DAMO-YOLO : A Report on Real-Time Object Detection Design (2211.15444v4)

Abstract: In this report, we present a fast and accurate object detection method dubbed DAMO-YOLO, which achieves higher performance than the state-of-the-art YOLO series. DAMO-YOLO is extended from YOLO with some new technologies, including Neural Architecture Search (NAS), efficient Reparameterized Generalized-FPN (RepGFPN), a lightweight head with AlignedOTA label assignment, and distillation enhancement. In particular, we use MAE-NAS, a method guided by the principle of maximum entropy, to search our detection backbone under the constraints of low latency and high performance, producing ResNet/CSP-like structures with spatial pyramid pooling and focus modules. In the design of necks and heads, we follow the rule of ``large neck, small head''.We import Generalized-FPN with accelerated queen-fusion to build the detector neck and upgrade its CSPNet with efficient layer aggregation networks (ELAN) and reparameterization. Then we investigate how detector head size affects detection performance and find that a heavy neck with only one task projection layer would yield better results.In addition, AlignedOTA is proposed to solve the misalignment problem in label assignment. And a distillation schema is introduced to improve performance to a higher level. Based on these new techs, we build a suite of models at various scales to meet the needs of different scenarios. For general industry requirements, we propose DAMO-YOLO-T/S/M/L. They can achieve 43.6/47.7/50.2/51.9 mAPs on COCO with the latency of 2.78/3.83/5.62/7.95 ms on T4 GPUs respectively. Additionally, for edge devices with limited computing power, we have also proposed DAMO-YOLO-Ns/Nm/Nl lightweight models. They can achieve 32.3/38.2/40.5 mAPs on COCO with the latency of 4.08/5.05/6.69 ms on X86-CPU. Our proposed general and lightweight models have outperformed other YOLO series models in their respective application scenarios.

Author Response Guidelines for Academic Papers

The paper "LaTeX Guidelines for Author Response" provides detailed instructions for authors intending to submit rebuttals following the review of their academic papers. These guidelines are essential for ensuring that the rebuttal process is efficient, clear, and aligned with the expectations set out by conferences such as CVPR.

The author response, often termed a rebuttal, is a critical component of the paper review process. It allows authors to address specific comments and concerns raised by reviewers. According to the guidelines, responses should focus on clarifying factual inaccuracies or supplying additional information that reviewers specifically request. It is imperative to note that this platform is not for introducing new theories, algorithms, or experiments that were absent from the original submission unless explicitly solicited by the reviewers.

The guidelines underscore the importance of maintaining a concise and focused response. This is evident in the strict one-page limit imposed on rebuttals, which encompasses all text, figures, and references. Such constraints necessitate precision and the judicious use of space to convey essential clarifications and justifications.

The formatting specifications for the rebuttal are non-negotiable, ensuring uniformity and readability. Text must be formatted in a strict two-column layout with specified dimensions for columns, margins, and text fonts. Figures and tables must adhere to specified sizes and captions, which aids in maintaining a professional and consistent appearance across all submissions. These formatting requisites help reviewers easily navigate and assimilate the content of the rebuttal.

A critical aspect highlighted in the paper is the anonymity of the rebuttal. The authors must ensure that their identity remains undisclosed, as peer review is double-blind. This involves careful consideration of the language used and the exclusion of external links or references that could reveal the authors' identities.

The guidelines also provide practical advice on the incorporation of illustrations, graphs, and tables. Visual elements should be designed to be clear and legible in printed form, acknowledging that reviewers often choose to print rebuttal documents. The specification of figure dimensions relative to line width ensures flexibility and adaptability of figures within the constrained rebuttal space.

In terms of implications, adhering to these guidelines could significantly affect the publication chances of a paper, as a well-structured and precise rebuttal can sway reviewer opinions in favor of the author. Furthermore, these structured guidelines promote equitable and unbiased peer review by standardizing the rebuttal format and content.

From a future development perspective, as the peer review process increasingly integrates AI-driven reviews and analysis tools, these guidelines offer a foundation for automation and the integration of AI assistance in drafting clear and compliant rebuttals. As AI continues to evolve, it is conceivable that machine learning techniques could be employed to pre-evaluate the clarity and focus of rebuttals before submission, potentially enhancing the review process's efficiency.

In conclusion, the paper provides a comprehensive framework for preparing an author response, emphasizing clarity, precision, and adherence to formatting norms. By following these guidelines, authors can effectively communicate with reviewers, address critical comments, and enhance their manuscript's chances of acceptance.