CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 10,307Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

YOLOv4: Optimal Speed and Accuracy of Object Detection

Open access
Bochkovskiy, Alexey, Wang, Chien-Yao, Liao, Hong-Yuan Mark·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2004.10934arXiv 2004.10934
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

There are a huge number of features which are said to improve Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) accuracy. Practical testing of combinations of such features on large datasets, and theoretical justification of the result, is required. Some features operate on certain models exclusively and for certain problems exclusively, or only for small-scale datasets; while some features, such as batch-normalization and residual-connections, are applicable to the majority of models, tasks, and datasets. We assume that such universal features include Weighted-Residual-Connections (WRC), Cross-Stage-Partial-connections (CSP), Cross mini-Batch Normalization (CmBN), Self-adversarial-training (SAT) and Mish-activation. We use new features: WRC, CSP, CmBN, SAT, Mish activation, Mosaic data augmentation, CmBN, DropBlock regularization, and CIoU loss, and combine some of them to achieve state-of-the-art results: 43.5% AP (65.7% AP50) for the MS COCO dataset at a realtime speed of ~65 FPS on Tesla V100. Source code is at https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet

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.2004.10934

Cites

101 of 101 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 v4 is faster and more accurate than all previous YOLO versions.

    “This version is faster and more accurate than all the previous versions.”

    From Object detection using YOLO: challenges, architectural successors, datasets and applications (2023) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Introduction (p. 1) says YOLOv4 improves YOLOv3’s accuracy (AP) and speed (FPS) by 10% and 12%, respectively. The cited passages do not establish that it is faster and more accurate than every previous YOLO version. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The YOLO family, MobileNet and its derivative-based backbones, and EfficientNet-Lite backbones are very suitable for deployment with a lower number of parameters while retaining higher performance.

    “In general, the analyses show that the YOLO family [52,71,104,112] of network architectures and MobileNet and its derivative-based [40,53] and EfficientNet-Lite [56] backbones are very suitable for deployment with a lower number of parameters while retaining higher performance.”

    From A survey on deep learning-based monocular spacecraft pose estimation: Current state, limitations and prospects (2023) · cites this paper as [71]

    The Introduction (p. 1) and Results (p. 10) support the deployment and performance point for YOLOv4: it runs in real time on a conventional GPU and compares favorably with other detectors on speed and accuracy. They do not establish that it achieves this with a lower number of parameters; the architecture discussion (p. 5) instead says a detector may need more parameters. The MobileNet and EfficientNet-Lite portions have separate citations and are not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • When applied to YOLOv3 and YOLOv4 on COCO, the proposed quantization method maintains detection accuracy similar to the original 32-bit floating-point networks while expressing weights with only about 20% of the bits (approximately 80% weight parameter reduction), with a negligible decrease in mAP.

    “When applying the proposed quantization method to representative one-stage object detectors, You Only Look Once v3 and v4 (YOLOv3 and YOLOv4), detection accuracy similar to the original networks ( i.e. , YOLOv3 and YOLOv4) with a single-precision oating-point format (32-bit) is maintained despite expressing weights with only about 20% of the bits compared to a single-precision oating-point”

    From Zero-Centered Fixed-Point Quantization With Iterative Retraining for Deep Convolutional Neural Network-Based Object Detectors (2021) · cites this paper as [11]

    Section 3.4 (p. 7) identifies and describes YOLOv4, and section 4.1 (p. 7) reports MS COCO detection experiments. The paper does not report the proposed quantization method, a reduction to about 20% of the weight bits, or mAP after quantization; searches for those terms and 32-bit floating-point comparisons found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • YOLO v11 introduces significant improvements in architecture and training methods, making it a versatile choice for a wide range of computer vision tasks, especially in complex and dynamic environments like public transport vehicles.

    “The latest version introduces significant improvements in architecture and training methods, making it versatile choice for a wide range of computer vision tasks, especially in complex and dynamic environments like public transport vehicles [69,76].”

    From A Review of Passenger Counting in Public Transport Concepts with Solution Proposal Based on Image Processing and Machine Learning (2024) · cites this paper as [76]

    The paper describes architectural and training improvements to YOLOv4 (Selection of architecture, p. 5; YOLO v4 uses, p. 7), and says its detector's broad use is possible (Conclusions, p. 10). It does not establish those claims for YOLOv11 or discuss use in public transport vehicles. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Edge YOLO is more suitable for edge computing scenarios based on 5G for traffic safety monitoring and driving assistance.

    “Based on the latest object detection network YOLOV4 [19] in the YOLO series, the proposed Edge YOLO is more suitable for edge computing scenarios based on 5G for traffic safety monitoring and driving assistance.”

    From Edge YOLO: Real-Time Intelligent Object Detection System Based on Edge-Cloud Cooperation in Autonomous Vehicles (2022) · cites this paper as [19]

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: 7

  1. [16][16] Golnaz Ghiasi, Tsung-Yi Lin, and Quoc V Le. DropBlock: Aregularization method for convolutional networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) , pages 10727-10737, 2018. 3 -
  2. [18][18] Ross Girshick. Fast R-CNN. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 1440-1448, 2015. 2 -
  3. [20][20] Jianyuan Guo, Kai Han, Yunhe Wang, Chao Zhang, Zhaohui Yang, Han Wu, Xinghao Chen, and Chang Xu. HitDetector: Hierarchical trinity architecture search for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020. 2 -
  4. [23][23] Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Doll´ ar, and Ross Girshick. Mask R-CNN. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 2961-2969, 2017. 2 -
  5. [53][53] Ningning Ma, Xiangyu Zhang, Hai-Tao Zheng, and Jian Sun. ShuffleNetV2: Practical guidelines for efficient cnn architecture design. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 116-131, 2018. 2 -
  6. [54][54] Andrew L Maas, Awni Y Hannun, and Andrew Y Ng. Rectifier nonlinearities improve neural network acoustic models. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , volume 30, page 3, 2013. 4 -
  7. [55][55] Diganta Misra. Mish: A self regularized nonmonotonic neural activation function. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08681 , 2019. 4 - · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bochkovskiy, A., Wang, C.-Y., & Liao, H.-Y. M.
Affiliations
Academia Sinica (TW)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2004.10934
arXiv
2004.10934
OpenAlex
W3018757597
Cited by
10,307
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 251 · 2025: 1093 · 2024: 2124 · 2023: 2621 · 2022: 2229 · 2021: 1681 · 2020: 307 · 2019: 1
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 › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
YOLOv4, object detection, real-time detection, Mish activation function, Mosaic data augmentation, CIoU loss, dark web, MS COCO

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