Recent DETR-based tiny object detectors adopt dynamic query mechanisms to handle severe density imbalance. However, existing designs entangle two effects: how many and which queries are decoded. This entanglement obscures what drives the gains and complicates dynamic-query design; additional learned predictors and heuristic filtering also introduce overhead and potential selection errors. We disentangle these effects and show that dynamic query primarily acts as budgeting---allocating decoder query capacity according to object density---rather than intricate query selection.Motivated by this view, we formulate a monotonic and conservative budgeting principle and propose a budgeting-based DETR (BUTR), a streamlined framework that uses a lightweight, non-learned budgeter to estimate an input-dependent query budget K(x) from encoder confidences. BUTR retains standard Top-K(x) query initialization without additional learned modules or heuristic filtering in the budgeter.At 800×800 resolution, BUTR-L achieves 35.7 AP at 47.8 FPS on AI-TOD-v2 and 29.8 AP at 42.1 FPS on VisDrone on an NVIDIA T4 GPU. Inference-time integration on COCO further demonstrates its applicability to general scenario detection. Code is available at https://github.com/zhangyi-magic/BUTR.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Qualitative comparison on AI-TOD-v2. Detection outcomes are color-coded as true positives (TP, green), false positives (FP, blue), and false negatives (FN, red). Replacing Dome-DETR’s dynamic-query initialization in (a) with a fixed Top- 600 initializer in (c) yields highly similar detection results, whereas the smaller fixed budget in (b) (Top- 300 ) is clearly insufficient for this extreme-density scene.
Init.
Configuration
AI-TOD-v2
VisDrone
Split
Mask
NMS
|Q| ( μ±σ )
AP ( Δ )
|Q| ( μ±σ )
AP ( Δ )
Full PAQI
✓
✓
✓
630±229
35.1
388±21
29.3
Operator Variants
✓
✓
×
875±395
35.1 ( ±0.0 )
494±14
29.3 ( ±0.0 )
✓
×
✓
1083±116
35.1 ( ±0.0 )
449±14
29.3 ( ±0.0 )
×
✓
×
759±484
32.8 ( −2.3 )
491±23
29.2 ( −0.1 )
×
✓
✓
461±299
32.7 ( −2.4 )
299±40
28.9 ( −0.4 )
Table 1: Inference-time ablation on AI-TOD-v2 and VisDrone. A Dome-DETR-L is trained on the respective trainval split and evaluated on the test set. For each configuration, we report query count ∣Q∣ (mean μ± std σ ) and overall AP. Δ is relative to the full PAQI pipeline (Row 1).
Init.
AI-TOD-v2
VisDrone
Non-extreme
Extreme
Non-dense
Dense
∣Q∣ ( μ±σ )
AP ( Δ )
∣Q∣ ( μ±σ )
AP ( Δ )
∣Q∣ ( μ±σ )
AP ( Δ )
∣Q∣ ( μ±σ )
AP ( Δ )
PAQI
629±227
35.1
1326±100
29.9
388±22
29.1
386±14
34.6
Fixed Top- K
600
35.1 ( ±0.0 )
600
23.4 ( −6.5 )
400
29.1 ( ±0.0 )
400
34.5 ( −0.1 )
1500
35.1 ( ±0.0 )
1500
29.9 ( ±0.0 )
Table 2: Coarse density-stratified evaluation on AI-TOD-v2 and VisDrone.
Figure 2: Fine density-stratified AP–budget response. Curves show AP versus fixed decoder budget K within each density bucket: Minimal ( #GT≤50 ), Sparse ( 50<#GT≤100 ), Moderate ( 100<#GT≤300 ), and Dense ( 300<#GT≤600 ). Diamonds mark PAQI’s bucket-wise mean query count μ with horizontal bars for ±σ ; squares denote budget-matched fixed Top- K baselines at K∈{μ−σ,μ,μ+σ} .
Figure 3: Overview of query initialization: (1) fixed-query DETRs (e.g., Deformable DETR Zhu et al. (2020) , DINO Zhang et al. (2022) , and RT-DETR Zhao et al. (2024) ); dynamic-query DETRs include (2) DQ-DETR Huang et al. (2024) , (3) Dome-DETR Hu et al. (2025) , and (4) BUTR.
Method
#Params
GFLOPs
∣Q∣
Tr. (h)
Lat. (ms)
AP
AP 50
AP 75
AP vt
AP t
AP s
AP m
Fixed-query detectors
D-FINE-S Peng et al. (2024)
11.6M
115.1
600
33.7
11.27
32.1
65.5
27.4
17.5
32.3
38.1
45.7
D-FINE-M Peng et al. (2024)
22.3M
248.2
600
40.4
16.86
34.3
68.0
30.3
19.7
34.8
39.1
47.7
D-FINE-L Peng et al. (2024)
31.9M
329.6
600
43.0
20.34
35.2
69.3
31.1
20.4
36.0
40.0
47.9
DEIM-S Huang et al. (2025)
11.6M
115.1
600
36.6
11.26
29.0
61.0
23.9
16.8
28.6
35.0
41.7
DEIM-M Huang et al. (2025)
22.3M
248.2
600
43.4
16.92
33.7
67.3
30.1
20.3
34.3
38.4
46.1
Table 3: Comparison on AI-TOD-v2. DQ-DETR results use the official checkpoint; others are our re-implementations. Dynamic-query GFLOPs and ∣Q∣ are averages. Tr. (h): training time (hours); Lat. (ms): T4 TensorRT latency (milliseconds). Ratios are computed relative to Dome-DETR at the same model scale.
Method
#Params
GFLOPs
∣Q∣
Tr. (h)
Lat. (ms)
AP
AP 50
AP 75
AP s
AP m
AP l
Fixed-query detectors
D-FINE-S Peng et al. (2024)
11.6M
113.3
400
6.7
11.39
26.6
45.1
27.0
16.8
37.0
53.6
D-FINE-M Peng et al. (2024)
22.3M
245.9
400
9.2
17.35
29.2
48.9
30.0
18.9
40.5
53.8
D-FINE-L Peng et al. (2024)
34.5M
329.5
400
11.9
22.06
29.6
49.6
30.2
19.0
40.8
55.7
DEIM-S Huang et al. (2025)
11.6M
113.3
400
8.5
11.23
21.9
41.1
22.4
17.3
27.5
31.7
DEIM-M Huang et al. (2025)
22.3M
245.9
400
10.7
17.40
24.5
44.6
24.9
18.4
31.8
36.8
Table 4: Comparison on VisDrone. Results are from our re-implementations. Dynamic-query GFLOPs and ∣Q∣ are averages. Tr. (h): training time (hours); Lat. (ms): T4 TensorRT latency (milliseconds).
Figure 4: Query usage versus image density. Each point corresponds to one test image; solid lines and shaded regions denote the binned mean and standard deviation, respectively. The dashed gray line is an ideal reference proportional to #GT. BUTR shows the clearest monotonic increase with image density.
Figure 5: Density-stratified tail performance across model families and scales. (a) AP ext on the extreme subset of AI-TOD-v2. (b) AP den on the dense subset of VisDrone.
Category
Variant
∣Q∣
Tr. (h)
AP
AP 50
AP 75
AP vt
AP t
AP s
AP m
AP ext
Estimator e
Max
302
37.8
35.6
69.6
31.5
20.4
36.4
40.4
49.0
27.7
Max-sigmoid
303
37.8
35.5
69.3
32.2
21.1
36.1
40.5
49.1
28.9
Sum-prob
304
41.5
35.3
69.4
31.1
20.3
36.0
39.6
47.0
31.0
Union-prob
304
40.7
35.2
68.9
31.4
18.9
36.0
40.2
48.5
28.3
Mapping g
γ=1.2
305
/
35.6
69.4
32.2
21.2
36.2
40.6
49.1
29.5
γ=1.5
308
/
35.6
69.5
32.2
21.2
36.2
40.6
49.2
29.6
Table 5: Ablations of budget estimation and mapping methods for BUTR-L on AI-TOD-v2. Estimator e variants are trained and evaluated without an additional mapping (i.e., γ=1.0 ), while the mapping g study is conducted by inference-time ablation using the Max-sigmoid estimator. Tr. (h): training wall-clock time.
Method
#Params
GFLOPs
∣Q∣
Lat. (ms)
AP val
AP 50val
AP 75val
AP sval
AP mval
AP lval
D-FINE-S Peng et al. (2024)
10.2M
25.2
300
3.63
48.5
65.4
52.6
29.3
52.2
65.4
D-FINE-S+BUTR
10.2M
24.6
232
4.24
48.6 ( + 0.1 )
65.5
52.8
29.3
52.1
65.2
D-FINE-M Peng et al. (2024)
19.3M
56.7
300
5.66
52.3
69.9
56.4
33.2
56.5
70.2
D-FINE-M+BUTR
19.3M
56.6
289
6.44
52.4 ( + 0.1 )
70.0
56.5
33.2
56.6
70.1
D-FINE-L Peng et al. (2024)
30.8M
91.0
300
7.94
54.0
71.6
58.4
36.5
58.0
71.9
D-FINE-L+BUTR
30.8M
90.2
253
8.81
54.1 ( + 0.1 )
71.8
58.4
36.6
58.0
72.0
Table 6: Generality of BUTR on COCO under an inference-time plug-in setting without retraining. We report average GFLOPs and ∣Q∣ for the BUTR-augmented variants. Lat. (ms): T4 TensorRT latency (App. H ).
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Initialization
AI-TOD-v2
VisDrone
∣Q∣
AP
∣Q∣
AP
Original Top- K
600
35.2
400
29.6
DDQ-style
600
35.2
400
29.6
Appendix
Table 7: DDQ-style initialization within D-FINE-L. Each variant is separately trained with its initializer, which is also used at inference. Original Top- K results are those reported in Tabs. 3 and 4 .
Figure 6: Qualitative examples of window-mask filtering. Green and red regions indicate mask-positive (preserved) and mask-negative (filtered) areas, respectively. Cyan stars denote GT centers; green/red points are preserved/filtered high-confidence proposals. Without Split, high-confidence proposals aligned with GT can be erroneously filtered.
Figure 7: Qualitative examples of encoder proposal redundancy using different budgets. Cyan stars denote GT centers, and proposal points are colored from yellow to red by confidence. Even with Top-300, most GT objects are already covered by nearby proposals; increasing the budget to Top-600 mainly increases proposal density and redundancy rather than introducing new object coverage. This redundancy helps explain why budget-matched Top- K can closely match PAQI in overall AP.
Figure 8: Full density-stratified results on AI-TOD-v2, including the main-text extreme subset.
Figure 9: Full density-stratified results on VisDrone, including the main-text dense subset.
Method
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
AP ext
Dome-DETR-L
29.9
29.1
28.8
29.27±0.57
BUTR-L
29.8
29.7
29.4
29.63±0.21
Appendix
Table 8: Fixed-seed reproducibility of AP ext on AI-TOD-v2: three independent seed-0 training runs. Run 1 is the originally reported result. Mean and standard deviation describe variation across training runs.
Method
Seed 0
Seed 1
Seed 2
AP ext
Dome-DETR-L
29.9
27.2
27.5
28.20±1.48
BUTR-L
29.8
29.3
29.3
29.47±0.29
Appendix
Table 9: Multi-seed robustness of AP ext on AI-TOD-v2 using matched seeds 0, 1, and 2. Seed 0 is the originally reported result. Mean and sample standard deviation describe variation across seeds.
Split
Patches
Annotations
Objects/patch
Median
Min–Max
P90
P95
P99
Trainval
1,859
178,238
95.88±89.32
70.0
1–429
229.0
272.0
350.4
Test
433
45,341
104.71±94.31
75.0
1–523
236.8
277.4
361.3
Appendix
Table 10: Statistics of the cropped Sorghum-Grain-Count splits. Objects/patch reports the mean and standard deviation across retained patches. P90, P95, and P99 denote percentiles of the patch-level object-count distribution.
Method
Tr. (h)
Init.
∣Q∣ ( μ±σ )
AP
AP 50
AP 75
AP t
AP s
AP m
D-FINE-L
1.5
Fixed
400
57.0
92.6
64.9
10.6
50.1
63.6
D-FINE-L
1.7
Fixed
1100
57.7
93.9
65.6
13.4
50.9
64.2
DEIM-L
1.6
Fixed
400
57.2
92.9
65.1
10.9
50.3
63.8
DEIM-L
1.8
Fixed
1100
58.0
94.0
66.3
14.3
51.3
64.3
Dome-DETR-L
3.3
Dynamic
1103±195
57.6
94.0
65.4
13.1
50.8
64.1
BUTR-L
1.5
Dynamic
378±119
58.0
93.8
66.1
14.5
51.5
64.1
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison on Sorghum-Grain-Count using the cropped trainval/test protocol. Query-count mean and standard deviation describe variation across evaluation patches, not repeated training runs. Tr. (h): training time. T4 deployment latency was not measured for this supplementary experiment.
Detection Transformer (DETR) has redefined object detection by casting it as a set prediction task within an end-to-end framework. Despite its elegance, DETR and its variants still rely on fixed learnable queries and suffer from severe query utilization imbalance, which limits adaptability and leaves the model capacity underused. We propose PaQ-DETR (Pattern and Quality-Aware DETR), a unified framework that enhances both query adaptivity and supervision balance. It learns a compact set of shared latent patterns capturing global semantics and dynamically generates image-specific queries through content-conditioned weighting. In parallel, a quality-aware one-to-many assignment strategy adaptively selects positive samples based on localizatio-classification consistency, enriching supervision and promoting balanced query optimization. Experiments on COCO, CityScapes, and other benchmarks show consistent gains of 1.5%-4.2% mAP across DETR backbones, including ResNet and Swin-Transformer. Beyond accuracy improvement, our method provides interpretable insights into how dynamic patterns cluster semantically across object categories.
Zhengjian Kang, Jun Zhuang, Kangtong Mo +3
New York University · Boise State University · University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign +3
YOLO-series and DETR-based detectors struggle with tiny-object detection. YOLO-style models benefit from efficient dense prediction, but their large-stride backbones may suppress tiny instances in deep feature maps and make grid assignment ambiguous. DETR-based models remove hand-crafted post-processing through set prediction, yet they reason over coarse token grids, where tiny objects occupy only a few weak tokens and are easily overlooked during matching. To address these limitations, we propose TinyFormer, a unified YOLO--DETR hybrid real-time detector that combines ViT representations, NMS-free set prediction, and a YOLO-style pyramid neck for accurate small-object detection. TinyFormer introduces a Parallel Bi-fusion Module (PBM), which builds high-resolution shortcuts from shallow stages to the feature pyramid, preserving fine spatial details during multi-scale fusion. We further design a Spatial Semantic Adapter (SSA) to compensate for the spatial loss caused by coarse tokenization. SSA extracts high-resolution cues from early stages and injects them into transformer token embeddings, improving tiny-object localization without sacrificing the global modeling ability of DETR. Experiments on MS COCO show that TinyFormer consistently outperforms recent YOLO-series detectors and the strong DEIMv2 baseline. TinyFormer-X achieves 58.4% AP even without PBM, while adding PBM improves the overall AP to 58.5% and brings a 1.6% AP gain on small objects. With Objects365 pre-training, TinyFormer-X-PBM reaches 60.2% AP, surpassing RF-DETR and other Objects365-pretrained detectors with fewer parameters and lower computation. These results demonstrate that TinyFormer bridges dense YOLO-style feature fusion and DETR-style set prediction, providing a strong accuracy-efficiency trade-off for real-time tiny-object detection. Code is available at https://github.com/mmpmmpmmpjosh/TinyFormer.
DETR-style detectors use one-to-one bipartite matching during training to assign object queries to ground-truth objects, enabling end-to-end set prediction without non-maximum suppression (NMS). However, without an explicit de-duplication procedure, multiple queries can still produce highly similar hypotheses for the same object, making training unstable and predictions less decisive. Inspired by the sequential ordering of NMS, we propose DETRNN, a plug-and-play module that turns unordered object queries into a competition-aware sequence for recurrent refinement. DETRNN builds an explicit confidence-and-similarity based order from prior predictions, then refines queries with an RNN along this order to model competition inside the decoder. This ordered recurrent refinement reduces redundant predictions, stabilizes optimization, and improves final detection accuracy. Experiments on multiple DETR-style detectors show consistent gains with comparable efficiency. Code repository: https://github.com/nigelwoo2008-coder/DETRNN.
Shengjian Wu, Li Sun, Yu Shangguan +1
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Multidimensional Information Processing, East China Normal University · FinVolution Group · Key Laboratory of Advanced Theory and Application in Statistics and Data Science, East China Normal University