Organizations: MOE Key Lab of ICSP, IMIS Lab of Anhui, Anhui Provincial Key Lab of Multimodal Cognitive Computation, Zenmorn-AHU · AI Joint Lab, School of Computer Science and Technology, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China
Remote sensing object detection (RSOD) requires compact backbones capable of preserving weak geometric cues under extreme scale variation and background clutter. Fixed structural operators provide complementary contour and frequency responses without introducing learnable operator coefficients. However, directly injecting these responses can amplify content-irrelevant textures, while applying a uniform operator design across the hierarchy may be poorly matched to stage-specific representation requirements. We propose the Structural Prior Enhanced Attention Network (SPEANet), a parameter-efficient RSOD backbone that integrates fixed operators through stage-specific prior extraction and context-conditioned response modulation. SPEANet assigns smoothed contour and multi-order directional modeling to shallow, high-resolution features, while employing a compact approximation-detail interaction mechanism in deeper stages. Learned spatial gates regulate the resulting prior responses before residual fusion. Experiments on five benchmarks, together with evaluations across seven detection frameworks on DOTA-v1.0, achieve a favorable accuracy-parameter trade-off. With Oriented R-CNN, SPEANet achieves 78.55% mAP on DOTA-v1.0, 72.24% mAP on DOTA-v1.5, and 67.30% mAP on DIOR-R using 23.0M total parameters, including a 5.97M-parameter backbone.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Top : Accuracy-parameter comparison on the DOTA-v1.0 test set ( 33 ) . Bottom : Representative detections in scenes containing weak object structures and background clutter. Red, yellow, and green denote false positives, false negatives, and true positives, respectively.
Figure 2: Overview of SPEANet. (a) Four-stage hierarchical backbone with stage-specific operator assignment. (b) HPRB, which combines prior extraction, context-conditioned modulation, and residual encoding. (c) MDP-FASE for multi-order directional modeling at Stage I. (d) WASM for approximation-detail interaction at Stages II-IV.
Figure 3: Context-Guided Frequency Filtering (CGFF) module. A dilated context encoder predicts a single-channel spatial gate that modulates the fixed-operator response.
Figure 4: Frequency-Aware Scaling and Encoding (FASE) module. A globally aggregated descriptor conditions the scaling of the pointwise-transformed feature branch.
Method
Backbone
#P ↓
mAP ↑
One Stage
R 3 Det ( 38 )
ResNet-50 ( 14 )
41.9M
69.70
SASM ( 15 )
ResNet-50 ( 14 )
36.6M
74.92
O-RepPoints ( 16 )
ResNet-50 ( 14 )
36.6M
75.97
R 3 Det-GWD ( 39 )
ResNet-50 ( 14 )
41.9M
76.34
R 3 Det-KLD ( 42 )
ResNet-50 ( 14 )
41.9M
77.36
Table 1: Performance comparison on the DOTA-v1.0 test set under single-scale training and testing. The best results are shown in bold, and the second-best results are underlined.
Framework
ResNet-50
PKINet-S
SPEANet
(23.28M)
(13.70M)
(5.97M)
One Stage
R-FCOS ( 29 )
72.45
74.86
76.27
R 3 Det ( 38 )
69.70
75.89
76.32
S 2 ANet ( 10 )
74.12
77.83
78.16
Two Stage
FR-O ( 27 )
73.17
76.45
76.86
Roi Trans. ( 7 )
74.05
77.17
79.15
Table 2: Comparison of mAP across different detectors and backbones (ResNet-50 and PKINet-S) on the DOTA-v1.0 test set. Only backbone parameters are included.
Method
#P ↓
LV
SH
BC
HC
mAP ↑
RetinaNet-O ( 18 )
36.4M
56.79
73.31
76.02
48.06
59.16
FR-O ( 27 )
41.1M
68.98
79.37
77.38
60.47
62.00
Mask R-CNN ( 13 )
44.4M
71.34
79.75
74.21
57.81
62.67
HTC ( 2 )
77.5M
73.31
80.31
75.12
55.87
63.40
ReDet ( 11 )
31.6M
75.73
80.92
75.81
63.33
66.86
LSKNet-S ( 17 )
31.0M
77.45
81.17
79.44
55.81
70.26
Table 3: Performance comparison on the DOTA-v1.5 test set. Representative categories involving small objects, elongated structures, or cluttered backgrounds are reported; complete category results are provided in Supplementary Material.
Method
Backbone
Overall / Backbone
mAP (%) ↑
#P ↓ (M)
FLOPs(G)
FR-O ( 27 )
ResNet50
41.1 / 23.3
148.2 / 52.4
59.54
G.V. ( 36 )
ResNet50
41.1 / 23.3
148.2 / 52.4
60.06
Roi Trans. ( 7 )
ResNet50
55.1 / 23.3
176.2 / 52.4
63.87
LSKNet ( 17 )
LSKNet-S
31.0 / 13.8
125.1 / 32.9
65.90
Oriented Rep ( 16 )
ResNet50
36.6 / 23.3
118.7 / 52.4
66.71
Table 4: Experimental results on the DIOR-R test set. #P and FLOPs were measured at a 800×800 resolution.
Method
AP 50:95
AP 50
AP 75
#P ↓
FLOPs
Rotated Faster RCNN ( 27 )
32.5
70.1
24.3
41.1M
292G
Rotated RetinaNet ( 18 )
26.8
63.4
16.2
36.2M
800G
RoI Trans. ( 7 )
36.0
73.0
30.1
55.1M
306G
Gliding Vertex ( 36 )
31.7
70.8
22.6
41.1M
292G
Oriented RCNN ( 34 )
34.4
70.7
28.6
41.1M
292G
S 2 A-Net ( 10 )
28.3
69.6
13.1
38.6M
733G
Table 5: Comparison on the SODA-A test set. #P and FLOPs are measured at 1200×1200 resolution.
Method
AP 50
AP 75
mAP
#P ↓
FLOPs
R 3 Det ( 38 )
60.2
36.7
34.8
42.0M
362.2G
S 2 ANet ( 10 )
63.1
38.7
36.7
38.8M
216.5G
R-FCOS ( 29 )
63.5
41.8
39.1
32.2M
226.9G
RoI Trans. ( 7 )
65.4
43.4
40.7
55.3M
244.7G
StripRCNN ( 43 )
66.1
44.0
41.0
45.2M
231.8G
CFA ( 9 )
66.2
43.2
40.6
36.9M
213.6G
Table 6: Comparison with representative methods on the MODA test set. FLOPs are measured at an input resolution of 1200×900 ; #P denotes the total number of parameters.
Figure 5: Detection results and CGFF gating maps on the DOTA-v1.0 test set. (a) PKINet-S. (b) SPEANet. (c) Spatial gating maps produced by CGFF.
CLoG-Stem
MDP-FASE
WASM
#P ↓
mAP ↑
Category AP
SV
LV
SP
✓
5.351M
76.581
78.75
84.51
72.81
✓
6.526M
77.184
78.43
85.60
73.23
✓
4.786M
77.605
78.53
84.53
78.62
✓
✓
6.531M
78.054
79.38
85.15
80.24
✓
✓
4.791M
77.778
78.86
84.92
78.99
Table 7: Ablation study on DOTA-v1.0. Variants containing only MDP-FASE or WASM apply the corresponding module to all backbone stages. When both are enabled, MDP-FASE is used in Stage I and WASM in Stages II–IV. All variants use 100-epoch ImageNet-1K pretraining and Oriented R-CNN. #P denotes backbone parameters. SV, LV, and SP denote Small Vehicle, Large Vehicle, and Swimming Pool. Complete results are provided in Supplementary Material.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Detailed overview of the SPEANet architecture
{C1,C2,C3,C4}
{N1,N2,N3,N4}
Down. Ratio
Configuration
{32,64,128,256}
{1,4,4,2}
1/4,1/8,1/16,1/32
{M W W W}
Params and FLOPs † for each stage
Overall
0.068M, 0.465M, 1.806M, 3.632M
5.971M
7.253G, 7.702G, 7.441G, 3.744G
26.14G
Appendix
Table 8: Detailed configurations of SPEANet. Ci means the number of output channels in each stage and Ni means the number of HPRBs in each stage. Configuration denotes the strategy adopted at each stage, while ‘M’ and ‘W’ stand for MDP-FASE and WASM. Both the parameters and FLOPs reported for each stage include those of the stage itself and its associated downsampling module. Overall only represents the backbone network, and † indicates that Params and FLOPs are measured using an input I∈R1024×1024×3 .
Dataset Name
Images
Classes
Instances
Resolution
DOTA-v1.0
2,806
15
188,282
8002 - 20,0002
DOTA-v1.5
2,806
16
403,318
8002 - 20,0002
DIOR-R
23,463
20
192,472
800 × 800
SODA-A
2,513
9
872,069
4,761 × 2,777 †
MODA
14,041
8
330,191
1,200 × 900
Appendix
Table 9: Summary of five benchmark datasets. † represents average resolution.
Method
Backbone
#P ↓
PL
BD
BR
GTF
SV
LV
SH
TC
BC
ST
SBF
RA
HA
SP
HC
mAP ↑
One Stage
R 3 Det ( 38 )
ResNet-50 ( 14 )
41.9M
89.00
75.60
46.64
67.09
76.18
73.40
79.02
90.88
78.62
84.88
59.00
61.16
63.65
62.39
37.94
69.70
SASM ( 15 )
ResNet-50 ( 14 )
36.6M
86.42
78.97
52.47
69.84
77.30
75.99
86.72
90.89
82.63
85.66
60.13
68.25
73.98
72.22
62.37
74.92
O-RepPoints ( 16 )
ResNet-50 ( 14 )
36.6M
87.02
83.17
54.13
71.16
80.18
78.40
87.28
90.90
85.97
86.25
59.90
70.49
73.53
72.27
58.97
75.97
R 3 Det-GWD ( 39 )
ResNet-50 ( 14 )
41.9M
88.82
82.94
55.63
72.75
78.52
83.10
87.46
90.21
86.36
85.44
64.70
61.41
73.46
76.94
57.38
76.34
R 3 Det-KLD ( 42 )
ResNet-50 ( 14 )
41.9M
88.90
84.17
55.80
69.35
78.72
84.08
87.00
89.75
84.32
85.73
64.74
61.80
76.62
78.49
70.89
77.36
Appendix
Table 10: Performance comparison on the DOTA-v1.0 test set. The best results are shown in bold, and the second-best results are underlined. Results for competing methods follow the corresponding published reports ( 20 ) .
Method
#P ↓
PL
BD
BR
GTF
SV
LV
SH
TC
BC
ST
SBF
RA
HA
SP
HC
CC
mAP ↑
RetinaNet-O ( 18 )
36.4M
71.43
77.64
42.12
64.65
44.53
56.79
73.31
90.84
76.02
59.96
46.95
69.24
59.65
64.52
48.06
0.83
59.16
FR-O ( 27 )
41.1M
71.89
74.47
44.45
59.87
51.28
68.98
79.37
90.78
77.38
67.50
47.75
69.72
61.22
65.28
60.47
1.54
62.00
Mask R-CNN ( 13 )
44.4M
76.84
73.51
49.90
57.80
51.31
71.34
79.75
90.46
74.21
66.07
46.21
70.61
63.07
64.46
57.81
9.42
62.67
HTC ( 2 )
77.5M
77.80
73.67
51.40
63.99
51.54
73.31
80.31
90.48
75.12
67.34
48.51
70.63
64.84
64.48
55.87
5.15
63.40
ReDet ( 11 )
31.6M
79.20
82.81
51.92
71.41
52.38
75.73
80.92
90.83
75.81
68.64
49.29
72.03
73.36
70.55
63.33
11.53
66.86
LSKNet-S ( 17 )
31.0M
72.05
84.94
55.41
74.93
52.42
77.45
81.17
90.85
79.44
69.00
62.10
73.72
77.49
75.29
55.81
42.19
70.26
Appendix
Table 11: Performance comparison on DOTA-v1.5 test set. The best results are shown in bold and the second-best results are underlined. Results for competing methods follow the corresponding published reports ( 20 ; 31 ) .
CLoG-Stem
MDP-FASE
WASM
#P ↓
PL
BD
BR
GTF
SV
LV
SH
TC
BC
ST
SBF
RA
HA
SP
HC
mAP ↑
✓
5.351M
89.23
82.10
54.15
73.79
78.75
84.51
87.89
90.73
87.09
85.94
61.44
62.98
75.60
72.81
61.70
76.581
✓
6.526M
88.85
82.19
55.88
72.27
78.43
85.60
88.30
90.67
85.70
85.23
63.70
65.03
76.83
73.23
65.86
77.184
✓
4.786M
88.97
83.27
53.57
76.69
78.53
84.53
87.88
90.62
84.77
84.40
63.92
65.12
76.98
78.62
66.20
77.605
✓
✓
6.531M
89.02
83.10
55.23
73.49
79.38
85.15
88.36
90.73
87.15
85.06
66.90
66.86
76.84
80.24
63.30
78.054
✓
✓
4.791M
88.90
83.47
54.92
75.76
78.86
84.92
88.17
90.72
87.40
84.75
63.25
63.33
76.92
78.99
66.29
77.778
✓
✓
5.966M
89.07
82.94
55.55
73.59
79.96
85.51
88.16
90.55
87.98
86.22
64.86
66.85
77.09
73.52
68.47
78.022
Appendix
Table 12: Ablation of SPEANet on DOTA-v1.0. All variants use 100-epoch ImageNet-1K pretraining and the Oriented R-CNN detector. #P denotes backbone parameters.
Figure 7: Visual comparison of different SPEANet variants in the ablation study. “Overall” represents the complete SPEANet model while “w/o” denotes the removal of the corresponding component.
Figure 8: Qualitative visualization results of SPEANet. Top: Visualization of detection results and CGFF gating maps on different datasets. The left and right examples are from DIOR-R and SODA-A, respectively. Bottom: Visualization of detection results compared with Roi Trans. ( 7 ) on MODA dataset.
Figure 9: Comparison of the detection results obtained by different methods on the DOTA-v1.5 test set.
Object detection in remote sensing images (RSIs) is challenged by the coexistence of geometric and spatial complexity: targets may appear with diverse aspect ratios, while spanning a wide range of object sizes under varied contexts. Existing RSI backbones address the two challenges separately, either by adopting anisotropic strip kernels to model slender targets or by using isotropic large kernels to capture broader context. However, such isolated treatments lead to complementary drawbacks: the strip-only design can disrupt spatial coherence for regular-shaped objects and weaken tiny details, whereas isotropic large kernels often introduce severe background noise and geometric mismatch for slender structures. In this paper, we extend PKINet, and present a powerful and efficient backbone that jointly handles both challenges within a unified paradigm named Poly Kernel Inception Network v2 (PKINet-v2). PKINet-v2 synergizes anisotropic axial-strip convolutions with isotropic square kernels and builds a multi-scope receptive field, preserving fine-grained local textures while progressively aggregating long-range context across scales. To enable efficient deployment, we further introduce a Heterogeneous Kernel Re-parameterization (HKR) Strategy that fuses all heterogeneous branches into a single depth-wise convolution for inference, eliminating fragmented kernel launches without accuracy loss. Extensive experiments on four widely-used benchmarks, including DOTA-v1.0, DOTA-v1.5, HRSC2016, and DIOR-R, demonstrate that PKINet-v2 achieves state-of-the-art accuracy while delivering a 3.9× FPS acceleration compared to PKINet-v1, surpassing previous remote sensing backbones in both effectiveness and efficiency.
Xinhao Cai, Liulei Li, Gensheng Pei +3
Nanjing University of Science and Technology · State Key Lab. of Intelligent Manufacturing of Advanced Construction Machinery · Zhejiang University +1
Salient object detection (SOD) in remote sensing images faces significant challenges due to large variations in object sizes, the computational cost of self-attention mechanisms, and the limitations of CNN-based extractors in capturing global context and long-range dependencies. Existing methods that rely on fixed convolution kernels often struggle to adapt to diverse object scales, leading to detail loss or irrelevant feature aggregation. To address these issues, this work aims to enhance robustness to scale variations and achieve precise object localization. We propose the Region Proportion-Aware Dynamic Adaptive Salient Object Detection Network (RDNet), which replaces the CNN backbone with the SwinTransformer for global context modeling and introduces three key modules: (1) the Dynamic Adaptive Detail-aware (DAD) module, which applies varied convolution kernels guided by object region proportions; (2) the Frequency-matching Context Enhancement (FCE) module, which enriches contextual information through wavelet interactions and attention; and (3) the Region Proportion-aware Localization (RPL) module, which employs cross-attention to highlight semantic details and integrates a Proportion Guidance (PG) block to assist the DAD module. By combining these modules, RDNet achieves robustness against scale variations and accurate localization, delivering superior detection performance compared with state-of-the-art methods.
Bin Wan, Runmin Cong, Xiaofei Zhou +3
School of Control Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan 250061, China · Key Laboratory of Machine Intelligence and System Control, Ministry of Education, Jinan 250061, China · School of Automation, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310018, China +2
In remote sensing object detection, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) excel at capturing local details while Vision Transformers (ViTs) are better at global context modeling. However, existing detectors typically rely on a single fixed backbone or a manually designed hybrid architecture, and thus fail to adaptively exploit these complementary strengths across inputs of diverse complexity. To address this limitation, we propose Backbone Module Composition via Reinforcement Learning (BMCR). BMCR dynamically assembles input-adaptive inference paths from reusable modules decomposed from off-the-shelf CNN and ViT backbones. To enable such cross-family composition, we first construct an extensible module toolbox. Specifically, we decompose representative CNN and ViT backbones into reusable functional modules and encapsulate each module with explicit structural, semantic, and computational metadata for compatibility-aware assembly. To bridge the gap between grid-based CNN features and token-based ViT representations, we design a lightweight Optimal Transport (OT) based transition interface that ensures distribution-aware alignment while respecting spatial consistency. The backbone composition process is then formulated as a sequential decision problem, in which a policy network progressively selects task-relevant modules according to intermediate multi-scale observations. To stabilize the joint optimization of reusable modules and the routing policy, we further develop an Adaptive Module Cooperative Optimization (AMCO) strategy that coordinates module updating, routing exploration, and reward assignment during training. On DOTA-v1.0, DOTA-v1.5 and DIOR-R, BMCR achieves 79.31%, 73.41% and 71.86% mAP, respectively, surpassing strong static and dynamic baselines by up to 2.5 points while maintaining competitive efficiency.
Wenlin Liu, Xikun Hu, Ping Zhong
College of Electronic Science and Technology, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China