Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

UAV-DETR: Efficient End-to-End Object Detection for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Imagery

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Frequency-domain fusion lifts drone detection by 3.1 AP

desk verdict A competent UAV detection architecture with a real 3.1 AP gain over RT-DETR, but the key frequency-focused module is underspecified in Eq. (3), so the reported gains are not yet attributable to the described mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01855 v3 pith:JOBQMLCC submitted 2025-01-03 cs.CV

Huaxiang Zhang , Kai Liu , Zhongxue Gan , Guo-Niu Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords objectdetectionunmannedaerialvehicleDETRfrequencydomainfeaturefusionsmallreal-timeVisDrone
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 sets out to establish that a detection transformer (DETR, an end-to-end detector that predicts objects without non-maximum suppression or hand-designed anchors) can be made effective for drone imagery, where objects are small and often occluded, by deliberately preserving frequency-domain information during feature fusion and downsampling and by aligning features from different fusion paths. The proposed UAV-DETR builds on the real-time RT-DETR detector and adds three modules: multi-scale feature fusion with frequency enhancement, frequency-focused downsampling, and semantic alignment and calibration, together with an Inner-SIoU bounding-box loss. On the VisDrone dataset, the ResNet-18 variant raises AP by 3.1 percentage points and AP50 by 4.2 points over the RT-DETR-R18 baseline, with similar gains on the UAVVaste dataset, while keeping real-time inference speeds. If these results hold, they suggest that frequency-domain cues are a practical lever for small-object detection in aerial imagery without sacrificing the deployment advantages of end-to-end detectors.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three modules plus a loss. MSFF-FE (multi-scale feature fusion with frequency enhancement) splits features along channels, applies a Focus module and Fourier-domain filtering, then recombines spatial and frequency branches through learned weights; FD (frequency-focused downsampling) processes one channel-split branch with a frequency-focused filter and the other with strided convolutions and max-pooling before re-concatenation; SAC (semantic alignment and calibration) upsamples one feature, applies the frequency-focused filter, and uses learned offsets with grid sampling to align the two features before a weighted sum. Inner-SIoU loss replaces GIoU by combining the angle, distance, and shape penalties of SIoU with an Inner-IoU computed on boxes scaled by 1.25, which the authors say improves sensitivity for small objects.

What would settle it

Retrain RT-DETR-R18 with the exact UAV-DETR training recipe (400 epochs, batch size 4, input 640x640, Mosaic probability 1, mixup 0.2) and compare AP on the VisDrone validation set, or verify that ablating the frequency branch specifically degrades AP on small objects; if the gap between baseline and UAV-DETR collapses or the frequency terms have no effect, the central claim is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that existing end-to-end detectors, designed for natural images, underperform on UAV imagery because they lose high-frequency details during feature fusion and downsampling, and because features from different fusion paths are not spatially aligned. UAV-DETR addresses this with three components: MSFF-FE fuses multi-scale features in both spatial and frequency domains, using Fourier transforms and a learned gating mechanism; FD applies frequency-focused processing while downsampling to retain critical spatial details; and SAC learns 2D offsets to geometrically align features from different paths before a weighted summation. Together with Inner-SIoU loss, the method reports AP of 29.8 and AP50 of 48.8 on VisDrone for the ResNet-18 variant, versus 26.7 and 44.6 for the RT-DETR-R18 baseline, and also outperforms comparable-cost detectors on UAVVaste. The authors interpret these results as evidence that frequency-domain information and cross-path alignment are effective, generalizable mechanisms for UAV object detection.

Load-bearing premise

The reported improvements assume the RT-DETR baselines and other compared detectors were evaluated under training conditions comparable to UAV-DETR's; the paper details its own recipe (400 epochs, batch size 4, input 640x640, Mosaic probability 1, mixup 0.2) but does not state that all baselines were retrained with the same protocol, so part of the 3.1 AP gap could reflect training differences rather than the new modules.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • End-to-end detection without NMS or anchor tuning is viable for UAV imagery while matching or beating manual-pipeline detectors at similar computational cost.
  • Preserving high-frequency components during fusion and downsampling is a transferable strategy, with gains appearing on both VisDrone and the smaller UAVVaste dataset.
  • The three modules compose additively: ablation shows AP rising from 26.7 to 29.8 as Inner-SIoU, MSFF-FE, FD, and SAC are added in sequence.
  • Real-time performance is largely retained: UAV-DETR-R18 runs at 124 FPS versus 183 FPS for RT-DETR-R18, and the R50 variant at 65 FPS versus 89 FPS, measured in 32-bit floating-point precision.
  • Frequency-focused operations help small and occluded objects specifically, as indicated by heatmaps showing stronger attention on small objects and their surroundings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the frequency-enhancement modules are the real source of the gain, a similar recipe should transfer to other small-object domains such as satellite imagery, medical imaging, or long-range autonomous driving, where high-frequency details and occlusion dominate.
  • The learned-offset alignment in SAC could be reused outside detection, for example in multi-scale feature fusion for segmentation or in fusing features from different sensor modalities with spatial misalignment.
  • A direct test of the paper's claim would be to retrain the RT-DETR baselines under the paper's exact training protocol (400 epochs, batch size 4, input 640x640, Mosaic probability 1, mixup 0.2); if the 3.1 AP gap mostly disappears, the modules' contribution is smaller than reported.
  • The FPS comparison is measured in 32-bit floating-point precision on a single GPU; on embedded UAV hardware the relative speed cost of the added modules could differ, so real-time deployment claims should be re-verified on target hardware.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes UAV-DETR, an end-to-end DETR-style object detector for UAV imagery, built on RT-DETR. It introduces three modules: a multi-scale feature fusion with frequency enhancement module (MSFF-FE), a frequency-focused downsampling module (FD), and a semantic alignment and calibration module (SAC), plus an Inner-SIoU loss. The central claim is a 3.1 AP and 4.2 AP50 improvement over the RT-DETR-R18 baseline on the VisDrone validation set, with similar gains on UAVVaste, while retaining real-time inference. The paper reports ablations, speed measurements, and heatmap visualizations to support the design.

Significance. If validated, the result is useful for UAV object detection: it demonstrates that an end-to-end, NMS-free detector can be competitive on aerial imagery, where small, occluded objects are common, and that frequency-domain processing can be integrated into a real-time DETR. The paper's main strengths are its clear architectural motivation, the inclusion of ablation experiments on VisDrone, generalization experiments on a second dataset (UAVVaste), and speed measurements showing that real-time operation is roughly maintained. The claimed gains are nontrivial (3.1 AP over RT-DETR-R18), and the work addresses an application-relevant problem. However, the central claim is not yet fully substantiated because of ambiguities in the frequency-domain formulation, incomplete baseline comparability, and the absence of statistical evidence such as error bars or repeated runs.

major comments (4)
  1. [III-A, Eq. (3)] The Frequency-Focused (FF) module, as written, mixes spatial and frequency domains in a way that is not adequately specified. In Eq. (3), F(Conv1x1(x_sc)) is a complex-valued frequency-domain tensor while Conv1x1(x_sc) is a real-valued spatial-domain tensor; the element-wise product is mathematically defined as a complex-by-real scaling, but it is not a frequency-domain filtering operation with learned coefficients, because the multiplier is derived from spatial coordinates and cannot adjust the phase of the frequency components. If the intended operation is a learned filter in the frequency domain, the equation does not describe how the filter is parameterized. Since FF is used inside MSFF-FE, FD, and SAC, the reported experimental gains cannot be attributed to the described frequency mechanism without a precise definition or pseudocode. Please clarify the exact tensor operations, including shapes and complex arithmetic, or revise the description to match the implementation.
  2. [IV-A and Table I] The comparability of the baseline results is not established. The paper gives the full training recipe for UAV-DETR (400 epochs, batch size 4, 640x640, Mosaic probability 1, mixup probability 0.2), but it does not state that RT-DETR-R18, RT-DETR-R50, or the other competitors in Table I were retrained under this identical protocol; the table likely reports numbers from the respective original papers. Because the central claim is a 3.1 AP improvement over RT-DETR-R18, the comparison is only meaningful if the baseline is trained with the same augmentations, input size, and epoch budget. Please report the training setup of all compared models or, ideally, retrain the relevant baselines under the same conditions and provide those numbers.
  3. [Table III and Table IV] The ablation study does not yet support the claim that each module contributes independently. The MSFF-FE addition increases GFLOPs from 60 to 77 (about 28%), so the AP gain from 27.1 to 28.4 may be partly a capacity effect rather than a frequency-enhancement effect. The FD module shows no AP improvement (28.4 to 28.4) and only a 0.2 AP50 improvement. Furthermore, all results appear to be from a single run, with no error bars or repeated-seed variance, and the Inner-SIoU ratio of 1.25 is selected on the same validation set (Table IV). At minimum, please provide variance over multiple runs and a matched-compute comparison, and discuss the FD result explicitly.
  4. [III-D, Eq. (10)] The Inner-SIoU loss is not precisely defined. Equation (10) reads L_Inner-SIoU = L_SIoU + IoU - Inner-SIoU, but it is unclear whether 'IoU' denotes the standard IoU loss (1 - IoU) or the IoU metric, and whether 'Inner-SIoU' denotes an IoU value or a loss term. This makes the loss formula ambiguous and difficult to reproduce. Please define all terms and, if this is a combination of Inner-IoU and SIoU losses from the cited works, give the exact functional form used in training.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table V] The GFLOPs values for RT-DETR-R18 and RT-DETR-R50 differ between Table V (60 and 130) and Tables I and II (60 and 136/57.3 and 129.9); please make these numbers consistent across tables.
  2. [IV-A] The implementation details list 'momentum of 0.9' for AdamW, but AdamW typically uses betas; please clarify whether this is the first momentum parameter or a different optimizer setting.
  3. [I] There is a grammatical error in the introduction: 'align features that from different feature fusion paths' should be 'align features from different feature fusion paths.'
  4. [III-D] The capitalization of 'Inner-SIoU' is inconsistent (also 'Inner-SIOU'), and the abbreviation should be defined once and used consistently thereafter.
  5. [References] The reference for YOLOv9 is cited as 'ECCV2025' in Table I but the bibliography entry [30] is an arXiv preprint; please correct the venue information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline gains are empirical comparisons against external baselines, not reductions to fitted quantities or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is empirical: it builds UAV-DETR on RT-DETR, adds three modules and a loss change, and measures AP/AP50 on VisDrone and UAVVaste against published detectors. The key claims (3.1 AP and 4.2 AP50 gain over RT-DETR-R18) are external benchmark comparisons, and the modules' contributions are quantified by additive ablations in Table III rather than inferred from the same numbers that define the method. The Inner-SIoU ratio in Table IV is a standard hyperparameter selection on the validation set, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Citations to DETR, RT-DETR, SIoU, and Inner-IoU supply building blocks, but the paper does not rely on a uniqueness theorem or on self-derived constraints, so no load-bearing self-citation loop appears. The dimension inconsistency in Eq. (3), where a complex Fourier-domain tensor is multiplied by a real spatial-domain tensor, is a genuine correctness and reproducibility concern that should be resolved, but it is not a circularity under the stated rules. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on standard benchmark datasets and a handful of architectural assumptions; no new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The only tuned numerical constant is the Inner-SIoU box ratio.

free parameters (1)
  • Inner-SIoU auxiliary box scale ratio = 1.25
    Selected by comparing ratio=1.20, 1.25, 1.30 on VisDrone validation (Table IV); best AP 29.8 at 1.25. This is a hyperparameter tuned on the evaluation dataset, not a derived constant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption RT-DETR is a strong baseline and its reported numbers are comparable
    The paper builds on RT-DETR and compares against its numbers (Section IV-B); if baselines were not trained under identical protocols, the improvement is not attributable to the modules.
  • domain assumption FFT/IFFT with learnable 1x1 convolutions preserves useful high-frequency information for small object detection
    Core mechanism of MSFF-FE and FD (Eqs. 1-3); if frequency features are not informative, the claimed mechanism fails.
  • domain assumption VisDrone and UAVVaste annotations and evaluation are correct and consistent with prior reported baselines
    All conclusions rest on these benchmark numbers.
  • domain assumption GridSample-based learnable offsets can align multi-scale features without harmful distortion
    SAC module relies on this (Eqs. 6-8).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UAV-DETR: Efficient End-to-End Object Detection for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Imagery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JOBQMLCC

@misc{pith2026250101855,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UAV-DETR: Efficient End-to-End Object Detection for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Imagery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JOBQMLCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01855}
}
abstract

Unmanned aerial vehicle object detection (UAV-OD) has been widely used in various scenarios. However, most existing UAV-OD algorithms rely on manually designed components, which require extensive tuning. End-to-end models that do not depend on such manually designed components are mainly designed for natural images, which are less effective for UAV imagery. To address such challenges, this paper proposes an efficient detection transformer (DETR) framework tailored for UAV imagery, i.e., UAV-DETR. The framework includes a multi-scale feature fusion with frequency enhancement module, which captures both spatial and frequency information at different scales. In addition, a frequency-focused down-sampling module is presented to retain critical spatial details during down-sampling. A semantic alignment and calibration module is developed to align and fuse features from different fusion paths. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness and generalization of our approach across various UAV imagery datasets. On the VisDrone dataset, our method improves AP by 3.1\% and $\text{AP}_{50}$ by 4.2\% over the baseline. Similar enhancements are observed on the UAVVaste dataset. The project page: https://github.com/ValiantDiligent/UAV-DETR

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01855 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Challenges in UAV-OD for natural images, which poses challenges when applied to UAV image analysis. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the UAV-DETR. MSFF-FE represents the Multi-Scale Feature Fusion with Frequency Enhancement module; FD denotes Frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Structure of multi-scale feature fusion with frequency enhancement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Structure of semantic alignment and calibration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The heatmap of RT-DETR-R18 and UAV-DETR-R18. The brighter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Advancing MLLM-based UAV Image Understanding and Reasoning: A Benchmark and a Training-Free Multi-Agent System

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new self-constructed UAV QA benchmark and a training-free multi-agent system that claims state-of-the-art accuracy on it without training.

  2. Inter-Class Relational Loss for Small Object Detection: A Case Study on License Plates

    cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new relational loss adds a penalty when a plate's predicted box misses its car, reportedly boosting mAP on two detectors.

  3. Dome-DETR: DETR with Density-Oriented Feature-Query Manipulation for Efficient Tiny Object Detection

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A density-guided DETR variant improves tiny object detection by 3.3 AP on AI-TOD-V2 and 2.5 AP on VisDrone over the D-FINE baseline.

  4. An Efficient Aerial Image Detection with Variable Receptive Fields

    cs.CV 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    VRF-DETR is a lightweight DETR-style aerial detector that reports 51.4% mAP50 and 31.8% mAP50:95 on VisDrone2019 with 13.5M parameters, using gated multi-scale attention modules.

  5. EFSI-DETR: Efficient Frequency-Semantic Integration for Real-Time Small Object Detection in UAV Imagery

    cs.CV 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    EFSI-DETR, an RT-DETR variant with frequency-flavored fusion, a semantic concentrator, and shallow-feature retention, reports 33.1 AP and 24.8 APs on VisDrone at 188 FPS — a claimed +1.6 AP and +5.8 APs over prior SOTA.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Joint response and back- ground learning for uav visual tracking,

    B. Wang, W. Li, B. Zhang, and Y . Liu, “Joint response and back- ground learning for uav visual tracking,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 455–462

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Hic-yolov5: Improved yolov5 for small object detection,

    S. Tang, S. Zhang, and Y . Fang, “Hic-yolov5: Improved yolov5 for small object detection,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 6614–6619

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Recent advances in small object detection based on deep learning: A review,

    K. Tong, Y . Wu, and F. Zhou, “Recent advances in small object detection based on deep learning: A review,” Image and Vision Computing, vol. 97, p. 103910, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    End-to-end object detection with transformers,

    N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko, “End-to-end object detection with transformers,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2020 , A. Vedaldi, H. Bischof, T. Brox, and J.-M. Frahm, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 213–229

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    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,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2024, pp. 16 965–16 974

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Large selective kernel network for remote sensing object detection,

    Y . Li, Q. Hou, Z. Zheng, M.-M. Cheng, J. Yang, and X. Li, “Large selective kernel network for remote sensing object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), October 2023, pp. 16 794–16 805

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Querydet: Cascaded sparse query for accelerating high-resolution small object detection,

    C. Yang, Z. Huang, and N. Wang, “Querydet: Cascaded sparse query for accelerating high-resolution small object detection,” in Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2022, pp. 13 668–13 677

    work page 2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Clustered object detection in aerial images,

    F. Yang, H. Fan, P. Chu, E. Blasch, and H. Ling, “Clustered object detection in aerial images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision , 2019, pp. 8311–8320

    2019

  2. [10]

    Lightweight detection network for arbitrary-oriented vehicles in uav imagery via precise positional in- formation encoding and bidirectional feature fusion,

    J. Feng, J. Wang, and R. Qin, “Lightweight detection network for arbitrary-oriented vehicles in uav imagery via precise positional in- formation encoding and bidirectional feature fusion,” International Journal of Remote Sensing , vol. 44, no. 15, pp. 4529–4558, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Deep learning-based object detection in low-altitude uav datasets: A survey,

    P. Mittal, R. Singh, and A. Sharma, “Deep learning-based object detection in low-altitude uav datasets: A survey,” Image and Vision Computing, vol. 104, p. 104046, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Multiple attention mechanism enhanced yolox for remote sensing object detection,

    C. Shen, C. Ma, and W. Gao, “Multiple attention mechanism enhanced yolox for remote sensing object detection,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 3, p. 1261, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    A survey and performance evaluation of deep learning methods for small object detection,

    Y . Liu, P. Sun, N. Wergeles, and Y . Shang, “A survey and performance evaluation of deep learning methods for small object detection,”Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 172, p. 114602, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Feature fusion methods in deep-learning generic object detection: A survey,

    J. Deng, S. Bei, S. Shaojing, and Z. Zhen, “Feature fusion methods in deep-learning generic object detection: A survey,” in 2020 IEEE 9th Joint International Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence Conference (ITAIC), vol. 9. IEEE, 2020, pp. 431–437

    2020

  7. [15]

    Context and spatial feature calibration for real-time semantic segmentation,

    K. Li, Q. Geng, M. Wan, X. Cao, and Z. Zhou, “Context and spatial feature calibration for real-time semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 32, pp. 5465–5477, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Omni-kernel network for image restoration,

    Y . Cui, W. Ren, and A. Knoll, “Omni-kernel network for image restoration,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 2, 2024, pp. 1426–1434

    2024

  9. [17]

    Ftmf-net: A fourier transform-multiscale feature fusion network for segmentation of small polyp objects,

    G. Liu, Z. Chen, D. Liu, B. Chang, and Z. Dou, “Ftmf-net: A fourier transform-multiscale feature fusion network for segmentation of small polyp objects,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 72, pp. 1–15, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Siou loss: More powerful learning for bounding box regression,

    Z. Gevorgyan, “Siou loss: More powerful learning for bounding box regression,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12740 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Inner-iou: more effective intersec- tion over union loss with auxiliary bounding box,

    H. Zhang, C. Xu, and S. Zhang, “Inner-iou: more effective intersec- tion over union loss with auxiliary bounding box,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02877, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ultralytics yolov8,

    G. Jocher, A. Chaurasia, and J. Qiu, “Ultralytics yolov8,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

    2023

  13. [21]

    Cspnet: A new backbone that can enhance learning capability of cnn,

    C.-Y . Wang, H.-Y . M. Liao, Y .-H. Wu, P.-Y . Chen, J.-W. Hsieh, and I.- H. Yeh, “Cspnet: A new backbone that can enhance learning capability of cnn,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops , June 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Gaussian error linear units (gelus),

    D. Hendrycks and K. Gimpel, “Gaussian error linear units (gelus),” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Spatial transformer networks,

    M. Jaderberg, K. Simonyan, A. Zisserman et al., “Spatial transformer networks,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 28, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Detection and tracking meet drones challenge,

    P. Zhu, L. Wen, D. Du, X. Bian, H. Fan, Q. Hu, and H. Ling, “Detection and tracking meet drones challenge,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 7380–7399, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Autonomous, onboard vision-based trash and litter detection in low altitude aerial images collected by an unmanned aerial vehicle,

    M. Kraft, M. Piechocki, B. Ptak, and K. Walas, “Autonomous, onboard vision-based trash and litter detection in low altitude aerial images collected by an unmanned aerial vehicle,” Remote Sensing , vol. 13, no. 5, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Rethinking vision transformers for mobilenet size and speed,

    Y . Li, J. Hu, Y . Wen, G. Evangelidis, K. Salahi, Y . Wang, S. Tulyakov, and J. Ren, “Rethinking vision transformers for mobilenet size and speed,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization,

    I. Loshchilov, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization,

    H. Zhang, M. Cisse, Y . N. Dauphin, and D. Lopez-Paz, “mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Yolov4: Op- timal speed and accuracy of object detection,

    A. Bochkovskiy, C.-Y . Wang, and H.-Y . M. Liao, “Yolov4: Op- timal speed and accuracy of object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10934, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  22. [30]

    YOLOv9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information,

    C.-Y . Wang and H.-Y . M. Liao, “YOLOv9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13616, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Yolov10: Real-time end-to-end object detection,

    A. Wang, H. Chen, L. Liu, K. Chen, Z. Lin, J. Han, and G. Ding, “Yolov10: Real-time end-to-end object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14458, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

    Paddledetection, object detection and instance segmenta- tion toolkit based on paddlepaddle

    P. Authors, “Paddledetection, object detection and instance segmenta- tion toolkit based on paddlepaddle.” https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/ PaddleDetection, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Dynamic coarse-to-fine learning for oriented tiny object detection,

    C. Xu, J. Ding, J. Wang, W. Yang, H. Yu, L. Yu, and G.-S. Xia, “Dynamic coarse-to-fine learning for oriented tiny object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2023, pp. 7318–7328

    2023

  27. [35]

    Sparse detr: Efficient end-to- end object detection with learnable sparsity,

    B. Roh, J. Shin, W. Shin, and S. Kim, “Sparse detr: Efficient end-to- end object detection with learnable sparsity,” in ICLR, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Performance evaluation of deep learning models on embedded platform for edge ai-based real time traffic tracking and detecting applications,

    H. T. Minh, L. Mai, and T. V . Minh, “Performance evaluation of deep learning models on embedded platform for edge ai-based real time traffic tracking and detecting applications,” in 2021 15th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Applications (ACOMP) , 2021, pp. 128–135

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.