CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 488Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques

YOLO9000: Better, Faster, Stronger

Open access
Redmon, Joseph, Farhadi, Ali·2016·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1612.08242arXiv 1612.08242
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We introduce YOLO9000, a state-of-the-art, real-time object detection system that can detect over 9000 object categories. First we propose various improvements to the YOLO detection method, both novel and drawn from prior work. The improved model, YOLOv2, is state-of-the-art on standard detection tasks like PASCAL VOC and COCO. At 67 FPS, YOLOv2 gets 76.8 mAP on VOC 2007. At 40 FPS, YOLOv2 gets 78.6 mAP, outperforming state-of-the-art methods like Faster RCNN with ResNet and SSD while still running significantly faster. Finally we propose a method to jointly train on object detection and classification. Using this method we train YOLO9000 simultaneously on the COCO detection dataset and the ImageNet classification dataset. Our joint training allows YOLO9000 to predict detections for object classes that don't have labelled detection data. We validate our approach on the ImageNet detection task. YOLO9000 gets 19.7 mAP on the ImageNet detection validation set despite only having detection data for 44 of the 200 classes. On the 156 classes not in COCO, YOLO9000 gets 16.0 mAP. But YOLO can detect more than just 200 classes; it predicts detections for more than 9000 different object categories. And it still runs in real-time.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1612.08242

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • YOLO v2 can detect objects for over 9000 categories.

    “YOLO (v2) is known as an immediate successor of YOLO (v1), utilized for detecting objects for around over 9000 categories [54].”

    From Object detection using YOLO: challenges, architectural successors, datasets and applications (2023) · cites this paper as [54]

    The Introduction identifies YOLOv2 as an improvement on the original YOLO detector, but attributes detection of over 9000 categories to YOLO9000. The Hierarchical classification section says YOLO9000 uses the base YOLOv2 architecture with additional joint training; it does not assign that category count to YOLOv2 itself. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • L2 loss is prevalent in early localization research.

    “L2 loss is prevalent in early research [16, 20, 51]”

    From Object Detection in 20 Years: A Survey (2023) · cites this paper as [51]

    The Direct location prediction section discusses bounding-box coordinates and training instability, but does not identify an L2 localization loss. Searches for “L2 loss” and “squared error loss” found no passage saying that L2 loss was prevalent in early research; the “Cluster SSE” entry in Table 1 concerns box-prior clustering, not localization loss. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • YOLOv1 and YOLOv2 employed MSE/L2 loss for classification.

    “which was not thoroughly investigated in prevIoUs work such as YOLOv1 [20] and YOLOv2 [51] employing MSE/L2 loss (Mean Squared Error).”

    From Object Detection in 20 Years: A Survey (2023) · cites this paper as [51]

    Section 4, “Stronger” (page unavailable), mentions the YOLOv2 loss function and classification-specific loss but does not identify it as MSE/L2. Searches for “mean squared error,” “L2 loss,” and “sum of squared error” found no passage establishing that either YOLOv1 or YOLOv2 used MSE/L2 loss for classification. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [3]3. M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, C. K. Williams, J. Winn, and A. Zisserman. The pascal visual object classes (voc) chal- lenge. International journal of computer vision, 88(2):303- 338, 2010. 1
  2. [8]8. A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1097-1105, 2012. 2
  3. [10]10. T.-Y. Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ra- manan, P. Dollár, and C. L. Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Com- mon objects in context. In European Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 740-755. Springer, 2014. 1, 6
  4. [16]16. O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. Bernstein, A. C. Berg, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), 2015. 2
  5. [20]20. B. Thomee, D. A. Shamma, G. Friedland, B. Elizalde, K. Ni, D. Poland, D. Borth, and L.-J. Li. Yfcc100m: The new data in multimedia research. Communications of the ACM, 59(2):64-73, 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Redmon, J., & Farhadi, A.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
ORCID
Farhadi, Ali
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1612.08242
arXiv
1612.08242
OpenAlex
W2951433694
Cited by
488
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 121 · 2017: 43
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • 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 › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Keywords
YOLOv2, object detection, real-time detection, COCO, detection speed

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.

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