Search alternatives:
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), gy decreased (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), gy decreased (Expand Search)
-
1981
The structure of attention gate block [31].
Published 2025“…The actual accuracy and mean latency time of the model were 92.43% and 260ms, respectively. …”
-
1982
DSC block and its application network structure.
Published 2025“…The actual accuracy and mean latency time of the model were 92.43% and 260ms, respectively. …”
-
1983
The structure of multi-scale residual block [30].
Published 2025“…The actual accuracy and mean latency time of the model were 92.43% and 260ms, respectively. …”
-
1984
The structure of IRAU and Res2Net+ block [22].
Published 2025“…The actual accuracy and mean latency time of the model were 92.43% and 260ms, respectively. …”
-
1985
-
1986
-
1987
-
1988
Prediction of transition readiness.
Published 2025“…In most transition domains, help needed did not decrease with age and was not affected by function. …”
-
1989
Dataset visualization diagram.
Published 2025“…Results on a specialized dataset reveal that YOLOv8n-BWG outperforms YOLOv8n by increasing the mean Average Precision (mAP) by 4.2%, boosting recognition speed by 21.3% per second, and decreasing both the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) by 28.9% and model size by 26.3%. …”
-
1990
Dataset sample images.
Published 2025“…Results on a specialized dataset reveal that YOLOv8n-BWG outperforms YOLOv8n by increasing the mean Average Precision (mAP) by 4.2%, boosting recognition speed by 21.3% per second, and decreasing both the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) by 28.9% and model size by 26.3%. …”
-
1991
Performance comparison of different models.
Published 2025“…Results on a specialized dataset reveal that YOLOv8n-BWG outperforms YOLOv8n by increasing the mean Average Precision (mAP) by 4.2%, boosting recognition speed by 21.3% per second, and decreasing both the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) by 28.9% and model size by 26.3%. …”
-
1992
C2f and BC2f module structure diagrams.
Published 2025“…Results on a specialized dataset reveal that YOLOv8n-BWG outperforms YOLOv8n by increasing the mean Average Precision (mAP) by 4.2%, boosting recognition speed by 21.3% per second, and decreasing both the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) by 28.9% and model size by 26.3%. …”
-
1993
YOLOv8n detection results diagram.
Published 2025“…Results on a specialized dataset reveal that YOLOv8n-BWG outperforms YOLOv8n by increasing the mean Average Precision (mAP) by 4.2%, boosting recognition speed by 21.3% per second, and decreasing both the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) by 28.9% and model size by 26.3%. …”
-
1994
YOLOv8n-BWG model structure diagram.
Published 2025“…Results on a specialized dataset reveal that YOLOv8n-BWG outperforms YOLOv8n by increasing the mean Average Precision (mAP) by 4.2%, boosting recognition speed by 21.3% per second, and decreasing both the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) by 28.9% and model size by 26.3%. …”
-
1995
BiFormer structure diagram.
Published 2025“…Results on a specialized dataset reveal that YOLOv8n-BWG outperforms YOLOv8n by increasing the mean Average Precision (mAP) by 4.2%, boosting recognition speed by 21.3% per second, and decreasing both the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) by 28.9% and model size by 26.3%. …”
-
1996
YOLOv8n-BWG detection results diagram.
Published 2025“…Results on a specialized dataset reveal that YOLOv8n-BWG outperforms YOLOv8n by increasing the mean Average Precision (mAP) by 4.2%, boosting recognition speed by 21.3% per second, and decreasing both the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) by 28.9% and model size by 26.3%. …”
-
1997
GSConv module structure diagram.
Published 2025“…Results on a specialized dataset reveal that YOLOv8n-BWG outperforms YOLOv8n by increasing the mean Average Precision (mAP) by 4.2%, boosting recognition speed by 21.3% per second, and decreasing both the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) by 28.9% and model size by 26.3%. …”
-
1998
Performance comparison of three loss functions.
Published 2025“…Results on a specialized dataset reveal that YOLOv8n-BWG outperforms YOLOv8n by increasing the mean Average Precision (mAP) by 4.2%, boosting recognition speed by 21.3% per second, and decreasing both the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) by 28.9% and model size by 26.3%. …”
-
1999
mAP0.5 Curves of various models.
Published 2025“…Results on a specialized dataset reveal that YOLOv8n-BWG outperforms YOLOv8n by increasing the mean Average Precision (mAP) by 4.2%, boosting recognition speed by 21.3% per second, and decreasing both the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) by 28.9% and model size by 26.3%. …”
-
2000
Network loss function change diagram.
Published 2025“…Results on a specialized dataset reveal that YOLOv8n-BWG outperforms YOLOv8n by increasing the mean Average Precision (mAP) by 4.2%, boosting recognition speed by 21.3% per second, and decreasing both the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) by 28.9% and model size by 26.3%. …”