconsistency at corresponding locations and modality conflict during fusion—and that previous methods fix only one of them. It proposes CoDAF, a single framework that first aligns visible features onto the infrared reference using attention-guided offsets and deformable convolution, then fuses the two modalities with per-pixel gating and dual attention. The reported result is 78.6% mAP@.5 on DroneVehicle, 4.0 points above the best prior method, and 90.8% mAP@.5 / 61.2% mAP@.5:.95 on M3FD.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the offset-guided alignment loop inside OSA: an infrared-derived spatial attention map $M$ gates the concatenated RGB–IR features, a two-layer convolutional network predicts a base offset $\phi_c$, and deformable convolution v2 (a convolution whose sampling locations are learned per position) uses $\phi_c$ plus a learned residual offset to warp the visible feature map onto the infrared grid. Around that loop, a Shared Information Extractor (SID) with an InfoNCE contrastive loss projects both modalities into one semantic space to stabilize offset prediction, and the fusion module DAFM gates per-pixel modality contributions and then applies channel and spatial attention to the fused map. The total objective combines the detection loss with a weighted alignment loss ($\lambda = 0.1$) that includes the contrastive term, the SSIM/L1 spatial alignment term of Eq. (8), and attention sparsity and smoothness terms.

What would settle it

Train CoDAF on DroneVehicle with the pixel-value term $L_{mae}$ removed from Eq. (8) (so only SSIM, contrastive, and attention losses remain) and compare mAP@.5 against the reported 78.6%; if the variant matches or exceeds it, the pixel-level similarity constraint is not doing the claimed work, and the paper's explanation of why the full loss helps would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for RGB–IR UAV detection, weak cross-modal alignment—not the diversity of the modalities themselves—is the limiting factor, and its two symptoms, semantic inconsistency and modality conflict, must be treated jointly rather than in isolation. CoDAF implements this by making the infrared feature map the alignment reference: an attention map derived from the infrared features gates the concatenated RGB–IR features, a compact convolutional network predicts per-pixel offsets from that gated representation, and deformable convolution v2 uses those offsets as a base prior to resample the visible features onto the infrared grid. A shared feature extractor with an InfoNCE contrastive loss then pulls the aligned visible and infrared features into a common semantic space, while the fusion side assigns per-pixel weights to each modality and refines the fused map with channel-then-spatial attention. The paper reports that this joint design reaches 78.6% mAP@.5 on DroneVehicle, 4.0 points above the best prior method, and 90.8% mAP@.5 with 61.2% mAP@.5:.95 on M3FD.

Load-bearing premise

The method depends on the claim that, once geometrically corrected, visible features should closely match infrared features in both structure and pixel values (the $L_{sm}$ term of Eq. (8)); because RGB and infrared record different physical signals, this constraint could be too strong and suppress modality-specific details that detection needs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Solving alignment and fusion in one network, with infrared as the alignment reference, raises weakly aligned RGB–IR UAV detection to 78.6% mAP@.5 on DroneVehicle, 4.0 points above the best prior method.
  • Replacing the infrared-derived attention map with a visible-derived one costs 1.5 mAP points in the paper's ablation, indicating that infrared is the more reliable spatial reference in low-light and cluttered scenes.
  • Removing OSA and DAFM at the first backbone stage drops accuracy from 78.6% to 75.4% mAP, more than at later stages, so early-stage alignment and fusion carry most of the benefit.
  • The same framework transfers to M3FD with a different detection head, reaching 90.8% mAP@.5 and 61.2% mAP@.5:.95, so the design is not tied to one detector or dataset.
  • CoDAF keeps parameters low (67.3M) and inference fast (58.1 FPS) despite higher FLOPs, indicating the alignment–fusion modules add modest computational cost for the accuracy gain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Eq. (8)'s pixel-level matching is over-constrained, a variant that drops the L1 term or uses a perceptual or feature-level similarity could preserve modality-specific cues; the paper does not ablate the individual coefficients $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ to test this.
  • Because the contrastive loss uses global pooled features, a patch-level or region-level contrastive objective might specifically help small and distant objects, the category where CoDAF falls slightly behind CALNet on freight-cars.
  • The 'align with the more reliable modality, then fuse adaptively' recipe is general: SAR–optical or RGB–depth pairs with registration errors are natural testbeds, with the modality that is geometrically stable serving as the reference.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper addresses weakly aligned RGB-IR object detection for UAVs. It proposes CoDAF, which couples an Offset-guided Semantic Alignment (OSA) module with a Dynamic Attention-guided Fusion Module (DAFM) inserted at three backbone stages. OSA estimates attention-guided spatial offsets and uses DCNv2, with a shared semantic space (SID) and a contrastive loss, to align visible features to infrared features; DAFM combines modality-adaptive gating with spatial-channel cross-modulation for fusion. The total loss combines the detection loss with alignment losses. Experiments on DroneVehicle report 78.6% mAP@.5, which is 4.0 points above the best quoted competitor, and experiments on M3FD report 90.8% mAP@.5 and 61.2% mAP@.5:.95. Ablations on DroneVehicle attribute the gains to OSA, DAFM, the IR-based attention map, the contrastive loss, and the stage-wise placement of the modules.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, CoDAF is a strong candidate for weakly aligned multimodal UAV detection: the DroneVehicle margin is substantial, the ablation suite is fairly complete (component-wise, stage-wise, attention alternatives, and efficiency), and the method is clearly described. The paper also discloses its main limitations, including the IR-only label choice, the custom M3FD split, and computational cost. However, the M3FD results are currently not comparable to the quoted baselines because the evaluation protocol differs in both split and detector, and the main-loss hyperparameter in Eq. (19) contradicts the ablation in Section IV-E2. These issues are concentrated on the secondary benchmark, so the DroneVehicle claim remains plausible, but the full state-of-the-art claim cannot be accepted as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III-D, §IV-A2, §IV-D, Table II] Table II is not a controlled comparison. Section III-D states that on M3FD the method uses the RT-DETR head and loss, while the table caption describes all competitors as image-fusion methods plus YOLOv5s; the quoted CFT and E2E-MFD numbers were published under that YOLOv5s protocol and, per Section IV-A2, under a different data split, namely the authors' custom 3,368/831 scene-dissimilar split, whose exact image indices are not released. The reported margins of +1.0 mAP@.5 and +0.5 mAP@.5:.95 over CFT are therefore within the range that protocol changes can shift detection mAP, and the M3FD prong of the state-of-the-art claim is unsupported as presented. Please retrain all competitors on the same split with the same detector, release the split indices, and also report the comparison under the standard M3FD split.
  2. [§IV-E2 and Eq. (19)] The manuscript specifies the balancing hyperparameter as empirically set to 0.1 in the total loss in Eq. (19), but the ablation in Section IV-E2 reports that the best mAP is obtained at lambda = 0.3. As written, the main experiments cannot be reproduced, and the headline numbers appear to use a value that the paper's own ablation says is suboptimal. Please state the exact lambda used for every experiment, reconcile the main configuration with the ablation, and report results for both 0.1 and 0.3.
  3. [§IV-B] The DroneVehicle training protocol uses only the IR ground-truth annotations, justified as 'more comprehensive and accurate.' The paper does not state whether the comparison methods were retrained with the same label source or whether the official test evaluation uses IR labels, visible labels, or both. Because OSA explicitly aligns visible features to the IR modality and the DAFM gates on modality contributions, training and evaluating with IR-only labels can favor the proposed design over methods trained under the standard protocol. Please clarify the label protocol for all compared methods and, if possible, report results with the alternative label choice.
  4. [Tables I and II] All reported results are single runs with no variance or significance information. Given the small +1.0/+0.5 margins on M3FD and the non-standard M3FD protocol, it is difficult to judge whether the difference over CFT is meaningful. Please report at least three seeds with mean and standard deviation for the main experiments, or release predictions so that the exact comparisons can be reproduced.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§IV-E2 and §IV-E3] The headings 'Anaysis of the Alignment Loss' and 'Anaysis of the DAFM' contain typos; 'Anaysis' should be 'Analysis.' In Section IV-E3, the text refers to 'MAGM,' which should be 'MAGN' to match the module name defined in Section III-C.
  2. [Eq. (9)] Eq. (9) is described as a sparsity loss, but it is, up to constants, the entropy of the attention map; minimizing it drives entries toward 0 or 1 rather than directly enforcing spatial compactness. Either correct the formulation to a true sparsity penalty or soften the interpretation in the text.
  3. [§IV-E6, Table VIII] Table VIII reports FPS without specifying the GPU model, batch size, or whether preprocessing and postprocessing are included; comparisons with published FPS numbers are therefore not meaningful as stated.
  4. [§IV-E1 and Eq. (8)] The component-wise OSA ablation removes the contrastive loss, but it does not ablate the SSIM/L1 components of Lsm or the attention loss Lattn. An ablation of these terms would clarify whether the pixel-level matching in Eq. (8) helps or hurts detection.
  5. [Conclusion and Abstract] The conclusion's limitation statement that the method has high computational cost sits somewhat uneasily with the real-time framing in the abstract and the FPS claims in Section IV-E6; please align the wording.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typos and spacing artifacts, including 'cross-moda' in the contribution statement, 'UA V' in the abstract and body, and 'compariosn' in Section IV-D; a copy-edit pass is needed.
  7. [§IV-A2] The paper says M3FD has no official split, but several published methods report results under a standard M3FD protocol. If such a split exists, the custom split should be aligned with it, or at minimum the authors should justify why the custom split is preferable and release the exact image indices for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the central SOTA claim is empirical test-set mAP, with protocol and reproducibility caveats but no self-referential reasoning.

full rationale

The paper does not attempt a first-principles derivation of its detection performance; its central claim is an empirical mAP measured on held-out test images (78.6% mAP@.5 on the official DroneVehicle test split, Table I). The alignment losses in Eqs. (8)-(12) and the total loss in Eq. (19) are training objectives, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and the reported gains are validated by ablations over held-out evaluation. The M3FD comparison is weakened by a custom 3,368/831 split (Section IV-A2) that differs from the protocol used by the quoted baselines, and the lambda inconsistency between Eq. (19) (lambda = 0.1) and Section IV-E2 (best at lambda = 0.3) harms reproducibility; both are protocol/reproducibility issues, not circularity. The paper cites prior work by overlapping authors, e.g., refs. [7], [19], and [21], but these are related-work context and are not load-bearing premises for the claimed result; no uniqueness theorem, ansatz-smuggling citation, or definitional equivalence is used. The derivation chain, such as it is, is therefore self-contained as an empirical systems paper, and no circular step can be exhibited by equation reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-set hyperparameters, two domain assumptions about infrared reliability and cross-modal pixel similarity, and standard deformable convolution machinery. No new physical entities are introduced. The rationale for the free parameters is that each is manually tuned on the target benchmarks, and the temperature tau is left unspecified.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_total = 0.1 (stated in Eq. 19) / 0.3 (best in ablation)
    Balancing weight for total alignment loss Lt in Eq. (19). The paper contradicts itself on the value used.
  • lambda1_ssim = 0.3
    Weight for SSIM component in Eq. (8), set by hand without sensitivity analysis.
  • lambda2_mae = 0.5
    Weight for L1 component in Eq. (8), set by hand.
  • lambda3_smooth = 0.1
    Weight for smoothness term in Eq. (11), set by hand.
  • contrastive_tau = not specified
    Temperature in InfoNCE loss, Eq. (7). No value is reported in the paper.
  • epsilon_sparsity = 1e-8
    Numerical stabilizer in Eq. (9), set to 1e-8.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Aligned visible features should resemble infrared features under SSIM and L1.
    Eq. (8) directly imposes this pixel-level constraint. RGB and IR measure different physical signals, so this is a strong assumption introduced by the authors.
  • domain assumption Infrared features provide the most reliable spatial attention reference.
    The attention map M is computed from IR only in Eq. (1) and guides all offset prediction. The ablation in Table V supports this for DroneVehicle, but it is a domain-dependent assumption.
  • standard math DCNv2 with a base offset prior can correct weak misalignment.
    Borrowed from deformable convolution literature (Ref. [56]) and assumed as a capable alignment mechanism.
  • domain assumption Paired visible and infrared images form positive pairs for contrastive learning.
    InfoNCE in Eq. (7) assumes global semantic matching of paired frames. Weak alignment may violate pixel-level pairing, though global pooling mitigates this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-modal Offset-guided Dynamic Alignment and Fusion for Weakly Aligned UAV Object Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CRRU6QRL

@misc{pith2026250616737,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-modal Offset-guided Dynamic Alignment and Fusion for Weakly Aligned UAV Object Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CRRU6QRL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16737}
}
read the original abstract

Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) object detection plays a vital role in applications such as environmental monitoring and urban security. To improve robustness, recent studies have explored multimodal detection by fusing visible (RGB) and infrared (IR) imagery. However, due to UAV platform motion and asynchronous imaging, spatial misalignment frequently occurs between modalities, leading to weak alignment. This introduces two major challenges: semantic inconsistency at corresponding spatial locations and modality conflict during feature fusion. Existing methods often address these issues in isolation, limiting their effectiveness. In this paper, we propose Cross-modal Offset-guided Dynamic Alignment and Fusion (CoDAF), a unified framework that jointly tackles both challenges in weakly aligned UAV-based object detection. CoDAF comprises two novel modules: the Offset-guided Semantic Alignment (OSA), which estimates attention-based spatial offsets and uses deformable convolution guided by a shared semantic space to align features more precisely; and the Dynamic Attention-guided Fusion Module (DAFM), which adaptively balances modality contributions through gating and refines fused features via spatial-channel dual attention. By integrating alignment and fusion in a unified design, CoDAF enables robust UAV object detection. Experiments on standard benchmarks validate the effectiveness of our approach, with CoDAF achieving a mAP of 78.6% on the DroneVehicle dataset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16737 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of the semantic inconsistency and the modality conflict prob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed CoDAF framework, which comprises the Offset-guided Semantic Alignment (OSA) and the Dynamic Attention-guided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization results of CoDAF on the DroneVehicle dataset under weakly misaligned conditions. Different object categories are annotated with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Detection results of our CoDAF under various challenging conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of visual object detection results on the M3FD dataset. The figure presents detection outcomes from single-modality, existing multimodal, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of different methods on the M3F D dataset. Our CoDAF achieves higher mAP results through a more effective strategy for cross￾modality fusion. TABLE V ABLATION STUDY ON SPATIAL ATTENTION MAP. Car Truck Fre. Bus Van mAP@.5 Mv 92.9 75.8 63.6 90.3 63.7 77.1 M 93…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Feature map visualizations of detection heads from baseline and our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. EGM-Det: Entropy-Guided Multimodal Adaptive Fusion for UAV RGB-IR Object Detection

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    EGM-Det is a dual-stream RGB-IR detector whose entropy-guided gate fusion and dual-teacher distillation improve accuracy on DroneVehicle, LLVIP, and VEDAI.

  2. ProtoHGF-Net: Prototype HyperGraph Fusion with Intra-modal Calibration for RGBT Object Detection

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ProtoHGF-Net fuses RGB and thermal features via prototype-level hypergraph propagation with teacher-mask calibration, reporting 85.9%, 88.2%, and 79.1% mAP50 on DroneVehicle, DVTOD, and FLIR.

  3. OGG-FR: Orthogonal Gradient Gaming and Frequency Rectification for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Infrared Image Super-Resolution

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    OGG-FR is a plug-and-play training update that separates redundant and innovative parts of the FFT loss gradient and gates the innovative part by a confidence score, improving UAV infrared super-resolution in most tes...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Focal loss for dense object detection,

    T.-Y . Lin, P. Goyal, R. Girshick, K. He, and P. Doll ´ar, “Focal loss for dense object detection,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2017, pp. 2999–3007

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

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

    S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1137– 1149, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Redet: A rotation-equivariant detector for aerial object detection,

    J. Han, J. Ding, N. Xue, and G.-S. Xia, “Redet: A rotation-equivariant detector for aerial object detection,” in 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2021, pp. 2785– 2794

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Align deep features for oriented object detection,

    J. Han, J. Ding, J. Li, and G.-S. Xia, “Align deep features for oriented object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sens- ing, vol. 60, pp. 1–11, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Oriented r-cnn for object detection,

    X. Xie, G. Cheng, J. Wang, X. Yao, and J. Han, “Oriented r-cnn for object detection,” in 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2021, pp. 3500–3509

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    ultralytics/yolov5: v3. 1-bug fixes and performance improvements,

    G. Jocher, A. Stoken, J. Borovec, L. Changyu, A. Hogan, L. Diaconu, F. Ingham, J. Poznanski, J. Fang, L. Yu et al. , “ultralytics/yolov5: v3. 1-bug fixes and performance improvements,” Zenodo, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Gca2net: Global-consolidation and angle-adaptive network for oriented object detection in aerial imagery,

    S. Zhou, Z. Liu, H. Luo, G. Qi, Y . Liu, H. Zuo, J. Zhang, and Y . Wei, “Gca2net: Global-consolidation and angle-adaptive network for oriented object detection in aerial imagery,” Remote Sensing , vol. 17, no. 6, p. 1077, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    R3det: Refined single-stage detector with feature refinement for rotating object,

    X. Yang, J. Yan, Z. Feng, and T. He, “R3det: Refined single-stage detector with feature refinement for rotating object,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) , vol. 35, no. 4, 2021, pp. 3163–3171

    work page 2021

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Drone-based rgb-infrared cross- modality vehicle detection via uncertainty-aware learning,

    Y . Sun, B. Cao, P. Zhu, and Q. Hu, “Drone-based rgb-infrared cross- modality vehicle detection via uncertainty-aware learning,” IEEE Trans- actions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 6700–6713, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    C²former: Calibrated and complementary trans- former for rgb-infrared object detection,

    M. Yuan and X. Wei, “C²former: Calibrated and complementary trans- former for rgb-infrared object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–12, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Translation, scale and rotation: cross- modal alignment meets rgb-infrared vehicle detection,

    M. Yuan, Y . Wang, and X. Wei, “Translation, scale and rotation: cross- modal alignment meets rgb-infrared vehicle detection,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) . Springer, 2022, pp. 509– 525

    2022

  4. [12]

    Multispectral object detection via cross-modal conflict-aware learning,

    X. He, C. Tang, X. Zou, and W. Zhang, “Multispectral object detection via cross-modal conflict-aware learning,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACMM) , 2023, pp. 1465–1474

    2023

  5. [13]

    Icafusion: Iterative cross-attention guided feature fusion for multispectral object detection,

    J. Shen, Y . Chen, Y . Liu, X. Zuo, H. Fan, and W. Yang, “Icafusion: Iterative cross-attention guided feature fusion for multispectral object detection,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 145, p. 109913, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    E2e-mfd: Towards end-to-end synchronous multimodal fusion detection,

    J. Zhang, M. Cao, W. Xie, J. Lei, D. Li, W. Huang, Y . Li, and X. Yang, “E2e-mfd: Towards end-to-end synchronous multimodal fusion detection,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 52 296–52 322, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Improving multispectral pedestrian detection by addressing modality imbalance problems,

    K. Zhou, L. Chen, and X. Cao, “Improving multispectral pedestrian detection by addressing modality imbalance problems,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XVIII 16 (ECCV) . Springer, 2020, pp. 787–803

    2020

  8. [16]

    Cddfuse: Correlation-driven dual-branch feature decomposition for multi-modality image fusion,

    Z. Zhao, H. Bai, J. Zhang, Y . Zhang, S. Xu, Z. Lin, R. Timofte, and L. Van Gool, “Cddfuse: Correlation-driven dual-branch feature decomposition for multi-modality image fusion,” in 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023, pp. 5906–5916

    2023

  9. [17]

    Target- aware dual adversarial learning and a multi-scenario multi-modality benchmark to fuse infrared and visible for object detection,

    J. Liu, X. Fan, Z. Huang, G. Wu, R. Liu, W. Zhong, and Z. Luo, “Target- aware dual adversarial learning and a multi-scenario multi-modality benchmark to fuse infrared and visible for object detection,” in 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVP...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Metafusion: Infrared and visible image fusion via meta-feature embedding from object detection,

    W. Zhao, S. Xie, F. Zhao, Y . He, and H. Lu, “Metafusion: Infrared and visible image fusion via meta-feature embedding from object detection,” in 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023, pp. 13 955–13 965

    2023

  11. [19]

    Weakly aligned feature fusion for multimodal object detection,

    L. Zhang, Z. Liu, X. Zhu, Z. Song, X. Yang, Z. Lei, and H. Qiao, “Weakly aligned feature fusion for multimodal object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 4145–4159, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Improving rgb- infrared object detection with cascade alignment-guided transformer,

    M. Yuan, X. Shi, N. Wang, Y . Wang, and X. Wei, “Improving rgb- infrared object detection with cascade alignment-guided transformer,” Information Fusion, vol. 105, p. 102246, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Cross-modality interactive attention network for multispectral pedestrian detection,

    L. Zhang, Z. Liu, S. Zhang, X. Yang, H. Qiao, K. Huang, and A. Hus- sain, “Cross-modality interactive attention network for multispectral pedestrian detection,” Information Fusion, vol. 50, pp. 20–29, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Didfuse: Deep image decomposition for infrared and visible image fusion,

    Z. Zhao, S. Xu, C. Zhang, J. Liu, P. Li, and J. Zhang, “Didfuse: Deep image decomposition for infrared and visible image fusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.09210, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    U2fusion: A unified unsupervised image fusion network,

    H. Xu, J. Ma, J. Jiang, X. Guo, and H. Ling, “U2fusion: A unified unsupervised image fusion network,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 502–518, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Piafusion: A progres- sive infrared and visible image fusion network based on illumination aware,

    L. Tang, J. Yuan, H. Zhang, X. Jiang, and J. Ma, “Piafusion: A progres- sive infrared and visible image fusion network based on illumination aware,” Information Fusion, vol. 83, pp. 79–92, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Swinfusion: Cross-domain long-range learning for general image fusion via swin transformer,

    J. Ma, L. Tang, F. Fan, J. Huang, X. Mei, and Y . Ma, “Swinfusion: Cross-domain long-range learning for general image fusion via swin transformer,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1200–1217, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Cross-modality fu- sion transformer for multispectral object detection,

    F. Qingyun, H. Dapeng, and W. Zhaokui, “Cross-modality fu- sion transformer for multispectral object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00273, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Squeeze-and-excitation networks,

    J. Hu, L. Shen, and G. Sun, “Squeeze-and-excitation networks,” in 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 7132–7141

    2018

  20. [28]

    Cbam: Convolutional block attention module,

    S. Woo, J. Park, J.-Y . Lee, and I. S. Kweon, “Cbam: Convolutional block attention module,” in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , 2018, pp. 3–19

    2018

  21. [29]

    Coordinate attention for efficient mobile network design,

    Q. Hou, D. Zhou, and J. Feng, “Coordinate attention for efficient mobile network design,” in 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2021, pp. 13 708–13 717

    2021

  22. [30]

    Detrs beat yolos on real-time object detection,

    Y . Zhao, W. Lv, S. Xu, J. Wei, G. Wang, Q. Dang, Y . Liu, and J. Chen, “Detrs beat yolos on real-time object detection,” in 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 16 965–16 974

    2024

  23. [31]

    R2 cnn: Rotational region cnn for arbitrarily-oriented scene text detection,

    Y . Jiang, X. Zhu, X. Wang, S. Yang, W. Li, H. Wang, P. Fu, and Z. Luo, “R2 cnn: Rotational region cnn for arbitrarily-oriented scene text detection,” in 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), 2018, pp. 3610–3615

    2018

  24. [32]

    Arbitrary-oriented scene text detection via rotation proposals,

    J. Ma, W. Shao, H. Ye, L. Wang, H. Wang, Y . Zheng, and X. Xue, “Arbitrary-oriented scene text detection via rotation proposals,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 3111–3122, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Learning roi transformer for oriented object detection in aerial images,

    J. Ding, N. Xue, Y . Long, G.-S. Xia, and Q. Lu, “Learning roi transformer for oriented object detection in aerial images,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019, pp. 2844–2853

    2019

  26. [34]

    Gliding vertex on the horizontal bounding box for multi-oriented object detection,

    Y . Xu, M. Fu, Q. Wang, Y . Wang, K. Chen, G.-S. Xia, and X. Bai, “Gliding vertex on the horizontal bounding box for multi-oriented object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 1452–1459, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Ao2-detr: Arbitrary- oriented object detection transformer,

    L. Dai, H. Liu, H. Tang, Z. Wu, and P. Song, “Ao2-detr: Arbitrary- oriented object detection transformer,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 2342–2356, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Point-to-rbox network for oriented object detection via single point supervision

    Y . Wang, C. He, and X. Chen, “Point-to-rbox network for oriented object detection via single point supervision.” in BMVC, 2023, pp. 323–325

    2023

  29. [37]

    Sood: Towards semi-supervised oriented object detection,

    W. Hua, D. Liang, J. Li, X. Liu, Z. Zou, X. Ye, and X. Bai, “Sood: Towards semi-supervised oriented object detection,” in 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023, pp. 15 558–15 567

    2023

  30. [38]

    Code-aligned autoencoders for unsupervised change detection in multimodal remote sensing im- ages,

    L. T. Luppino, M. A. Hansen, M. Kampffmeyer, F. M. Bianchi, G. Moser, R. Jenssen, and S. N. Anfinsen, “Code-aligned autoencoders for unsupervised change detection in multimodal remote sensing im- ages,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 35, no. 1...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Dynamic anchor learning for arbitrary-oriented object detection,

    Q. Ming, Z. Zhou, L. Miao, H. Zhang, and L. Li, “Dynamic anchor learning for arbitrary-oriented object detection,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) , vol. 35, no. 3, 2021, pp. 2355–2363

    2021

  32. [40]

    Ecffnet: Effective and consistent feature fusion network for rgb-t salient object detection,

    W. Zhou, Q. Guo, J. Lei, L. Yu, and J.-N. Hwang, “Ecffnet: Effective and consistent feature fusion network for rgb-t salient object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1224–1235, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Fully convolutional region proposal networks for multi- spectral person detection,

    D. K ¨onig, M. Adam, C. Jarvers, G. Layher, H. Neumann, and M. Teutsch, “Fully convolutional region proposal networks for multi- spectral person detection,” in 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) , 2017, pp. 243–250. JOURNAL OF LAT...

    2017

  34. [42]

    Multispectral deep neural networks for pedestrian detection,

    J. Liu, S. Zhang, S. Wang, and D. N. Metaxas, “Multispectral deep neural networks for pedestrian detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.02644 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Multimodal object detection by channel switching and spatial attention,

    Y . Cao, J. Bin, J. Hamari, E. Blasch, and Z. Liu, “Multimodal object detection by channel switching and spatial attention,” in 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), 2023, pp. 403–411

    2023

  36. [44]

    Cross-modality attentive feature fusion for object detection in multispectral remote sensing imagery,

    F. Qingyun and W. Zhaokui, “Cross-modality attentive feature fusion for object detection in multispectral remote sensing imagery,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 130, p. 108786, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Lraf-net: Long-range attention fusion network for visible–infrared object detec- tion,

    H. Fu, S. Wang, P. Duan, C. Xiao, R. Dian, S. Li, and Z. Li, “Lraf-net: Long-range attention fusion network for visible–infrared object detec- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 13 232–13 245, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Multi-modal feature pyramid transformer for rgb-infrared object detection,

    Y . Zhu, X. Sun, M. Wang, and H. Huang, “Multi-modal feature pyramid transformer for rgb-infrared object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 9984–9995, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Fusion of multispectral data through illumination-aware deep neural networks for pedestrian detection,

    D. Guan, Y . Cao, J. Yang, Y . Cao, and M. Y . Yang, “Fusion of multispectral data through illumination-aware deep neural networks for pedestrian detection,” Information Fusion, vol. 50, pp. 148–157, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Illumination-aware faster r- cnn for robust multispectral pedestrian detection,

    C. Li, D. Song, R. Tong, and M. Tang, “Illumination-aware faster r- cnn for robust multispectral pedestrian detection,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 85, pp. 161–171, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Efficient rgb-t tracking via cross-modality distillation,

    T. Zhang, H. Guo, Q. Jiao, Q. Zhang, and J. Han, “Efficient rgb-t tracking via cross-modality distillation,” in 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2023, pp. 5404– 5413

    2023

  42. [50]

    Cross-modality knowledge distillation network for monocular 3d object detection,

    Y . Hong, H. Dai, and Y . Ding, “Cross-modality knowledge distillation network for monocular 3d object detection,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) . Springer, 2022, pp. 87–104

    2022

  43. [51]

    De- formable image registration based on similarity-steered cnn regression,

    X. Cao, J. Yang, J. Zhang, D. Nie, M. Kim, Q. Wang, and D. Shen, “De- formable image registration based on similarity-steered cnn regression,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention- MIC- CAI 2017: 20th International Conference, Quebec City, QC, Canada, ...

    2017

  44. [52]

    A deep learning framework for matching of sar and optical imagery,

    L. H. Hughes, D. Marcos, S. Lobry, D. Tuia, and M. Schmitt, “A deep learning framework for matching of sar and optical imagery,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 169, pp. 166– 179, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    Svf- net: learning deformable image registration using shape matching,

    M.-M. Roh ´e, M. Datar, T. Heimann, M. Sermesant, and X. Pennec, “Svf- net: learning deformable image registration using shape matching,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention- MIC- CAI 2017: 20th International Conference, Quebec City, QC, Canada, Septe...

    2017

  46. [54]

    Multimodal object detection via probabilistic ensembling,

    Y .-T. Chen, J. Shi, Z. Ye, C. Mertz, D. Ramanan, and S. Kong, “Multimodal object detection via probabilistic ensembling,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). Springer, 2022, pp. 139–158

    2022

  47. [55]

    Weakly misalignment-free adaptive feature alignment for uavs-based multimodal object detection,

    C. Chen, J. Qi, X. Liu, K. Bin, R. Fu, X. Hu, and P. Zhong, “Weakly misalignment-free adaptive feature alignment for uavs-based multimodal object detection,” in 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2024, pp. 26 826–26 835

    2024

  48. [56]

    Deformable convnets v2: More deformable, better results,

    X. Zhu, H. Hu, S. Lin, and J. Dai, “Deformable convnets v2: More deformable, better results,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2019, pp. 9300–9308

    2019

  49. [57]

    Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding,

    A. v. d. Oord, Y . Li, and O. Vinyals, “Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Image quality assess- ment: from error visibility to structural similarity,

    Z. Wang, A. Bovik, H. Sheikh, and E. Simoncelli, “Image quality assess- ment: from error visibility to structural similarity,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004

    2004

  51. [59]

    Yolov11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements,

    R. Khanam and M. Hussain, “Yolov11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17725 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Cross teaching-enhanced multispectral remote sensing object detection with transformer,

    J. Zhu, H. Zhang, S. Li, S. Wang, and H. Ma, “Cross teaching-enhanced multispectral remote sensing object detection with transformer,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 18, pp. 2401–2413, 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection,

    X. Zhu, W. Su, L. Lu, B. Li, X. Wang, and J. Dai, “Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04159, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Murf: Mutually reinforcing multi-modal image registration and fusion,

    H. Xu, J. Yuan, and J. Ma, “Murf: Mutually reinforcing multi-modal image registration and fusion,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 12 148–12 166, 2023

    2023

  55. [63]

    Recursive deformable pyramid network for unsupervised medical image registration,

    H. Wang, D. Ni, and Y . Wang, “Recursive deformable pyramid network for unsupervised medical image registration,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 2229–2240, 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    Transmatch: A transformer- based multilevel dual-stream feature matching network for unsupervised deformable image registration,

    Z. Chen, Y . Zheng, and J. C. Gee, “Transmatch: A transformer- based multilevel dual-stream feature matching network for unsupervised deformable image registration,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 15–27, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    A uav-assisted edge framework for real-time disaster management,

    H. Ijaz, R. Ahmad, R. Ahmed, W. Ahmed, Y . Kai, and W. Jun, “A uav-assisted edge framework for real-time disaster management,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–13, 2023

    2023

  58. [66]

    Automatic detection and counting system for pavement cracks based on pcgan and yolo-mf,

    D. Ma, H. Fang, N. Wang, C. Zhang, J. Dong, and H. Hu, “Automatic detection and counting system for pavement cracks based on pcgan and yolo-mf,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 22 166–22 178, 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    Detection of tea leaf blight in low-resolution uav remote sensing images,

    G. Hu, R. Ye, M. Wan, W. Bao, Y . Zhang, and W. Zeng, “Detection of tea leaf blight in low-resolution uav remote sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–18, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    Real-time aerial detection and reasoning on embedded-uavs in rural environments,

    T. Lai, “Real-time aerial detection and reasoning on embedded-uavs in rural environments,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 61, pp. 1–7, 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    Cross-modal oriented object detection of uav aerial images based on image feature,

    H. Wang, C. Wang, Q. Fu, D. Zhang, R. Kou, Y . Yu, and J. Song, “Cross-modal oriented object detection of uav aerial images based on image feature,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–21, 2024

    2024

  62. [70]

    Low-rank multimodal remote sensing object detection with frequency filtering experts,

    X. Sun, Y . Yu, and Q. Cheng, “Low-rank multimodal remote sensing object detection with frequency filtering experts,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–14, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

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