The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 27 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Weighted boxes fusion: Ensembling boxes from different object detection models
Open accessOverview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Weighted Boxes Fusion (WBF) ensembles object detection boxes by fusing all predictions using confidence-weighted coordinates and rescaling confidence by cluster size and model count. It outperformed NMS, soft-NMS, and NMW on COCO and Open Images ensembles, reaching 56.1 mAP on COCO validation and 56.4 mAP on COCO test.
Key findings
- On a two-model COCO ensemble (EfficientDetB6 + EfficientDetB7), WBF achieved mAP(0.5..0.95) = 0.5344, mAP@0.5 = 0.7244, and mAP@0.75 = 0.5824, compared with NMS 0.5269/0.7156/0.5737, soft-NMS 0.5239/0.7121/0.5677, and NMW 0.5285/0.7171/0.5743.
- For test-time augmentation with EfficientDetB7, WBF reached mAP(0.5..0.95) = 0.5262, versus NMS 0.5233, soft-NMS 0.5210, and NMW 0.5250.
- On a many-model COCO ensemble, WBF gave 56.1 mAP on validation and 56.4 mAP on test, described as the top third result on the MS COCO leaderboard as of 07/08/2020.
- On Open Images, WBF reached 0.5665 mAP@0.5 for a RetinaNet ensemble (vs NMS 0.5442 and soft-NMS 0.5428) and 0.5982 mAP@0.5 for an ensemble of fairly different models (vs NMW 0.5667, NMS 0.5642, soft-NMS 0.5616), helping achieve 7th out of 558 in the challenge.
Methods
- WBF collects all predicted boxes, sorts them by confidence, clusters boxes with IoU > THR (THR = 0.55 was close to optimal in experiments), fuses coordinates as confidence-weighted sums, sets fused confidence as the average confidence, then rescales confidence by the number of boxes in the cluster divided by the number of models.
- Evaluation used Open Images V5 (about 16M boxes, 600 classes, 1.9M images; training 1,743,042 images, validation 41,620, test 99,999; mAP@0.5) and MS COCO (over 200,000 images, 80 categories; train2017 118k, val2017 5k, test 20k; mAP over IoU 0.5 to 0.95).
- Models included RetinaNet, EfficientDet, DetectoRS, YOLOv5, Faster R-CNN, Mask R-CNN, and Cascade R-CNN; WBF was compared against NMS, soft-NMS, and NMW, with grid search for optimal parameters.
Limitations
- The paper states WBF is slower than NMS and soft-NMS, on average around three times slower than standard NMS.
- The paper reports that replacing NMS at the output of an individual model with WBF degraded performance: RetinaNet ResNet152 on Open Images gave raw boxes 0.1718 mAP, NMS default 0.4902, NMS optimal 0.4906, and WBF optimal 0.4532; the authors attribute this to excessive low-scored wrong predictions, noting WBF works better for ensembles of fairly accurate models.
- Evident from the text: WBF performance depends on tuned parameters such as IoU threshold and model weights, which were optimized by grid search in the reported experiments.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
16 Not checked yet · 15 Own result · 8 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given · 3 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This method significantly improves the quality of the combined predicted rectangles.”
- Also stated in: § 6.2. An ensemble of two different models · p. 4 · boosted
“Even for the ensemble of only two models, the WBF method outperformed significantly other methods.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 6.2. An ensemble of two different models · p. 4 · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the WBF method demonstrated the best results.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The third top entry represents the results described in this paper.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The WBF method outperformed by far the other algorithms (see Table 5)”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Combining predictions from several detectors with different backbones yields better performance”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The technique was evaluated in the context of the Open Images Object Detection Challenge and helped achieving one of the top results in the challenge [3].”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · p. 1 · plain
“We tested method on several datasets and evaluated it in the context of the Open Images and COCO Object Detection tracks, achieving top results in these challenges.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · p. 1 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“NMS with default IoU threshold = 0.5 (e.g. standard model output) - mAP: 0.4902”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Raw boxes (no NMS/WBF) - mAP: 0.1718”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The method was expanded on the 3D boxes fusion as well.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“WBFwith optimal parameters - mAP: 0.4532 (the optimized parameters: IoU threshold = 0.43, skip threshold = 0.21)”
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The WBF method for combining predictions of detection models gave 56.1 mAP for the validation data set and 56.4 mAP for the test set.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the top performance for the COCO Detection Challenge (( 56.1 mAP for validation data set and 56.4 mAP for the test-dev set).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note: in our experiments, THR = 0 . 55 was close to an optimal threshold.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even for the ensemble of only two models, the WBF method outperformed significantly other methods.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the WBF algorithm, on average, is around three times slower than the standard NMS.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| NMS | 0.5233 | 0.7129 | 0.5656 |”
- Also stated in: § 6.3. Test-time-augmentation ensemble · p. 5 · plain
“| Soft-NMS | 0.5210 | 0.7092 | 0.5633 |”
- Also stated in: § 6.3. Test-time-augmentation ensemble · p. 5 · plain
“| NMW | 0.5250 | 0.7138 | 0.5691 |”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 6.3. Test-time-augmentation ensemble · p. 5 · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In practice, the outcome for both variants did not differ significantly, with the first being slightly better.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It is a considerable improvement compared to the performance of individual models and gives the top third result on the MS COCO official leaderboard [6] (as of 07/08/2020).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the winners from the first place of 3D Detection and Domain Adaptation track [13] and the second place from the 2D Object Detection track [11] used this method for combining predictions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13]
- Not checked yetcites [11]
- Not checked yetcites [19]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The soft-NMS method was proposed in [9] to reduce this problem. Instead of completely removing the detection proposals with high IoU and high confidence, it reduces the confidences of the proposals proportional to IoU value.”
- Also stated in: § 2.2. Soft-NMS · p. 2 · boosted
“Soft-NMS demonstrated noticeable improvements over traditional NMS on standard benchmark datasets, like PASCALVOCandMSCOCO[5]. It has shown to improve performance for single models [9].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9]
- Not checked yetcites [5]
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 2.2. Soft-NMS · p. 2 · boosted
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Microsoft COCO [5, 23], one of the most popular benchmark datasets for object detection.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5]
- Not checked yetcites [23]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both NMS and soft-NMS exclude some boxes, while WBF uses all boxes. Thus, it can fix cases where all boxes are predicted inaccurately by all models. This case is illustrated in Figure3. NMS/soft-NMS will leave only one inaccurate box, while WBF will fuse it using all predicted boxes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the test set labels are not available, we performed the ablation study on the validation set.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The test set labels are not available.
In the paper
“It was also reported that the WBF method gives the best results on the Wheat detection dataset for boxes ensemble comparing to other methods [32].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The first place winners from Lyft 3D Object Detection for Autonomous Vehicles [19] reported that WBF gives better score for their ensemble (0.222 vs 0.220) [48].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48]
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These results can be reproduced using a benchmark published on GitHub [46].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Combining predictions from different models generalizes better and usually yields more accurate results compared to a single model [27].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such methods work well on a single model. However, they only select the boxes and can not produce averaged localization of predictions combined from various models effectively.”
- Also stated in: § 2.2. Soft-NMS · p. 2 · plain
“However, both NMS and soft-NMS discard redundant boxes, and thus can not produce averaged localization predictions from different models effectively.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 2.2. Soft-NMS · p. 2 · plain
In the paper
“These models have recently shown top results on the COCO database [36].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We think it is due to the excessive number of low scored wrong predictions given by the model output.”
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Most neural networks for Object Detection use NMS or Soft-NMS output to filter predicted boxes.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The non-maximum weighted (NMW) method proposed in [49, 26] has a similar idea. However, the NMW method does not change confidence scores; it uses IoU value to weight the boxes. NMW uses a box with the highest confidence to compare with, while WBF updates a fused box at each step, and uses it to check the overlap with the next predicted boxes.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49]
- Not checked yetcites [26]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used a grid search to find the optimal parameters for each of the four methods, which allowed achieving the best mAP for the given method.”
- Also stated in: § 6.3. Test-time-augmentation ensemble · p. 4 · plain
“Then, we perform a grid search to find optimal parameters for all four ensemble methods.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § 6.3. Test-time-augmentation ensemble · p. 4 · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The ensemble methods often get top places in machine learning competitions, for example, see [12, 15, 34, 33, 42, 7].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12]
- Not checked yetcites [15]
- Not checked yetcites [34]
- Not checked yetcites [33]
- Not checked yetcites [42]
- Not checked yetcites [7]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Also, NMW does not use information about how many models predict a given box in a cluster and, therefore, does not produce the best results for models' ensemble.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49]
- Not checked yetcites [26]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The NMS or soft-NMS produces more efficient filtering for those predictions”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Most neural networks for Object Detection use NMS or Soft-NMS output to filter predicted boxes.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“when it comes to a large number of overlapping boxes with different confidence scores, WBF gives worse results than NMS.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Most neural networks for Object Detection use NMS or Soft-NMS output to filter predicted boxes.
In the paper
“Such errors reduce the precision of the model.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25]
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The weights in the final ensemble and IoU threshold for the WBF methods were optimized using the validation set.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“These results can be reproduced using benchmark published on GitHub [46].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The 3D version of boxes fusion was successfully applied by the winning teams of Waymo Open Dataset and Lyft 3D Object Detection for Autonomous Vehicles challenges.
“The 3D version of boxes fusion was successfully applied by the winning teams of Waymo Open Dataset and Lyft 3D Object Detection for Autonomous Vehicles challenges.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Open Images dataset is the largest labeled dataset with object detection annotations to date.
“We used the Open Images data set [20], the largest data set with object detection annotations to date”
“To date, it is the largest labeled dataset with object detection annotations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The test set labels are not available.
“As the test set labels are not available, we performed the ablation study on the validation set.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most neural networks for Object Detection use NMS or Soft-NMS output to filter predicted boxes.
“Most neural networks for Object Detection use NMS or Soft-NMS output to filter predicted boxes.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The advantage of this type of method is that it takes full consideration of object relationships and their spatial layout [118, 119].”
From Object Detection in 20 Years: A Survey (2023) · cites this paper as [118]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 3. Weighted Boxes Fusion · p. 3
“This case is illustrated in Figure3. NMS/soft-NMS will leave only one inaccurate box, while WBF will fuse it using all predicted boxes.”
§ 6.4.2 Ensemble of RetinaNet models for Open Images Dataset · p. 6
“Figure 3: The official leader boards of COCO Detection Challenge (Bounding Box) as of 07/08/20.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 6.3. Test-time-augmentation ensemble · p. 5
“| Model | mAP(0.5..0.95) | mAP(@0.5 IoU) | mAP(@0.5 IoU) |”
§ 6.3. Test-time-augmentation ensemble · p. 5
“| Method | mAP(0.5..0.95) | mAP(0.5) | mAP(0.75) |”
Citations
Cites
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks
Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R., & Sun, J. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2016.2577031 · Cited by 73,472
Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks
Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R., & Sun, J. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1506.01497 · Cited by 70,812
Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context
Lin, T.-Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., Dollár, P., & Zitnick, C. L. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10602-1_48 · Cited by 45,460
Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection
Lin, T.-Y., Goyal, P., Girshick, R., He, K., & Dollar, P. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.324 · Cited by 30,581
Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
(1993) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.1993 · Cited by 17,989
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision
(1995) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.1995.466933 · Cited by 13,117
Vision meets robotics: The KITTI dataset
Geiger, A., Lenz, P., Stiller, C., & Urtasun, R. (2013) · The International Journal of Robotics Research · doi:10.1177/0278364913491297 · Cited by 9,913
EfficientDet: Scalable and Efficient Object Detection
Tan, M., Pang, R., & Le, Q. V. (2019) · arXiv · Cited by 9,841
Cascade R-CNN: Delving Into High Quality Object Detection
Cai, Z., & Vasconcelos, N. (2018) · 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2018.00644 · Cited by 7,370
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–500 of 541
Chest X-Ray Annotation Optimisation Model Using Weighted Boxes Fusion
Bersamin, K. V., Shitan, K. J., Raper, J. J. B., & Adlaon, K. M. M. (2023) · International Conference on Digital Medicine and Image Processing (DMIP) · doi:10.1145/3637684.3637711
Hierarchical Competition Learning for Pairwise Wheel Grounding Points Estimation
Zhang, Y., & Yuan, Z. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2024.3401245
Oilfield Staff Workwear Detection and Monitoring System
Guo, Y., Zhang, Z., Liu, Y., & Wang, S. (2024) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-2144-3_27
Human Age Recognition Method Based on Facial Images Using an Ensemble of Neural Network Classifiers
Karapetyan, A., Fedorov, E., Мірошкіна, І., Palahina, E., & Nesterenko, A. (2024) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-71804-5_10
Ensemble-Based Image Annotation for Real-Time Human Detection
Filonenko, A., Popov, I. Y., & Jo, K.-H. (2024) · International Workshop on Intelligent Systems (IWIS) · doi:10.1109/iwis62722.2024.10706054
Li, Q., Li, K. Y., Nicoletti, C., Tsui, S. K., Puri, P., Cao, Q., & Yip, K. Y.-L. (2026) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202524180
Decentralized Perception System with Multiple Viewpoints
Picard, Q., Morice, M., Fadili, M., & Pechberti, S. (2025) · SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · doi:10.4271/2025-01-8097
Intracranial Steno-Occlusive Lesion Detection on Magnetic Resonance Angiography Images
Jia, Z., Ye, C., Zhao, Y., Chen, J., Ouyang, J., & Ma, X. (2024) · International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Technology (ICBBT) · doi:10.1145/3674658.3674682
Simplified Real-time Categorized Vehicle Counting and Speed Estimation
Fernandez, I. C. B., Magpantay, P. C., Rosales, M. D., & Hizon, J. R. E. (2024) · International SoC Design Conference · doi:10.1109/isocc62682.2024.10762299
Ensembling YOLO and ViT for Plant Disease Detection
Misra, D., Goel, S., & Sandhan, T. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78305-0_6
Sun, C., Chen, C., Yao, W., & Wu, L. (2024) · International Conference on Electronic Information Engineering and Computer Science (EIECS) · doi:10.1109/eiecs63941.2024.10800418
Tian, Y., Chen, L., Lü, H., Zhao, Z., & Chen, F. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm62325.2024.10822718
An Ensemble-Based Approach for Object Detection Models and Its Application in E-commerce
Bhoir, S. V., Chavan, S. S., Chavan, S. S., & Anand, A. (2025) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8096-9_19
Detect Fire Using Weighted Box Fusion Algorithm
Ma, Y., Yang, W., Wei, K., Fleming, L. T., Ball, A. D., & Cattley, R. (2024) · International Conference on Computer Technology and Development · doi:10.1109/techdev64369.2024.00017
Exploring Source-Free X-Ray-Prohibited Item Detection With an Assistant–Teacher Network
Jia, W., Jia, T., Ma, B., Huang, C., Tian, Y., Wang, H., & Chen, D. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · doi:10.1109/tim.2025.3544749
OLN++: Improved Object Localization Network for Open-world Object Detection
Mai, H., Huang, L., An, Z., Zhao, J., Yang, C., Zhao, E., & Xu, Y. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10889938
Differential Evolution Integrated Hybrid Deep Learning Model for Object Detection in Pre-made Dishes
Lv, L., Wu, D., Xia, Y., Wu, J., Liu, X., & Yi, H. (2024) · IEEE ... International Conference on Data Mining workshops · doi:10.1109/icdmw65004.2024.00012
Pan, J., Su, H., Li, W., & Li, Y. (2025) · International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management (ICCREM) · doi:10.1061/9780784485910.080
Peng, Y., Shi, J., Niu, J., Shi, M., Yan, L., Chen, Z., Li, Y., & Cao, D. (2025) · IEEE Information Technology and Mechatronics Engineering Conference (ITOEC) · doi:10.1109/itoec63606.2025.10968844
Enhancing Multi-modal Object Detection with Data Augmentation, Focal Loss, and Model Ensembling
Wu, J., Chao, Y., & Liu, J. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88217-3_21
MGPDF: A Multi-modal Gaussian Process Decision-Level Fusion Model for Parkinson's Disease Prediction
Shen, K., Zhang, X., Liu, Y., Yang, Y. Z., & Zhao, X. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-8173-0_35
Fathallah, W., Mzoughi, H., Selmi, S., Souid, A., & Sakli, H. (2025) · International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC) · doi:10.1109/iwcmc65282.2025.11059573
A VVBP data-based pancreatic lesion detection model with noncontrast CT
Wang, W., Zhou, C., Chen, X., Tang, G., Ma, J., Gao, Y., & Li, S. (2025) · Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2025.102601
Self-citationA Fusion-Based Deep Learning Approach for Enhanced Polyp Detection in Medical Imaging
Hieu, T. N. S., Do, N.-T., & Nguyen, Q.-H. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98164-7_1
Agossou, B. E., Pedersen, M., Vats, A., & Raja, K. B. (2025) · Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/icip55913.2025.11084329
Intelligent Detection of Sports Fields Based on Very High-Resolution Stereo Satellite Imagery
Shang, D., Zhang, Y., Dai, C., & Zhang, L. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2025.3600107
Minh, T. H., Bao, L. L., Thuan, P. N., Tien, T. N., Phong, H. N., Do, T., Le, D.-D., & Ngo, T. D. (2025) · International Conference on Multimedia Analysis and Pattern Recognition (MAPR) · doi:10.1109/mapr67746.2025.11133808
Bulatović, I., Wang, G., & Wang, H. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR) · doi:10.1109/rcar65431.2025.11139462
Selective Forgetting in Document Images Using Enhanced Ensembles
Mashhood, M., Moetesum, M., Faisal Shafait, B., & Ul-Hasan, A. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-04617-8_5
An Enhanced YOLO Framework for Small Object Detection in Complex Agricultural EnvironmentsPreprint
Yang, Z., & Xiang, H. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7281061/v1
Yang, L., & Liu, J. (2025) · Journal of Stored Products Research · doi:10.1016/j.jspr.2025.102823
A Computer Vision-Based System for Medications Recognition in Inventory Management
Montaño, E., Leon, D., Hernández, G., Figueroa–García, J. C., & Sandoval, J. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-08206-0_12
Clavero, C., Patricio, M. A., Garcı́a, J., & Molina, J. M. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.130003
Diversity-Informed Fusion for Sclerotinia Sclerotiorum and White Mold Detection
Pereira, R. D. C., Borges, D. L., Lobo, M., Torres, R. D. S., & Pedrini, H. (2025) · SIBGRAPI Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images (SIBGRAPI) · doi:10.1109/sibgrapi67909.2025.11223383
Menghao, 杨. Y., Deqi, 蒋. J., Jiaxin, 王. W., & Xueyi, 叶. Y. (2025) · Laser & Optoelectronics Progress · doi:10.3788/lop250948
Sheng, H., Ma, L., Samson, J.-F., & Liu, D. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26721438
Self-Rectification Faster R-CNN: Enhancing Object Detection in Complex-Background Aerial Images
Zhang, Y., Feng, Y., & Shang, Y. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI) · doi:10.1109/iri66576.2025.00044
DBT-WBF: A Weighted Boxes Fusion Model for Improving Breast Cancer Detection in DBT
Li, P., Li, X., & Shi, P. (2025) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-7273-8_23
Siemann, L. A., Dawkins, M., Garcia, L. M., Crall, J., & O'Hara, T. E. (2025) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2025.103577
PACGNet: Pyramidal Adaptive Cross-Gating for Multimodal DetectionPreprint
Gu, Z., & Tian, S. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5956897
Islam, M. S., Anik, M. A., Wasi, A. T., & Bappy, M. M. (2026) · IISE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering · doi:10.1080/24725579.2025.2598578
Wong, Y. J., Tan, J. J., Tham, M., Kwan, B.-H., & Hum, Y. C. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Image Processing Workshops (ICIPW) · doi:10.1109/icipw68931.2025.11386287
A method for small object detection in road scenes based on decision-level fusion
Zhuang, X. (2026) · Engineering Research Express · doi:10.1088/2631-8695/ae47a3
Steller Sea Lion Counting Across Multiple Aerial Cameras
Dawkins, M., Crall, J., Sweeney, K., Birkemeier, B., Siekierski, N., & Du, D. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw69036.2025.00227
Computer Vision (Image): Theoretical Part
Xu, K. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-3446-3_6
One-stem-one-box: A consistency-driven framework for grapevine primary stem detection
Fang, Z., Zhang, Q., Tao, Y., Liu, Y., & Yang, X. (2026) · Results in Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2026.109747
Robust Thermal Image Object Detection Via Appearance-Guided Mixture of Experts
Aakerberg, A., Nasrollahi, K., & Moeslund, T. B. (2026) · IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW) · doi:10.1109/wacvw68408.2026.00014
Temporal-Consistent Pseudo-Label Learning for Domain Adaptive Object Detection
Chen, F., Li, J., & Liu, Z. (2025) · International Conference on Algorithms, Computing and Artificial Intelligence (ACAI) · doi:10.1109/acai68217.2025.11406524
Lee, H. W., & Byun, J. (2026) · Korean Journal of Applied Statistics · doi:10.5351/kjas.2026.39.1.065
Liu, H., Fu, Q., Wang, H., Zhou, H., Li, Y., & Jiang, H. (2026) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s26061786
Adaptive Fusion of Attention-Enhanced Models for Robust Deep Space Object Detection
He, Z., & Li, R. S. (2025) · International Conference on Computers and Artificial Intelligence Technology (CAIT) · doi:10.1109/cait68620.2025.11424885
Comprehensive Evaluation of Deep Learning-Based Oral Lesion Detection Models in Clinical Photography
Lhazay, N., Wongsapai, M., Wongsawad, P., Ittichaicharoen, J., Pongsiriwet, S., Suebnukarn, S., Warin, K., Sakdapreecha, C., & Wuttisarnwattana, P. (2026) · International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology · doi:10.1109/kst67832.2026.11432213
LoFi: Location-Aware Fine-Grained Representation Learning for Chest X-Ray
Kang, M., Yang, Y., & Li, X. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-38059-3_26
Shi, P., Li, P., Chen, F., Guo, Q., Wu, X., & Zhong, J. (2026) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2026.113601
Ensemble Learning Using YOLO Models for Semiconductor E-Waste Recycling
Zhou, X., & Agaian, S. С. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17040322
Explainable hybrid AI CAD framework for advanced prediction of steel surface defects
Moon, C., Al–antari, M. A., & Gu, Y. H. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-34320-9 · Cited by 1
Tassan-Din, E., Gunessee, A., Vong, P., Marqué, C., Dolla, L., Picar, A. M., & Monstein, C. (2026) · Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate · doi:10.1051/swsc/2026014
SAHI-BAR: An Instance Segmentation Model for Medical Prescriptions
R., R. G., Siddesha, S., & Aradhya, V. N. M. (2026) · Engineering Technology & Applied Science Research · doi:10.48084/etasr.16418
Ensembles of Deep Neural Networks distributed and parallel for the energy industry
Pochelu, P. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/64704c18zbbf8z40b2za85eze4ab170af86a
Machine learning and convolutional networks for automated biological dosimetry
Deschemps, A. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/2991a347zbe9cz49dez8027z077ca0b3bbd2
Adversarial Dual Teacher Based Teacher-Student Transformer for Cross-Domain Object Detection
Wei, X., Liu, C., Zhao, C., Yang, F., Lu, Y., & Zhang, B. (2026) · International Symposium on Big Data and Applied Statistics (ISBDAS) · doi:10.1109/isbdas69350.2026.11484253
Evaluating VLM Reasoning and Localization for Floodwater Depth Estimation with Bounding Boxes
Rodríguez, A. J. A., Angulo-Campos, M. J., Morales, N. P., Acuña, K. G., Vargas, P. G., & Hernández, J. J. R. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on BioInspired Processing (BIP) · doi:10.1109/bip68491.2025.11489127
Analyzing the Ball Control Time of a Soccer Match Video Using Computer Vision
Ton-That, A. H., Tran-Lam, T. K., & Cao, N. T. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-07721-9_37
Defending Autonomous Driving Perception against Adversarial Object-Based Attacks via Motion Planning
Liu, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhu, Y., Su, L., Qiao, C., & Miao, C. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems · doi:10.1145/3774906.3800480
Toward Accurate and Explainable Detection of Bone Tumors in Radiographs
Hieu, T. N. S., Nguyen, Q.-H., & Do, N.-T. (2026) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-6111-7_36
Train Speed Estimation from Forward-Looking RGB-D Sequences via Trackside Feature Tracklets
Yi, Z. (2026) · International Conference on Communications, Information System and Computer Engineering (CISCE) · doi:10.1109/cisce69494.2026.11504983
Poullot, S., Geremia, E., Groza, V., Le, V.-K., Renoust, B., Brisset, J., Huet, B., Bourdès, V., Shen, J., & Lucidarme, O. (2026) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi61048.2026.11515921
Loureiro, G. S. M., Dias, A. M. P., & Silva, E. (2026) · Journal of Marine Science and Engineering · doi:10.3390/jmse14111048
Evaluation of Multi-Modal Object Detection and Fusion Strategies for Automatic Train Operation
Bozkaya, F., & Acarman, T. (2026) · International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (ICHORA) · doi:10.1109/ichora69329.2026.11537158
Yuan, Y., Liu, C., Feng, Q., Zhang, L., Yang, K., & Cheng, S. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-56315-w
A Training-Free Approach to Long-Tail Object Detection for Autonomous Driving
Lin, Y., Phan, Q., & Chen, W.-H. (2026) · International Conference on Information and Computer Technologies (ICICT) · doi:10.1145/3803291.3803339
Design Methodology and Performance Trade-offs Management for Distributed and Compound AI Systems
Gravara, M., Stanisic, A., & Nastic, S. (2026) · IEEE ... International Conference on Cloud Computing · doi:10.1109/cloud72782.2026.00049
Pearl, B. D., Warner, J. G., & Lee, H. W. (2026) · Journal of Aerospace Information Systems · doi:10.2514/1.i011883
On-edge artificial intelligence technique for road pavement distress detection
Petrongolo, F., Profumo, D., Fiorella, L., Artuso, F., Kanka, S., D’Alessandro, F., Ascari, E., Fredianelli, L., & Licitra, G. (2026) · Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2026.102086
Fuzzy Logic-Based Hybrid Deep Learning System for Metal Surface Defect Detection
Şahin, E. B., & Ari, S. (2026) · Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.35377/saucis...1945069
Feature-Enhanced Semi-Supervised Infrared Small Target Detection via Cascaded Pseudo-Label Screening
Ma, T., Li, S. L., 苗锡奎, Zhang, H., Wang, Y., Ma, S., Feng, Q., & Chen, L. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2026.3707217
Wierzbicki, D., Karwowska, K., Karwowski, W., & Kovařík, V. (2026) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs18132166
Region-Guided Vehicle Detection in Traffic Surveillance at Intersection
Wang, X. F., An, C., Su, H., Zhou, W., Xia, J., & Lu, Z. (2026) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2026.3710544
Boosting Object Detection in Aerial Imagery with Ensemble YOLOv8 Models and Weighted Boxes Fusion
Patel, M. V., Soni, R. R., Patel, A. P., Rajyaguru, S. G., Mevawala, K. D., & Patel, J. B. (2025) · International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud) (I-SMAC) · doi:10.1109/i-smac65734.2025.11597826
Zhu, Y., Jin, T., & Sun, H. (2026) · Applied Research · doi:10.1002/appl.70136
End-To-End Framework for Real-Time Drone Detection and Alerting Using Lightweight Deep Learning
Aladaileh, O., AlDrrass, I., Shtaiwi, R., Obaisat, M., & Albarari, M. M. (2026) · Cognitive Models and Artificial Intelligence Conference (AICCONF) · doi:10.1109/aicconf69182.2026.11600671
Remote Sensing Techniques Shaping the Future of Wildfire Early Detection
Raza, M., Yin, X.-C., Abbas, T., Ahmad, I., Aslam, R. W., Tanveer, M. F., & Morimitsu, H. (2026) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.70094
Vision Model Scaling and Fusion for High-Precision UAV-Based Human Detection
Wang, S. (2026) · International Conference on Internet of Things, Automation and Artificial Intelligence (IoTAAI) · doi:10.1109/iotaai70471.2026.11607805
Kishore, T., Ramana, K. S., Mayee, M. K., Kumar, P. H., & Alluraiah, N. C. (2026) · Next research. · doi:10.1016/j.nexres.2026.102222
Enhancing building product inventory automation through a hybrid spatial-semantic modeling framework
Mi, S., Wu, X., Liu, S., Huang, Z., Wolf, C. D., El‐Assady, M., & Wu, P.-Y. (2026) · Developments in the Built Environment · doi:10.1016/j.dibe.2026.100992
Bouguessa, A., Bekki, I., Daoud, M. A., & Mostefaoui, S. A. M. (2026) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2026.115725
Automated defect detection for automotive paint surface using dual-modality imaging
Hu, S., Wang, Y., Kang, J., Guo, C., Li, W., Gao, Z., Li, Y., & Yu, X. (2026) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2026.115797
Lung Cancer Nodule Detection on Chest X-Ray Images Using YOLOv11
Bahana, B. B., & Gunawan, P. H. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Industry 4.0, Artificial Intelligence, and Communications Technology (IAICT) · doi:10.1109/iaict71158.2026.11620681
Reliability‐Guided RGB‐IR Fusion for UAV Traffic Detection
Gu, R., Wu, J., & Han, Y. (2026) · Electronics Letters · doi:10.1049/ell2.70683
YOLOv8-WBF: A New Approach for Human Motion and Pattern Recognition in Football Sports
Bera, T., Namtirtha, A., Sarkar, S., Maity, S., Nandy, S., & Banerjee, S. (2026) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-25176-3_14
VisionGuard: Synergistic Framework for Helmet Violation Detection
Nguyen, T.-H., Nguyen, T.-P., Dinh, G., Nguyen, L.-H., & Le, T.-N. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-2590-3_13
Automated Pineapple Fruit Detection and Counting System Using Machine Learning
Mejías–Hernández, D., Leitón-Jiménez, J., Chavarría-Zamora, L. A., & Barboza-Artavia, L. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29558-3_3
NECTAR: novel ensemble comb targeting & automated reporting
Yılmaz, E., & ALTINEL, A. B. (2026) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2026.116801
Wang, Y., Hu, Z., Peng, X., Sun, C., & Jia, Z. (2026) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs18152607
Uncertainty-Aware Model Predictive Control for Cooperative Driving
Srinivasan, V., & Redmill, K. (2026) · IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC) · doi:10.1109/vnc69225.2026.11629158
Improved Real-Time Object Detection Using a YOLOv8-Based Ensemble Framework
Vashistha, P., Kayal, M., & Das, B. (2026) · IEEE Global Symposium on Emerging and Communication Technologies (GSEACT) · doi:10.1109/gseact68539.2026.11620141
Boosting YOLOv5 Model Performance Without Architectural Modifications: A Systematic Approach
Nguyen, Q. H., Tran, D. M. P., Luong, P. T. A., Trinh, L. H., La, H. G., & Ha, A. D. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-23317-2_10
Zhao, J. Y., Chen, Y., Yu, D., 毕恒涛, Wang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2026.3722333
Li, L., Zelin, F., Chenyi, Y. A. N., Rongkun, L. I., Lu, J., & Yao, Q. Q. (2026) · Rice Science · doi:10.1016/j.rsci.2026.08.006
Li, Y., Zhang, H., Tang, H., Li, Z., Xu, T., & Ren, Z. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · doi:10.1109/tim.2026.3726189
Metadata
- Authors
- Solovyev, R., Wang, W., & Gabruseva, T.
- Affiliations
- Russian Academy of Sciences (RU)
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Cork University Hospital (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Solovyev, Roman
- Venue
- Image and Vision Computing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-03
- Volume
- 107
- Pages
- 104117
- ISSN
- 0262-8856 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3127743092
- Semantic Scholar
- 2765484bdd3e5d8674917efc98145daa1a71e9fa
- Cited by
- 543
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 108 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 130 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 36
- FWCI
- 30.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Image and Vision Computing (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Keywords
- object detection, model ensembling, confidence scores, 3D object detection, autonomous driving, Waymo Open Dataset
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
