Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
ICT Express xxx (xxxx) xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/icte

Combining transformer and CNN for object detection in UAV imagery

Willy Fitra Hendria, Quang Thinh Phan, Fikriansyah Adzaka, Cheol Jeong ∗
Department of Convergence Engineering for Intelligent Drone, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea
Received 17 September 2021; received in revised form 29 November 2021; accepted 17 December 2021
Available online xxxx

Abstract
Combining multiple models is a well-known technique to improve predictive performance in challenging tasks such as object detection
in UAV imagery. In this paper, we propose fusion of transformer-based and convolutional neural network-based (CNN) models with two
approaches. First, we ensemble Swin Transformer and DetectoRS with ResNet backbone, and conduct performance comparison on four
typical methods for combining predictions of multiple object detection models. Second, we design a hybrid architecture by combining Swin
Transformer backbone with a neck of DetectoRS. We show that the fusion of the transformer and the CNN-based models performs better
compared to the respective baseline model.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Korean Institute of Communications and Information Sciences. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Keywords: Convolutional neural network; Object detection; Transformer; UAV imagery

1. Introduction and hybrid techniques [11], to improve the overall predictive

Detecting objects in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) im-
agery is often difficult as the objects in UAV imagery usually
have a wide variety in scales, orientations, and densities. After
the convolutional neural network (CNN) [1] was introduced
for the object detection task, many researchers developed
CNN-based algorithms to detect objects in UAV imagery [2–
4]. Recently, transformer [5] which has been used widely
for many natural language processing (NLP) tasks, has also
attracted lots of research interest for object detection [6–8].
One main difference between a CNN-based model and
a transformer-based model is the size of the receptive field,
where the latter is better in capturing a long-distance pixel
relation due to the self-attention mechanism [9]. However, the
transformer does not have a good mechanism to capture spatial
information inside each patch, which means it can ignore an
important spatial local pattern, such as texture. This is not the
case with CNN as it recognizes objects based on the texture
instead of the shape [10]. In order to offset the weakness while
take the strength of each model, one of the popular approach is
to combine multiple machine learning models, i.e., ensemble
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: willyfitrahendria@sju.ac.kr (W.F. Hendria),
thinhphan@sju.ac.kr (Q.T. Phan), fadzaka@sju.ac.kr (F. Adzaka),
cheol.jeong@ieee.org (C. Jeong).
Peer review under responsibility of The Korean Institute of Communica-
tions and Information Sciences (KICS).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icte.2021.12.006
2405-9595/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Korean Institute of Communications and Information Sciences. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
performance.
In ensemble techniques, multiple models are trained, and
the prediction results are combined by an algorithm. How-
ever, hybrid techniques integrate multiple different machine
learning approaches wholly or partially, to build an improved
standalone model. Previous works on the VisDrone-DET Chal-
lenge [12–14] showed that ensemble and hybrid techniques
could improve the performance of object detection in UAV
imagery. Especially for the ensemble technique, the diversity
of models is a key factor that affects the performance of
ensembles [15]. Using the CNN-based and the transformer-
based models, both of which have different properties, can be
a good combination for applying ensemble learning. Likewise,
integrating the state-of-the-art techniques of the two models
can be a good combination for building a hybrid model.
In this paper, to investigate the effect of combining trans-
former and CNN model, we select one of the state-of-the-art
transformer-based models, Swin Transformer [16], and one of
the state-of-the-art CNN-based models, DetectoRS [17]. We
then fuse both models with two approaches, i.e., ensemble and
hybrid techniques. We evaluate our experiments on the test-
dev set of VisDrone-DET2021. In summary, our contributions
are as follows. (1) We propose an ensemble model of Swin
Transformer and DetectoRS to perform object detection in
UAV imagery by exploiting the diversity of the transformer-
based and the CNN-based models. (2) We design a hybrid

Please cite this article as: W.F. Hendria, Q.T. Phan, F. Adzaka et al., Combining transformer and CNN for object detection in UAV imagery, ICT Express (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icte.2021.12.006.
W.F. Hendria, Q.T. Phan, F. Adzaka et al.
architecture by combining Swin Transformer backbone with
a neck of DetectoRS, i.e., recursive feature pyramid (RFP),
to take advantage of both algorithms. (3) We conduct per-
formance comparison for our proposed models to provide
reference for future research. To the best of our knowledge,
this is the first time that the fusion of these two state-of-the-
art models is explored for object detection in UAV imagery.
In UAV imagery, the experimental results showed that our
proposed models outperform the baseline models which use
either Swin Transformer or DetectoRS, and our ensemble
model also outperforms the previous winning team of the
VisDrone-DET2020 Challenge, i.e., DroneEye2020.
2. Related work
2.1. Ensemble learning for object detection
Ensemble learning combines predictions produced by mul-
tiple models that run independently of each other. In object
detection for UAV-specific data, SyNet [18] combines a multi-
stage detector and a single-stage detector, and makes a predic-
tion by combining the individual predictions of each algorithm
through a fusion stage.
In this paper, we ensemble two state-of-the-art transformer-
based and CNN-based models, Swin Transformer and Detec-
toRs, using four different methods which are typically used
for combining predictions of multiple object detection models,
i.e., non-maximum suppression (NMS) [19], soft-NMS [20],
non-maximum weighted (NMW) [21], and weighted boxes
fusion (WBF) [22]
2.2. Hybrid method for object detection
Different from ensemble learning, a hybrid method com-
bines several completely different models to build a new
standalone model. In object detection for UAV-specific data,
FSHNN [23] combines unsupervised Spike Time-Dependent
Plasticity (STDP) learning with backpropagation (STBP)
learning methods and also uses Monte Carlo Dropout to get
an estimate of the uncertainty error.
In this paper, we design a hybrid architecture based on
two state-of-the-art transformer-based and CNN-based mod-
els, Swin Transformer backbone with a neck of DetectoRs,
i.e., RFP, which is termed as Swin-RFP.
3. Method
3.1. Ensemble model
Two variants of Swin Transformer, i.e., Swin-B and Swin-
L, and DetectoRS with ResNet-50 [24] backbone, are adopted
for our ensemble model experiments. Swin Transformer uses
the self-attention technique within local windows, whose rep-
resentation is computed with shifted windows. In addition,
Swin Transformer has hierarchical feature maps by succes-
sively merging from small patches as the network depth in-
creased. On the other hand, inspired by the mechanism of
looking and thinking twice, DetectoRS uses the RFP and
2
ICT Express xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 1. The block diagram of our ensemble experiment.
Table 1
Hyperparameters of Swin-B and Swin-L variants. The symbol C denotes
the channel number of the hidden layers in the first stage and W denotes
the window size. The number of layers and the number of attention heads
are given for four stages of the Swin Transformer architecture.
Model C W # layers # attention heads
Swin-B 128 12 2, 2, 18, 2 4, 8, 16, 32
Swin-L 192 12 2, 2, 18, 2 6, 12, 24, 48
switchable atrous convolution (SAC). The RFP adds additional
feedback connections to bring back the output of the FPN to
each stage of the backbone. The SAC convolves the features
with some different atrous rates. To connect the output of
RFP to the backbone, DetectoRS uses atrous spatial pyramid
pooling (ASPP) [25], which consists of four parallel branches
of convolutional layers.
We train each single model using identical training data,
and then ensemble the prediction results of the trained models
with four different ensemble combinations of the three models,
as shown in Fig. 1. Extensive experiments are conducted to
evaluate the performance of our ensemble model by applying
four typical methods for combining predictions of multiple
object detection models, i.e., the NMS, the Soft-NMS, the
NMW, and the WBF. The hyperparameters of each method
are selected carefully through experiments. The architecture
hyperparameters of these Swin Transformer variants, that were
used for this experiment, are shown in Table 1. For the
ASPP in the DetectoRS, we used the following configurations:
Kernel size = [1, 3, 3, 1], atrous rate = [1, 3, 6, 1], and padding
= [0, 3, 6, 0].
3.2. Hybrid model
Our proposed hybrid model consists of the Swin Trans-
former backbone with a neck of DetectoRS, i.e., RFP, as
illustrated in Fig. 2 on the next page. The RFP was proposed as
the improvement of the FPN neck, which can look recursively
at the images to generate more powerful representations. The
Swin Transformer backbone was proven to outperform signif-
icantly the existing backbone models, including ResNet-50,
by extracting the powerful representation of the transformer
hierarchically. Integrating these two best mechanisms in each
structure into a hybrid model can result in better performance.
Concretely, we add feedback connections from the top-down
RFP neck to the bottom-up Swin Transformer backbone. The
W.F. Hendria, Q.T. Phan, F. Adzaka et al.
Fig. 2. Our proposed Swin-RFP architecture.
Fig. 3. Connection of Swin Transformer and RFP for each stage.
output of Swin Transformer at each stage is computed based
on the output of Swin Transformer at the previous stage and
the output of the RFP neck at the corresponding stage. Follow-
ing the original DetectoRS, there is no feedback connection
from the neck to the first stage of the backbone. The input
to the first stage of Swin Transformer is only the image
patches after partitioning the input image as required by Swin
Transformer. The number of loop iterations through the RFP,
is a hyperparameter to be specified.
We modify the forward function of the Swin Transformer
backbone to accept both the bottom-up features and the top-
down features as the input. In Swin Transformer, the bottom-
up features are first transformed by a Patch Merging module
to merge the neighboring image patches. We convolve the
RFP features with 1 × 1 convolution layer to transform the
channel dimension to the same dimension as the output of the
Swin Transformer block. The final output of each stage is a
channel dimension concatenation between the output of the
Swin Transformer block with the convolved feature of RFP,
as illustrated in Fig. 3. Please refer to [16] for further details
on Swin Transformer.
4. Experiments and results
For training our models, we use the MMDetection tool-
box on Ubuntu 20.04 LTS OS with Python 3.7 and Pytorch
1.7 environment. The VisDrone-DET2021 toolkit on MAT-
LAB environment is used to evaluate the performance of
the models. Our models are trained in a computer with 2×
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU and 3.70 GHz Intel®
Core™ i9-10900K CPU.
4.1. Datasets
The dataset of VisDrone-DET2021 is the same dataset
which was used in the previous years of the VisDrone-DET
Challenge. The dataset is split into 6471, 548, 1580 images
for train, val, and test-dev sets, respectively. The images are
captured by different drone platforms across 14 different cities
3
ICT Express xxx (xxxx) xxx
and under various conditions. Each bounding box is annotated
with a label from ten object categories, i.e., Person, Pedestrian
(standing or walking person), Car, Van, Bus, Truck, Motor,
Bicycle, Awning-tricycle, and Tricycle.
4.2. Data augmentation
Offline augmentation. For training three single models of
Swin-B, Swin-L, and DetectoRS, we increase the amount of
the dataset by applying this offline augmentation. We resize all
6471 images in the train set to (3200, 2100) scale and split the
images into four (1600, 1050) sub-images. On each sub-image,
we apply horizontal flip augmentation. Our new train set after
applying this augmentation has 51,768 images in total. There
are 48,016 images which have at least one bounding box, with
767,648 bounding boxes in total.
Online augmentation. Instead of the offline augmentation,
we apply this online augmentation for the experiment of
hybrid model. Random horizontal flip with probability of 0.5
is applied during the training process. We then resize the
images into multiple scales with the aspect ratio around 16:9,
i.e., (1920, 1080), (2220, 1305), (2520, 1474), (2820, 1642),
(3120, 1755), (3420, 1924), and (3720, 2092).
Test-time Augmentation. For all of the experiments in this
paper, we use the test-time augmentation (TTA) to apply the
multiscale augmentation in the test set during testing time.
Different TTA configurations are used for the offline and the
online augmentation models. The offline augmentation models
use 7 different scales with 32:21 aspect ratio, i.e., (3000,
1969), (3200, 2100), (3400, 2231), (3600, 2362), (3800, 2494),
(4000, 2625), and (4200, 2756). The online augmentation
models use TTA with 5 different scales with the aspect ratio
around 16:9, i.e., (2520, 1474), (2820, 1642), (3120, 1755),
(3420, 1924), and (3720, 2092).
4.3. Models
For all of the single models, we adopt the Cascade R-CNN
head, and use the Soft-NMS algorithm to filter the bounding
boxes. We set the maximum number of bounding boxes to
500 and the confidence score threshold to 0. Besides, we use
the pretrained models on ImageNet [26] and the MS COCO
dataset [27] for Swin Transformer and DetectoRS, respec-
tively. For the optimization algorithm, we use the adaptive
moment estimation (Adam) for Swin Transformer, and the
stochastic gradient descent (SGD) for DetectoRS.
Swin-B and Swin-L. For these two models, we use a
pretrained model on the ImageNet dataset with (384, 384)
resolution. The initial learning rate of Adam is set to 0.0001
with 0.05 weight decay. This learning rate is then reduced to
0.00001 and 0.000001 at the 8th epoch and the 11th epoch,
respectively. The best model which has the highest average
precision (AP) during the training epochs is selected.
DetectoRS. A pretrained model of DetectoRS with ResNet-
50 and Cascade R-CNN on the MS COCO dataset, is used for
the training. For the RFP, we set the number of iteration to 2.
Besides, we set the initial learning rate of SGD to 0.02 with
W.F. Hendria, Q.T. Phan, F. Adzaka et al. ICT Express xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Ensemble performance of Swin-B and DetectoRS on four typical methods for combining predictions of multiple object
detection models.
Method AP[%] AP50[%] AP75[%] AR1[%] AR10[%] AR100[%] AR500[%]
NMS 35.84 61.15 36.94 1.54 12.95 44.3 53.91
WBF 35.41 59.18 36.65 1.41 12.78 45.93 54.81
Soft-NMS 34.86 59.84 35.84 1.54 12.87 43.4 52.51
NMW 37.54 61.97 39.16 1.57 13.32 46.19 55.42

Table 3
Performance of ensemble combinations using the NMW, each single model, and DroneEye2020 on the test-dev set. We provide the comparison
with the DroneEye2020 only because the performance of the other conventional algorithms in the VisDrone Challenge was published based on the
test-challenge set only, which is a private dataset for the challenge [14]. However, we could retrieve the performance of DroneEye2020 from the
VisDrone-DET2020 Winner Talk’s presentation [29].
Model AP[%] AP50[%] AP75[%] AR1[%] AR10[%] AR100[%] AR500[%]
DroneEye2020 (Baseline) 37.33 62.33 38.94 0.41 2.37 8.69 56.09
Swin-B 34.88 60.04 35.78 1.54 12.8 42.85 53.77
Swin-L 35.32 60.83 36.34 1.22 12.5 43.94 54.3
DetectoRS 32.67 57.05 33.22 1.38 11.52 41.48 51.92
Swin-B + Swin-L 37.33 62.33 38.89 1.56 13.29 46.29 54.90
Swin-B + DetectoRS 37.54 61.97 39.16 1.57 13.32 46.19 55.42
Swin-L + DetectoRS 37.48 62.05 39.09 1.36 12.64 46.64 55.56
Swin-B + Swin-L + DetectoRS 38.06 62.55 39.84 1.57 13.37 46.98 56.37
Swin-B + Swin-L + DetectoRS (with the val set) 38.30 63.29 39.89 1.42 12.87 47.11 56.43

weight decay 0.0001. The learning rate is reduced to 0.002
and 0.0002 at the 8th epoch and the 11th epoch, respectively.
Similarly, we also select the best model during the training
epochs based on the AP metric.
Swin-RFP. The Swin-L variant, which is pretrained on
ImageNet, is used for this hybrid model. The initial learning
rate is set to 0.0001, then it is decayed by 0.1 at the 27th and
the 33rd epoch. The reported result of this model is based on
the model trained at the 50th epoch. We also use these settings
for the baseline of this hybrid model, which is the original
Swin Transformer with feature pyramid networks (FPN) [28]
neck.
4.4. Quantitative results
In this subsection, we will show the performance of our
ensemble and hybrid model using Average Precision (AP) and
Average Recall (AR) evaluation metrics. Through experiments,
the Intersection over Union (IoU) thresholds of 0.7, 0.6, 0.65,
0.6 are selected carefully for the NMS, the Soft-NMS, the
NMW, and the WBF, respectively. Besides, the parameter that
controls the weighting of the confidence score reduction in
the Soft-NMS was carefully selected as 0.0008. As shown
in Table 2, we evaluate the ensemble performance of Swin-
B and DetectoRS on four typical methods for combining
predictions of multiple object detection models. We found that
the NMW method achieved the best performance compared
to the other methods for ensembling bounding boxes on this
VisDrone-DET2021 dataset.
Using the NMW method, it is shown that the ensemble of
two different models performs better than each single model
in AP metric as reported in Table 3. We can see that the
ensemble of Swin-B and DetectoRS achieves the best AP
4
performance among the ensembles of two different models.
Although Swin-B and Swin-L are the two single models with
the highest AP, the ensemble performance of these two models
is still lower than the ensemble performance of Swin-B/Swin-
L and DetectoRS on the AP metric. This can be because
the ensemble of Swin Transformer and DetectoRS has higher
diversity, which is a key factor to have a good ensemble model.
In order to further improve the performance, we ensemble
Swin-B, Swin-L, and DetectoRS, and also include the vali-
dation set for training models. Overall, our ensemble model
of Swin Transformer and DetectoRS achieves better results on
all evaluation metrics compared to the previous winning team
(DroneEye2020).
We also evaluate our hybrid model of Swin Transformer
backbone with RFP neck. As reported in Table 4 on the next
page, the performance of this hybrid model is also better than
the baseline model in all AP metrics. These results suggest
that our hybrid model has more accurate predictions than the
baseline model.
4.5. Qualitative results
Our ensemble and hybrid model are able to detect dif-
ficult objects, i.e., small, dense, and overlapped objects, as
shown in Fig. 4. Our models can detect most of the objects
defined on the ground truth correctly. Besides, our models
can also detect objects on various conditions, i.e., different
backgrounds, different scales, different lighting environments,
and different angles of view. However, when there are not
many objects on the ground truth as shown in Fig. 5, our
models incorrectly predict the bounding boxes with many false
positive predictions. Nevertheless, one can see that the two
objects defined on the ground truth are able to be detected by
W.F. Hendria, Q.T. Phan, F. Adzaka et al.
Table 4
Performance of our hybrid model compared to the baseline on the test-dev set. The Swin-L variant is used for these models.
Method AP[%] AP50[%]
Swin Transformer (Baseline) 34.23 58.58
Swin-RFP 34.49 59.00
Fig. 4. The best qualitative results on the test-dev set of (a) our ensemble
(Swin-B + DetectoRS) and (b) hybrid model, and (c) the corresponding
ground truth.
Fig. 5. The worst qualitative results on the test-dev set of (a) our ensemble
(Swin-B + DetectoRS) and (b) hybrid model, and (c) the corresponding
ground truth.
both of our ensemble and hybrid model. Albeit our proposed
models can achieve a quite good performance on detecting
many difficult objects, there are still rooms for improvement.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we proposed fusion of transformer-based
and CNN-based models for object detection in UAV imagery
with two approaches, i.e., ensemble and hybrid techniques.
To this end, we ensembled Swin Transformer and Detec-
toRS with the ResNet-50 backbone, and also integrated the
Swin Transformer backbone with the RFP neck of DetectoRS.
By combining these two different models, our experiments
showed that our proposed ensemble and hybrid model outper-
formed the respective baseline models. We also showed that
the NMW method achieved the best performance compared
to the other methods for combining predictions. Finally, the
qualitative results were shown to demonstrate the detection
results of our proposed models. We showed that our models
were able to detect challenging objects on various conditions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Willy Fitra Hendria: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Software, Writing – original draft. Quang Thinh Phan: Soft-
ware, Writing – review & editing. Fikriansyah Adzaka: Soft-
ware, Writing – review & editing. Cheol Jeong: Supervision,
Writing – review & editing.
ICT Express xxx (xxxx) xxx
AP75[%] AR1[%] AR10[%] AR100[%] AR500[%]
35.25 1.18 11.2 43.31 54.16
35.4 1.02 10.99 43.67 54.30
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by Institute of Information &
communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP)
grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2021-0-
02067).
References
[1] R. Girshick, et al., Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object
detection and semantic segmentation, in: 2014 IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2014, pp. 580–587.
[2] C. Kyrkou, et al., DroNet: Efficient convolutional neural network
detector for real-time UAV applications, in: 2018 Design, Automation,
and Test in Europe Conference Exhibition, DATE, 2018, pp. 967–972.
[3] G. Plastiras, C. Kyrkou, T. Theocharides, Efficient ConvNet-based
object detection for unmanned aerial vehicles by selective tile process-
ing, in: 12th International Conference on Distributed Smart Cameras,
ICDCS, 2018, pp. 3:1–3:6.
[4] B. Kellenberger, M. Volpi, D. Tuia, Fast animal detection in UAV
images using convolutional neural networks, in: 2017 IEEE Interna-
tional Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, IGARSS, 2017,
pp. 866–869.
[5] A. Vaswani, et al., Attention is all you need, in: 2017 Advances in
Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS, 2017, pp. 6000–6010.
[6] N. Carion, et al., End-to-end object detection with transformers, in:
2020 European Conference on Computer Vision, ECCV, 2020, pp.
213–229.
[7] X. Dai, et al., Dynamic head: Unifying object detection heads with
attentions, in: 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2021, pp. 7373–7382.
[8] J. Yang, et al., Focal self-attention for local-global interactions in vi-
sion transformers, in: 2021 Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems, NeurIPS, 2021.
[9] D. Bahdanau, K. Cho, Y. Bengio, Neural machine translation by jointly
learning to align and translate, in: 2015 International Conference on
Learning Representations, ICLR, 2015.
[10] R. Geirhos, et al., ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture;
increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness, in: 2019
International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR, 2019.
[11] S. Ardabili, et al., Advances in machine learning modeling review-
ing hybrid and ensemble methods, in: A.R. Várkonyi-Kóczy (Ed.),
Engineering for Sustainable Future, Springer International Publishing,
Cham, 2020, pp. 215–227.
[12] P. Zhu, et al., VisDrone-DET2018: The vision meets drone object
detection in image challenge results, in: 2018 European Conference
on Computer Vision, ECCV Workshops, 2018, pp. 437–468.
[13] D. Du, et al., VisDrone-DET2019: The vision meets drone object
detection in image challenge results, in: 2019 IEEE/CVF Interna-
tional Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV Workshops, 2019, pp.
213–226.
[14] D. Du, et al., VisDrone-DET2020: The vision meets drone object
detection in image challenge results, in: 2020 European Conference
on Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops, 2020, pp. 692–712.
5
W.F. Hendria, Q.T. Phan, F. Adzaka et al.
[15] A. Chandra, H. Chen, X. Yao, Trade-off between diversity and accu-
racy in ensemble generation, in: Multi-Objective Machine Learning,
2006, pp. 429–464.
[16] Z. Liu, et al., Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using
shifted windows, in: 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on
Computer Vision, ICCV, 2021, pp. 10012–100022.
[17] S. Qiao, et al., DetectoRS: Detecting objects with recursive feature
pyramid and switchable atrous convolution, in: 2021 IEEE/CVF
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR,
2021, pp. 10213–10224.
[18] B.M. Albaba, S. Ozer, SyNet: An ensemble network for object
detection in UAV images, in: 25th International Conference on Pattern
Recognition, ICPR, 2020, pp. 10227–10234.
[19] A. Neubeck, L. Van Gool, Efficient non-maximum suppression, in:
18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, ICPR, 2006,
pp. 850–855.
[20] N. Bodla, et al., Soft-NMS — Improving object detection with one
line of code, in: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer
Vision, ICCV, 2017, pp. 5562–5570.
[21] H. Zhou, et al., CAD: Scale invariant framework for real-time object
detection, in: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision,
ICCV Workshops, 2017, pp. 760–768.
ICT Express xxx (xxxx) xxx
[22] R. Solovyev, W. Wang, T. Gabruseva, Weighted boxes fusion: En-
sembling boxes from different object detection models, Image Vis.
Comput. 107 (2021) 104117.
[23] B. Chakraborty, et al., A fully spiking hybrid neural network for
energy-efficient object detection, IEEE Trans. Image Process. 30
(2021) 9014–9029.
[24] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun, Deep residual learning for image
recognition, in: 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2016, pp. 770–778.
[25] L.-C. Chen, et al., Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep
convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected CRFs,
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 40 (4) (2018) 834–848.
[26] J. Deng, et al., ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,
in: 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, CVPR, 2009, pp. 248–255.
[27] T.-Y. Lin, et al., Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context, in:
2014 European Conference on Computer Vision, ECCV, 2014, pp.
740–755.
[28] T.-Y. Lin, et al., Feature pyramid networks for object detection, in:
2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
CVPR, 2017, pp. 936–944.
[29] S. Moon, et al., VisDrone 2020 winner talk - Detection, 2020.