Oriented Bounding Boxes for Small and Freely Rotated Objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel object detection method is presented that handles freely rotated objects of arbitrary sizes, including tiny objects as small as $2\times 2$ pixels. Such tiny objects appear frequently in remotely sensed images, and present a challenge to recent object detection algorithms. More importantly, current object detection methods have been designed originally to accommodate axis-aligned bounding box detection, and therefore fail to accurately localize oriented boxes that best describe freely rotated objects. In contrast, the proposed CNN-based approach uses potential pixel information at multiple scale levels without the need for any external resources, such as anchor boxes.The method encodes the precise location and orientation of features of the target objects at grid cell locations. Unlike existing methods which regress the bounding box location and dimension,the proposed method learns all the required information by classification, which has the added benefit of enabling oriented bounding box detection without any extra computation. It thus infers the bounding boxes only at inference time by finding the minimum surrounding box for every set of the same predicted class labels. Moreover, a rotation-invariant feature representation is applied to each scale, which imposes a regularization constraint to enforce covering the 360 degree range of in-plane rotation of the training samples to share similar features. Evaluations on the xView and DOTA datasets show that the proposed method uniformly improves performance over existing state-of-the-art methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".