Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 59 references

YOLO for Knowledge Extraction from Vehicle Images: A Baseline Study

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 Object detection outperforms image classification for vehicle make and shape

desk verdict Honest applied baseline with a real police dataset; the multi-view inference result is solid, but the detection-versus-classification claim is confounded by an unstated preprocessing choice. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18966 v1 pith:ZKWVXOB5 submitted 2025-07-25 cs.CV

Saraa Al-Saddik , Manna Elizabeth Philip , Ali Haidar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords vehiclemetadataextractionYOLOobjectdetectionmulti-viewinferencemajorityvotingautomaticnumberplaterecognitionmakereal-worldimagery
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 argues that vehicle metadata from messy, real-world patrol-camera images should be extracted by object detectors that first locate the car, rather than by classifiers that label the whole frame. It tests YOLO-v11, YOLO-World, and YOLO-Classification on police plate-reader imagery, with separate datasets of more than 100,000 images for make, shape, and colour, and a shared test set of 29,937 images from 1,809 number plates. The paper reports that detectors beat classification-only models on make and shape, and that grouping images by number plate and applying majority voting consistently improves accuracy by several points over single-image predictions. If this is right, investigators could search plate-reader archives by make, colour, or shape without querying registration databases.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the reformulation of attribute recognition as object detection: the model predicts a bounding box around the vehicle and the class label in one forward pass, so localisation forces the network to attend to the car rather than background clutter. On top of this, multi-view inference (MVI) groups predictions by number plate, reliable because the plate reader links images of the same vehicle, and majority voting produces one label per plate. Task-specific training sets (make, shape, colour, colour-binary) give each model the visual cues most relevant to its task, while a shared test set keeps comparisons fair.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a random sample of the 1,809 test number plates with two independent annotators who are blind to each other and to the model outputs, then recompute all single-view and multi-view accuracies against the re-annotated majority labels; if the original and re-annotated labels disagree on more than a small fraction of plates, or if the multi-view gain over single-view inference shrinks or disappears under the new labels, the reported comparison is not measuring model skill alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is that localisation-aware YOLO detectors (YOLO-v11 and YOLO-World) consistently outperform YOLO-Classification on fine-grained attributes, reaching 93.70% top-1 accuracy for make and 82.86% for shape under multi-view inference, while classification-only models do slightly better on colour (85.19%) and on the simplified bright/dark colour task (94.86%). Multi-view inference, meaning majority voting over the images belonging to each number plate, improves accuracy in every experiment compared with single-image inference, with gains of roughly three to six percentage points. The authors conclude that multi-view inference is necessary for usable performance on this kind of data, that detection models are better suited to cluttered scenes where localisation helps, and that small YOLO variants perform about as well as x-large ones, making real-time deployment feasible. Fine-tuning is essential: without it, YOLO-World scored at most 2.3% on make, 38.4% on shape, and 15.4% on colour.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the human-assigned labels used as ground truth are correct, since the labelling process used a single reviewing pass with no reported inter-annotator agreement and no cross-check against registration records, so any systematic label error is inherited by every accuracy figure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Patrol-camera archives can be searched by make, colour, or shape without bulk queries to registration databases, narrowing the images an investigator must review.
  • Detection-based pipelines should be the default for fine-grained attributes in cluttered, unconstrained imagery.
  • Small YOLO variants are accurate enough for real-time or in-vehicle deployment, since they match larger variants on these tasks.
  • Expected accuracy tracks how visually separable the classes are: bright/dark colour is easiest, shape is hardest.
  • Zero-shot open-vocabulary detection is not usable on this data without fine-tuning, so deployment should plan for supervised training.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, weighting per-image votes by detection confidence or image quality would likely add a point or two, since not all views of a plate are equally informative.
  • Because ground truth came from a single annotator pass, some of the multi-view gain may come from voting away annotator mistakes rather than from true visual signal; re-annotating the test set with independent labelers would separate those effects.
  • The same detection-plus-voting recipe could transfer to untested attributes the paper lists, such as vehicle damage, accessories, or text, and to other camera networks with a reliable frame-grouping signal.
  • Whether these accuracies hold on other police camera deployments is open; running the same protocol on a public multi-camera vehicle benchmark would show how much of the difficulty is specific to this archive.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper benchmarks three YOLO-based approaches (YOLO-v11, YOLO-World, and YOLO-Classification) for extracting vehicle make, shape, colour, and bright/dark colour from a large real-world MANPR image dataset collected by NSW Police. The authors build task-specific training sets with over 100,000 images each, keep a shared test set of 29,937 images belonging to 1,809 number plates, and evaluate both single-view inference (SVI) and multi-view inference (MVI), where predictions are aggregated by majority voting across all images of a number plate. The main reported findings are that MVI consistently improves accuracy over SVI, that the detection-based models outperform classification-only models on make and shape, and that smaller YOLO variants perform comparably to larger ones. The paper positions this as a baseline study for real-world vehicle metadata extraction and for filtering and searching large image archives.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper provides a useful and unusually realistic baseline for vehicle attribute extraction in law-enforcement image archives. Its strengths are the scale of the real-world dataset, the consistent test split across tasks, the number-plate-based grouping enabling multi-view inference, and the systematic comparison across model families and sizes. The MVI idea is practical and directly relevant to the MANPR use case, and the with/without fine-tuning comparison for YOLO-World is informative. However, the significance is currently limited by the absence of uncertainty quantification, by an unresolved preprocessing confound in the detection-versus-classification comparison, and by unmeasured ground-truth label noise.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sections 2.5.2, 2.5.3 and Tables 2, 3] The central comparison between detection and classification is confounded because the paper never states whether YOLO-Classification models were trained and evaluated on full frames or on vehicle-only crops. Section 2.5.2 describes a YOLO-based localisation filter that retains the largest bounding box, and Section 2.5.3 states that each image is stored with ground-truth bounding boxes for detection training, but the corresponding input for YOLO-Classification is not specified. If YOLO-Classification saw full scenes while the detection models operated on localised vehicle regions, the reported make and shape advantages in Tables 2 and 3 would reflect an input-distribution difference rather than a benefit of the detection architecture. Please state the exact preprocessing for each model family and, if the current protocol is as described, add a classification-on-crops baseline to make the comparison fair.
  2. [Tables 2 to 5 and Section 3.3] No confidence intervals, repeated runs, or significance tests are reported, yet several headline differences are small. For example, the best make MVI accuracy is 93.70% for YOLO-World small (Table 2) versus 92.43% for YOLO-Classification x-large, and the best shape MVI accuracy is 82.86% for YOLO-v11 x-large (Table 3) versus 82.81% for YOLO-World small. Claims such as "detection models consistently outperformed classification models" and "smaller YOLO variants perform comparably" are not statistically supported without uncertainty estimates. Please provide confidence intervals, repeated-seed results, or significance tests, and account for the fact that images from the same number plate are not independent.
  3. [Section 2.5.1 (Labelling Process)] Ground-truth quality is not established. Labels were produced by recruited annotators and reviewed once by a different annotator, but no inter-annotator agreement, adjudication protocol, or cross-check against vehicle registration data is reported. Because every accuracy figure in Tables 2 to 5 inherits the noise in these labels, the lack of label-quality measures weakens the baseline and the comparative conclusions. Please report inter-annotator agreement or a validated subset, and discuss how label noise might affect the make, shape, and colour comparisons.
  4. [Section 4 (Conclusion)] The conclusion misstates the results. It says detection-based models outperformed classification models on make and shape, "achieving accuracies of up to 94.86% and 82.86%, respectively," but 94.86% is the colour-binary accuracy of YOLO-Classification (Table 5), not a make-detection result, and the best make accuracy is 93.70% (Table 2). This misattribution should be corrected in the conclusion and, if the abstract relies on the same phrasing, in the abstract as well.
  5. [Section 3.3.5 and Table 6] The treatment of no-detection outputs is not quantified. Section 3.3.5 argues that a no-detection output is often preferable in policing contexts, but the frequency of no-detection cases is never reported, nor is it stated how such cases are counted in the accuracy denominators for detection models. This matters for the fairness of the detection-versus-classification comparison, since classification models always produce a label while detection models may produce none. Please report detection rates and the exact handling of missing detections in the SVI and MVI accuracy calculations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The spelling of YOLO-World is inconsistent ("YOLO World" appears in several places); please standardise it.
  2. [Section 3.3.4, Table 6] The text says fine-tuning improved accuracy "by up to 90 percentage points," but the largest improvement in Table 6 is from 1.80% to 93.70% for make small, which is 91.9 percentage points; please correct the figure.
  3. [Section 3.3.2] The phrase "the top YOLO-Classification model achieving 85.19% accuracy using MVI" is correct, but the surrounding ranking sentence is ambiguous about whether colour or binary-colour is being discussed; please clarify.
  4. [Section 2.4 and Figure 3] The MVI description in Figure 3's caption says the AI predicts "Mercedes" three times and "No Detection" one time, yielding a final classification of "Mercedes"; it would be helpful to state explicitly how ties and no-detection votes are handled in the majority-voting procedure.
  5. [References and formatting] The reference format with superscript numbers is nonstandard and hard to read; please switch to a numbered citation style consistent with the journal's guidelines.
  6. [Section 2.5.3 and Table 1] Please add a short statement about whether the task-specific test sets are identical across all four tasks or only share the same image set; Table 1 suggests the image counts are identical, but the wording is not fully explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical benchmark with independent ground-truth evaluation and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical benchmarking study rather than a derivation or prediction-from-first-principles exercise. The reported accuracies in Tables 2–5 are computed by training YOLO variants on human-annotated training sets and evaluating on a held-out test set with fixed train/test splits and no number-plate leakage. The central claims—that MVI improves accuracy, that detection models outperform classification-only models on make and shape, and that smaller variants are competitive—are empirical observations against externally assigned ground-truth labels, not consequences of the method's definitions. MVI is a post-hoc majority vote over per-plate image predictions; it is not a fitted parameter and its gain is not guaranteed by construction, so reporting that it improves accuracy is not circular. The YOLO-based localisation filter in Section 2.5.2 is a preprocessing step that could introduce methodological bias, but it does not make any reported accuracy equal to an input by construction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited references to YOLO-World, YOLOv8, COCO, and other methods are external prior work, and none of the paper's key conclusions depend on an unverified self-citation chain. Any concern about whether YOLO-Classification saw full frames or vehicle-only crops is an experimental-design confound, not a circularity, and does not affect this pass. Therefore no circular steps are identified and the circularity score is 0.

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

No new particles, forces, or theoretical entities are introduced. The paper rests on standard machine-learning assumptions about label quality and data cleaning, plus the operational assumption that plate grouping identifies the same vehicle across views.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Annotator labels for make, shape, and colour are treated as correct ground truth.
    Section 2.5.1 describes a labelling process with recruited annotators and a review step, but no inter-annotator agreement or external validation is reported. All accuracy numbers in Tables 2 to 5 inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption The largest detected bounding box corresponds to the most relevant vehicle in each image.
    Section 2.5.2 retains only the first prediction with the largest bounding box when filtering data. This assumes the largest object is the vehicle of interest, which may fail in frames with multiple vehicles or partial views.
  • domain assumption Number plates are a reliable key for grouping multiple images of the same vehicle.
    The MVI procedure in Section 2.4 groups predictions by number plate and applies majority voting. This assumes the plate is unique to one physical vehicle at a time and that the MANPR plate-recognition system correctly associates images.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of YOLO for Knowledge Extraction from Vehicle Images: A Baseline Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZKWVXOB5

@misc{pith2026250718966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: YOLO for Knowledge Extraction from Vehicle Images: A Baseline Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZKWVXOB5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18966}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate identification of vehicle attributes such as make, colour, and shape is critical for law enforcement and intelligence applications. This study evaluates the effectiveness of three state-of-the-art deep learning approaches YOLO-v11, YOLO-World, and YOLO-Classification on a real-world vehicle image dataset. This dataset was collected under challenging and unconstrained conditions by NSW Police Highway Patrol Vehicles. A multi-view inference (MVI) approach was deployed to enhance the performance of the models' predictions. To conduct the analyses, datasets with 100,000 plus images were created for each of the three metadata prediction tasks, specifically make, shape and colour. The models were tested on a separate dataset with 29,937 images belonging to 1809 number plates. Different sets of experiments have been investigated by varying the models sizes. A classification accuracy of 93.70%, 82.86%, 85.19%, and 94.86% was achieved with the best performing make, shape, colour, and colour-binary models respectively. It was concluded that there is a need to use MVI to get usable models within such complex real-world datasets. Our findings indicated that the object detection models YOLO-v11 and YOLO-World outperformed classification-only models in make and shape extraction. Moreover, smaller YOLO variants perform comparably to larger counterparts, offering substantial efficiency benefits for real-time predictions. This work provides a robust baseline for extracting vehicle metadata in real-world scenarios. Such models can be used in filtering and sorting user queries, minimising the time required to search large vehicle images datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18966 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Total number of MANPR records per day in April 2025 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MANPR coverage on a single day across NSW. shape, or colour from national vehicle registration databases1 . However, this is not always feasible with large records required for analysis. Bulk searches to such databases are restricted due to various constraints. With the emergence of intelligent transportation systems (ITS), different artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have been proposed and evaluated across veh… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Majority voting across multiple images of the same vehicle: Each image is independently analysed by the AI model to predict make. The predictions are aggregated, and the most frequently predicted class is selected as the final label. In this example, three out of four images, the AI predicts "Mercedes" three times and "No Detection" one time, resulting in a final classification of the vehicle as a "Mercedes". 8/16 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparison of small, large, and x-large models using the MVI approach. 3.3.4 Comparing YOLO-WORLD models with vs without fine tuning With the rise of zero-shot learning in vision models, we explored whether off-the-shelf YOLO-World models could be used for …

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nazemi, A., Azimifar, Z., Shafiee, M. J. & Wong, A. Real-time vehicle make and model recognition using unsupervised feature learning. IEEE Transactions on Intell. Transp. Syst. 21, 3080–3090 (2019). ISBN: 1524-9050 Publisher: IEEE

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    H., Chuah, J

    Tan, S. H., Chuah, J. H., Chow, C.-O., Kanesan, J. & Leong, H. Y . Artificial intelligent systems for vehicle classification: A survey. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 129, 107497, DOI: 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107497 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Deshmukh, P., Satyanarayana, G. S. R., Majhi, S., Sahoo, U. K. & Das, S. K. Swin transformer based vehicle detection in undisciplined traffic environment. Expert. Syst. with Appl. 213, 118992, DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118992 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    & Pawar, M

    Surwase, S. & Pawar, M. Multi-scale multi-stream deep network for car logo recognition. Evol. Intell. 16, 485–492, DOI: 10.1007/s12065-021-00671-1 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1007/s12065-021-00671-1 2023

  5. [5]

    K., Geem, Z

    Gayen, S., Maity, S., Singh, P. K., Geem, Z. W. & Sarkar, R. Two decades of vehicle make and model recognition – Survey, challenges and future directions. J. King Saud Univ. - Comput. Inf. Sci. 36, 101885, DOI: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2023.101885 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    & Hinton, G

    Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I. & Hinton, G. E. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 25 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    & Boukerche, A

    Ma, X. & Boukerche, A. An ai-based visual attention model for vehicle make and model recognition. In 2020 IEEE Symposium on computers and communications (ISCC), 1–6 (IEEE, 2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    & Barshooi, A

    Amirkhani, A. & Barshooi, A. H. DeepCar 5.0: vehicle make and model recognition under challenging conditions. IEEE Transactions on Intell. Transp. Syst. 24, 541–553 (2022). ISBN: 1524-9050 Publisher: IEEE. 14/16

    work page 2022

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    & Huang, T

    Yan, K., Tian, Y ., Wang, Y ., Zeng, W. & Huang, T. Exploiting multi-grain ranking constraints for precisely searching visually-similar vehicles. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 562–570 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Tang, Z. et al. Cityflow: A city-scale benchmark for multi-target multi-camera vehicle tracking and re-identification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 8797–8806 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    & Huang, T

    Liu, H., Tian, Y ., Yang, Y ., Pang, L. & Huang, T. Deep relative distance learning: Tell the difference between similar vehicles. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2167–2175 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Group-sensitive triplet embedding for vehicle reidentification.IEEE Transactions on Multimed.20, 2385–2399 (2018)

    Bai, Y .et al. Group-sensitive triplet embedding for vehicle reidentification.IEEE Transactions on Multimed.20, 2385–2399 (2018). ISBN: 1520-9210 Publisher: IEEE

    2018

  5. [13]

    Liu, X., Liu, W., Mei, T. & Ma, H. A deep learning-based approach to progressive vehicle re-identification for urban surveillance. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 14, 869–884 (Springer, 2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    & Herout, A

    Zapletal, D. & Herout, A. Vehicle re-identification for automatic video traffic surveillance. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 25–31 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Yang, L., Luo, P., Loy, C. C. & Tang, X. A large-scale car dataset for fine-grained categorization and verification. In2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 3973–3981, DOI: 10.1109/CVPR.2015.7299023 (2015). ISSN: 1063-6919

    2015

  8. [16]

    J., Azimifar, Z

    Nazemi, A., Shafiee, M. J., Azimifar, Z. & Wong, A. Unsupervised Feature Learning Toward a Real-time Vehicle Make and Model Recognition, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1806.03028 (2018). ArXiv:1806.03028 [cs]

    2018 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Szegedy, C. et al. Going deeper with convolutions. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 1–9, DOI: 10.1109/CVPR.2015.7298594 (IEEE, Boston, MA, USA, 2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    J., Ullah, I., Wan, W., Gao, Y

    Lee, H. J., Ullah, I., Wan, W., Gao, Y . & Fang, Z. Real-Time Vehicle Make and Model Recognition with the Residual SqueezeNet Architecture. Sensors 19, 982, DOI: 10.3390/s19050982 (2019). Number: 5 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    & Kato, J

    Liu, D., Zhao, L., Wang, Y . & Kato, J. Learn from each other to Classify better: Cross-layer mutual attention learning for fine-grained visual classification. Pattern Recognit. 140, 109550, DOI: 10.1016/j.patcog.2023.109550 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    & Fei-Fei, L

    Krause, J., Stark, M., Deng, J. & Fei-Fei, L. 3D Object Representations for Fine-Grained Categorization. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, 554–561, DOI: 10.1109/ICCVW.2013.77 (2013)

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Yu, Y ., Chen, W., Chen, F., Jia, W. & Lu, Q. Night-time vehicle model recognition based on domain adaptation.Multimed. Tools Appl. 83, 9577–9596, DOI: 10.1007/s11042-023-15447-1 (2024)

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    H., Chuah, J

    Tan, S. H., Chuah, J. H., Chow, C.-O. & Kanesan, J. Coarse-to-Fine Context Aggregation Network for Vehicle Make and Model Recognition. IEEE Access (2023). ISBN: 2169-3536 Publisher: IEEE

    2023

  15. [23]

    & Zisserman, A

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

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    & Wojna, Z

    Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V ., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J. & Wojna, Z. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2818–2826 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    & Sun, J

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770–778 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    & Weinberger, K

    Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L. & Weinberger, K. Q. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4700–4708 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    & Wang, J

    Wu, H., Guo, H., Miao, Q., Huang, M. & Wang, J. Graph neural networks based multi-granularity feature representation learning for fine-grained visual categorization. In International Conference on Multimedia Modeling, 230–242 (Springer, 2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Ali, M., Tahir, M. A. & Durrani, M. N. Vehicle images dataset for make and model recognition. Data brief 42 (2022). ISBN: 2352-3409 Publisher: Elsevier

    2022

  21. [29]

    He, J. et al. Transfg: A transformer architecture for fine-grained recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 36, 852–860 (2022). Issue: 1

    2022

  22. [30]

    F., Girshick, R

    Felzenszwalb, P. F., Girshick, R. B., McAllester, D. & Ramanan, D. Object detection with discriminatively trained part-based models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis Mach. Intell.32, 1627–1645 (2010). 15/16

    2010

  23. [31]

    Kubilius, J. et al. Brain-like object recognition with high-performing shallow recurrent anns. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 32 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    J., Zoccolan, D

    DiCarlo, J. J., Zoccolan, D. & Rust, N. C. How does the brain solve visual object recognition? Neuron 73, 415–434 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    & Sun, J

    Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R. & Sun, J. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 91–99 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Liu, W. et al. Ssd: Single shot multibox detector. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 21–37 (Springer, 2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Fast r-cnn

    Girshick, R. Fast r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 1440–1448 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    R., van de Sande, K

    Uijlings, J. R., van de Sande, K. E., Gevers, T. & Smeulders, A. W. Selective search for object recognition. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 104, 154–171 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Buschman, T. J. & Miller, E. K. Serial, covert shifts of attention during visual search are reflected by the frontal eye fields and correlated with population oscillations. Neuron 63, 386–396 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    & Farhadi, A

    Redmon, J., Divvala, S., Girshick, R. & Farhadi, A. You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 779–788 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    & Farhadi, A

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

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Human pattern recognition: parallel processing and perceptual learning

    Fahle, M. Human pattern recognition: parallel processing and perceptual learning. Perception 23, 411–427 (1994)

    1994

  33. [41]

    Treisman, A. M. & Gelade, G. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn. psychology 12, 97–136 (1980)

    1980

  34. [42]

    Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt II

    Wertheimer, M. Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In Ellis, W. D. (ed.) A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, 71–88 (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1938). Originally published in 1923 as “Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt II”

    1938

  35. [43]

    Neill, W. T. & Westberry, R. L. Selective attention and the suppression of cognitive noise.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 13, 327 (1987)

    1987

  36. [44]

    & Qiu, J

    Jocher, G. & Qiu, J. Ultralytics yolo11 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Cheng, T. et al. Yolo-world: Real-time open-vocabulary object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 16901–16911 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Microsoft COCO: common objects in context

    Lin, T.-Y .et al. Microsoft COCO: common objects in context. CoRR abs/1405.0312 (2014). 1405.0312

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gupta, A., Dollar, P., Girshick, R. et al. LVIS: A dataset for large vocabulary instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition(2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 9756–9765 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Zhang, H. et al. Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to-end object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03605 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Radford, A. et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.00020 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    & Hoi, S

    Li, J., Li, D., Xiong, C. & Hoi, S. Glip: Grounded language-image pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03857 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    & Huli ˇc, M

    Štancel, M. & Huli ˇc, M. An introduction to image classification and object detection using yolo detector. In CEUR workshop proceedings, vol. 2403, 1–8 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Jiang, P., Ergu, D., Liu, F., Cai, Y . & Ma, B. A review of yolo algorithm developments.Procedia computer science 199, 1066–1073 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    A theory of cortical responses

    Friston, K. A theory of cortical responses. Philos. Transactions Royal Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 360, 815–836 (2005)

    2005

  47. [55]

    & Bjork, R

    Richardson-Klavehn, A. & Bjork, R. A. Memory and the self in cognitive neuroscience. Cognition 99, 123–132 (2006)

    2006

  48. [56]

    Tyler, L. K. et al. Objects and categories: feature statistics and object processing in the ventral stream. J. cognitive neuroscience 25, 1723–1735 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    L., Ahmed, S

    Brojde, C. L., Ahmed, S. & Colunga, E. Bilingual and monolingual children attend to different cues when learning new words. Front. Psychol. 3, 155 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    & Badawy, W

    Du, S., Ibrahim, M., Shehata, M. & Badawy, W. Automatic number plate recognition (anpr): A review. IEEE Transactions on Intell. Transp. Syst. 16, 2233–2249 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Yolov8: Ultralytics official implementation

    Ultralytics. Yolov8: Ultralytics official implementation. https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics (2023). Available at https://docs.ultralytics.com/. 16/16

    2023

Pith tools

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