DC-YOLOv8: Small-Size Object Detection Algorithm Based on Camera Sensor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional camera sensors rely on human eyes for observation. However, human eyes are prone to fatigue when observing objects of different sizes for a long time in complex scenes, and human cognition is limited, which often leads to judgment errors and greatly reduces efficiency. Object recognition technology is an important technology used to judge the object’s category on a camera sensor. In order to solve this problem, a small-size object detection algorithm for special scenarios was proposed in this paper. The advantage of this algorithm is that it not only has higher precision for small-size object detection but also can ensure that the detection accuracy for each size is not lower than that of the existing algorithm. There are three main innovations in this paper, as follows: (1) A new downsampling method which could better preserve the context feature information is proposed. (2) The feature fusion network is improved to effectively combine shallow information and deep information. (3) A new network structure is proposed to effectively improve the detection accuracy of the model. From the point of view of detection accuracy, it is better than YOLOX, YOLOR, YOLOv3, scaled YOLOv5, YOLOv7-Tiny, and YOLOv8. Three authoritative public datasets are used in these experiments: (a) In the Visdron dataset (small-size objects), the map, precision, and recall ratios of DC-YOLOv8 are 2.5%, 1.9%, and 2.1% higher than those of YOLOv8s, respectively. (b) On the Tinyperson dataset (minimal-size objects), the map, precision, and recall ratios of DC-YOLOv8 are 1%, 0.2%, and 1.2% higher than those of YOLOv8s, respectively. (c) On the PASCAL VOC2007 dataset (normal-size objects), the map, precision, and recall ratios of DC-YOLOv8 are 0.5%, 0.3%, and 0.4% higher than those of YOLOv8s, respectively.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".