YOLOv10: Real-Time End-to-End Object Detection

Authors: ao  wang
hui  chen
lihao  liu
kai  chen
zijia  lin
jungong  han
guiguang  ding
Venue: NeurIPS_cc_2024_Conference
Published: 2024-05-07 11:42:55

Abstract: Over the past years, YOLOs have emerged as the predominant paradigm in the field of real-time object detection owing to their effective balance between computational cost and detection performance. Researchers have explored the architectural designs, optimization objectives, data augmentation strategies, and others for YOLOs, achieving notable progress. However, the reliance on the non-maximum suppression (NMS) for post-processing hampers the end-to-end deployment of YOLOs and adversely impacts the inference latency. Besides, the design of various components in YOLOs lacks the comprehensive and thorough inspection, resulting in noticeable computational redundancy and limiting the model's capability. It renders the suboptimal efficiency, along with considerable potential for performance improvements. In this work, we aim to further advance the performance-efficiency boundary of YOLOs from both the post-processing and the model architecture. To this end, we first present the consistent dual assignments for NMS-free training of YOLOs, which brings the competitive performance and low inference latency simultaneously. Moreover, we introduce the holistic efficiency-accuracy driven model design strategy for YOLOs. We comprehensively optimize various components of YOLOs from both the efficiency and accuracy perspectives, which greatly reduces the computational overhead and enhances the capability. The outcome of our effort is a new generation of YOLO series for real-time end-to-end object detection, dubbed YOLOv10. Extensive experiments show that YOLOv10 achieves the state-of-the-art performance and efficiency across various model scales. For example, our YOLOv10-S is 1.8$\times$ faster than RT-DETR-R18 under the similar AP on COCO, meanwhile enjoying 2.8$\times$ smaller number of parameters and FLOPs. Compared with YOLOv9-C, YOLOv10-B has 46\% less latency and 25\% fewer parameters for the same performance. Code and models are available at https://github.com/THU-MIG/yolov10.

Main paper: 
 introduction: 
 Real-time object detection has always been a focal point of research in the area of computer vision, which aims to accurately predict the categories and positions of objects in an image under low latency. It is widely adopted in various practical applications, including autonomous driving [3] , robot navigation [12] , and object tracking [72] , etc. In recent years, researchers have concentrated on devising CNN-based object detectors to achieve real-time detection [19, 23, 48, 49, 50, 57, 13] . Among them, YOLOs have gained increasing popularity due to their adept balance between performance and efficiency [2, 20, 29, 20, 21, 65, 60, 70, 8, 71, 17, 29] . The detection pipeline of YOLOs consists of two parts: the model forward process and the NMS post-processing. However, both of them still have deficiencies, resulting in suboptimal accuracy-latency boundaries. Specifically, YOLOs usually employ one-to-many label assignment strategy during training, whereby one ground-truth object corresponds to multiple positive samples. Despite yielding superior performance, this approach necessitates NMS to select the best positive prediction during inference. This slows down the inference speed and renders the performance sensitive to the hyperparameters of NMS, thereby preventing YOLOs from achieving optimal end-to-end deployment [78] . One line to tackle this issue is to adopt the recently introduced end-to-end DETR architectures [4, 81, 73, 30, 36, 42, 67] . For example, RT-DETR [78] presents an efficient hybrid encoder and uncertainty-minimal query selection, propelling DETRs into the realm of real-time applications. Nevertheless, when considering only the forward process of model during deployment, the efficiency of the DETRs still has room for improvements compared with YOLOs. Another line is to explore end-to-end detection for CNNbased detectors, which typically leverages one-to-one assignment strategies to suppress the redundant predictions [6, 55, 66, 80, 17] . However, they usually introduce additional inference overhead or achieve suboptimal performance for YOLOs. Furthermore, the model architecture design remains a fundamental challenge for YOLOs, which exhibits an important impact on the accuracy and speed [50, 17, 71, 8] . To achieve more efficient and effective model architectures, researchers have explored different design strategies. Various primary computational units are presented for the backbone to enhance the feature extraction ability, including DarkNet [48, 49, 50] , CSPNet [2] , EfficientRep [29] and ELAN [62, 64] , etc. For the neck, PAN [37] , BiC [29] , GD [60] and RepGFPN [71] , etc., are explored to enhance the multi-scale feature fusion. Besides, model scaling strategies [62, 61] and re-parameterization [11, 29] techniques are also investigated. While these efforts have achieved notable advancements, a comprehensive inspection for various components in YOLOs from both the efficiency and accuracy perspectives is still lacking. As a result, there still exists considerable computational redundancy within YOLOs, leading to inefficient parameter utilization and suboptimal efficiency. Besides, the resulting constrained model capability also leads to inferior performance, leaving ample room for accuracy improvements.In this work, we aim to address these issues and further advance the accuracy-speed boundaries of YOLOs. We target both the post-processing and the model architecture throughout the detection pipeline. To this end, we first tackle the problem of redundant predictions in the post-processing by presenting a consistent dual assignments strategy for NMS-free YOLOs with the dual label assignments and consistent matching metric. It allows the model to enjoy rich and harmonious supervision during training while eliminating the need for NMS during inference, leading to competitive performance with high efficiency. Secondly, we propose the holistic efficiency-accuracy driven model design strategy for the model architecture by performing the comprehensive inspection for various components in YOLOs. For efficiency, we propose the lightweight classification head, spatial-channel decoupled downsampling, and rank-guided block design, to reduce the manifested computational redundancy and achieve more efficient architecture. For accuracy, we explore the large-kernel convolution and present the effective partial self-attention module to enhance the model capability, harnessing the potential for performance improvements under low cost.Based on these approaches, we succeed in achieving a new family of real-time end-to-end detectors with different model scales, i.e., YOLOv10-N / S / M / B / L / X. Extensive experiments on standard benchmarks for object detection, i.e., COCO [35] , demonstrate that our YOLOv10 can significantly outperform previous state-of-the-art models in terms of computation-accuracy trade-offs across various model scales. As shown in Fig. 1 , our YOLOv10-S / X are 1.8× / 1.3× faster than RT-DETR-R18 / R101, respectively, under the similar performance. Compared with YOLOv9-C, YOLOv10-B achieves a 46% reduction in latency with the same performance. Moreover, YOLOv10 exhibits highly efficient parameter utilization. Our YOLOv10-L / X outperforms YOLOv8-L / X by 0.3 AP and 0.5 AP, with 1.8× and 2.3× smaller number of parameters, respectively. YOLOv10-M achieves the similar AP compared with YOLOv9-M / YOLO-MS, with 23% / 31% fewer parameters, respectively. We hope that our work can inspire further studies and advancements in the field. 
related work: 
 Real-time object detectors. Real-time object detection aims to classify and locate objects under low latency, which is crucial for real-world applications. Over the past years, substantial efforts have been directed towards developing efficient detectors [19, 57, 48, 34, 79, 75, 32, 31, 41] . Particularly, the YOLO series [48, 49, 50, 2, 20, 29, 62, 21, 65] stand out as the mainstream ones. YOLOv1, YOLOv2, and YOLOv3 identify the typical detection architecture consisting of three parts, i.e., backbone, neck, and head [48, 49, 50] . YOLOv4 [2] and YOLOv5 [20] introduce the CSPNet [63] design to replace DarkNet [47] , coupled with data augmentation strategies, enhanced PAN, and a greater variety of model scales, etc. YOLOv6 [29] presents BiC and SimCSPSPPF for neck and backbone, respectively, with anchor-aided training and self-distillation strategy. YOLOv7 [62] introduces E-ELAN for rich gradient flow path and explores several trainable bag-of-freebies methods. YOLOv8 [21] presents C2f building block for effective feature extraction and fusion. Gold-YOLO [60] provides the advanced GD mechanism to boost the multi-scale feature fusion capability. YOLOv9 [65] proposes GELAN to improve the architecture and PGI to augment the training process.End-to-end object detectors. End-to-end object detection has emerged as a paradigm shift from traditional pipelines, offering streamlined architectures [53] . DETR [4] introduces the transformer architecture and adopts Hungarian loss to achieve one-to-one matching prediction, thereby eliminating hand-crafted components and post-processing. Since then, various DETR variants have been proposed to enhance its performance and efficiency [42, 67, 56, 30, 36, 28, 5, 77, 82] . Deformable-DETR [81] leverages multi-scale deformable attention module to accelerate the convergence speed. DINO [73] integrates contrastive denoising, mix query selection, and look forward twice scheme into DETRs. RT-DETR [78] further designs the efficient hybrid encoder and proposes the uncertainty-minimal query selection to improve both the accuracy and latency. Another line to achieve end-to-end object detection is based CNN detectors. Learnable NMS [24] and relation networks [26] present another network to remove duplicated predictions for detectors. OneNet [55] and DeFCN [66] propose oneto-one matching strategies to enable end-to-end object detection with fully convolutional networks. FCOS pss [80] introduces a positive sample selector to choose the optimal sample for prediction. 
consistent dual assignments for nms-free training: 
 During training, YOLOs [21, 65, 29, 70] usually leverage TAL [15] to allocate multiple positive samples for each instance. The adoption of one-to-many assignment yields plentiful supervisory signals, facilitating the optimization and achieving superior performance. However, it necessitates YOLOs to rely on the NMS post-processing, which causes the suboptimal inference efficiency for deployment. While previous works [55, 66, 80, 6] explore one-to-one matching to suppress the redundant predictions, they usually introduce additional inference overhead or yield suboptimal performance. In this work, we present a NMS-free training strategy for YOLOs with dual label assignments and consistent matching metric, achieving both high efficiency and competitive performance.Dual label assignments. Unlike one-to-many assignment, one-to-one matching assigns only one prediction to each ground truth, avoiding the NMS post-processing. However, it leads to weak supervision, which causes suboptimal accuracy and convergence speed [82] . Fortunately, this deficiency can be compensated for by the one-to-many assignment [6] . To achieve this, we introduce dual label assignments for YOLOs to combine the best of both strategies. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2 .(a), we incorporate another one-to-one head for YOLOs. It retains the identical structure and adopts the same optimization objectives as the original one-to-many branch but leverages the one-to-one matching to obtain label assignments. During training, two heads are jointly optimized with the model, allowing the backbone and neck to enjoy the rich supervision provided by the oneto-many assignment. During inference, we discard the one-to-many head and utilize the one-to-one head to make predictions. This enables YOLOs for the end-to-end deployment without incurring any additional inference cost. Besides, in the one-to-one matching, we adopt the top one selection, which achieves the same performance as Hungarian matching [4] with less extra training time.Consistent matching metric. During assignments, both one-to-one and one-to-many approaches leverage a metric to quantitatively assess the level of concordance between predictions and instances. To achieve prediction aware matching for both branches, we employ a uniform matching metric, i.e.,EQUATIONwhere p is the classification score, b and b denote the bounding box of prediction and instance, respectively. s represents the spatial prior indicating whether the anchor point of prediction is within the instance [21, 65, 29, 70] . α and β are two important hyperparameters that balance the impact of the semantic prediction task and the location regression task. We denote the one-to-many and one-to-one metrics as m o2m =m(α o2m , β o2m ) and m o2o =m(α o2o , β o2o ), respectively. These metrics influence the label assignments and supervision information for the two heads.In dual label assignments, the one-to-many branch provides much richer supervisory signals than one-to-one branch. Intuitively, if we can harmonize the supervision of the one-to-one head with that of one-to-many head, we can optimize the one-to-one head towards the direction of one-to-many head's optimization. As a result, the one-to-one head can provide improved quality of samples during inference, leading to better performance. To this end, we first analyze the supervision gap between the two heads. Due to the randomness during training, we initiate our examination in the beginning with two heads initialized with the same values and producing the same predictions, i.e., one-to-one head and one-to-many head generate the same p and IoU for each prediction-instance pair. We note that the regression targets of two branches do not conflict, as matched predictions share the same targets and unmatched predictions are ignored. The supervision gap thus lies in the different classification targets. Given an instance, we denote its largest IoU with predictions as u * , and the largest one-to-many and one-to-one matching scores as m * o2m and m * o2o , respectively. Suppose that one-to-many branch yields the positive samples Ω and one-to-one branch selects i-th prediction with the metric m o2o,i =m * o2o , we can then derive the classification target t o2m,j =u * • mo2m,j m * o2m ≤ u * for j ∈ Ω and t o2o,i =u * • mo2o,i m * o2o =u * for task aligned loss as in [21, 65, 29, 70, 15] . The supervision gap between two branches can thus be derived by the 1-Wasserstein distance [46] of different classification objectives, i.e., A = t o2o,i -EQUATIONWe can observe that the gap decreases as t o2m,i increases, i.e., i ranks higher within Ω. It reaches the minimum when t o2m,i =u * , i.e., i is the best positive sample in Ω, as shown in Fig. 2 .(a). To achieve this, we present the consistent matching metric, i.e., α o2o =r • α o2m and β o2o =r • β o2m , which implies m o2o =m r o2m . Therefore, the best positive sample for one-to-many head is also the best for one-to-one head. Consequently, both heads can be optimized consistently and harmoniously. For simplicity, we take r=1, by default, i.e., α o2o =α o2m and β o2o =β o2m . To verify the improved supervision alignment, we count the number of one-to-one matching pairs within the top-1 / 5 / 10 of the one-to-many results after training. As shown in Fig. 2 .(b), the alignment is improved under the consistent matching metric. For a more comprehensive understanding of the mathematical proof, please refer to the appendix.Discussion with other counter-parts. Similarly, previous works [28, 5, 77, 54, 6, 82, 45] explore the different assignments to accelerate the training convergence and improve the performance for different networks. For example, H-DETR [28] , Group-DETR [5] , and MS-DETR [77] introduce one-to-many matching in conjunction with the original one-to-one matching by hybrid or multiple group label assignments, to improve upon DETR. Differently, to achieve the one-to-many matching, they usually introduce extra queries or repeat ground truths for bipartite matching, or select top several queries from the matching scores, while we adopt the prediction aware assignment that incorporates the spatial prior. Besides, LRANet [54] employs the dense assignment and sparse assignment branches for training, which all belong to the one-to-many assignment, while we adopt the one-to-many and one-to-one branches. DEYO [45, 43, 44] investigates the step-by-step training with one-to-many matching in the first stage for convolutional encoder and one-to-one matching in the second stage for transformer decoder, while we avoid the transformer decoder for end-to-end inference. Compared with works [6, 80] which incorporate dual assignments for CNN-based detectors, we further analyze the supervision gap between the two heads and present the consistent matching metric for YOLOs to reduce the theoretical supervision gap. It improves performance through better supervision alignment and eliminates the need for hyper-parameter tuning.In addition to the post-processing, the model architectures of YOLOs also pose great challenges to the efficiency-accuracy trade-offs [50, 8, 29] . Although previous works explore various design strategies, the comprehensive inspection for various components in YOLOs is still lacking. Consequently, the model architecture exhibits non-negligible computational redundancy and constrained capability, which impedes its potential for achieving high efficiency and performance. Here, we aim to holistically perform model designs for YOLOs from both efficiency and accuracy perspectives.Efficiency driven model design. The components in YOLO consist of the stem, downsampling layers, stages with basic building blocks, and the head. The stem incurs few computational cost and we thus perform efficiency driven model design for other three parts.(1) Lightweight classification head. The classification and regression heads usually share the same architecture in YOLOs. However, they exhibit notable disparities in computational overhead. For example, the FLOPs and parameter count of the classification head (5.95G/1.51M) are 2.5× and 2.4× those of the regression head (2.34G/0.64M) in YOLOv8-S, respectively. However, after analyzing the impact of classification error and the regression error (seeing Tab. 6), we find that the regression head undertakes more significance for the performance of YOLOs. Consequently, we can reduce the overhead of classification head without worrying about hurting the performance greatly. Therefore, we simply adopt a lightweight architecture for the classification head, which consists of two depthwise separable convolutions [25, 9] with the kernel size of 3×3 followed by a 1×1 convolution.(2) Spatial-channel decoupled downsampling. YOLOs typically leverage regular 3×3 standard convolutions with stride of 2, achieving spatial downsampling (fromH × W to H 2 × W 2 )and channel transformation (from C to 2C) simultaneously. This introduces non-negligible computational cost of O( 92 HW C2 ) and parameter count of O(18C 2 ). Instead, we propose to decouple the spatial reduction and channel increase operations, enabling more efficient downsampling. Specifically, we firstly leverage the pointwise convolution to modulate the channel dimension and then utilize the depthwise convolution to perform spatial downsampling. This reduces the computational cost to O(2HW C 2 + 9 2 HW C) and the parameter count to O(2C 2 + 18C). Meanwhile, it maximizes information retention during downsampling, leading to competitive performance with latency reduction.(3) Rank-guided block design. YOLOs usually employ the same basic building block for all stages [29, 65] , e.g., the bottleneck block in YOLOv8 [21] . To thoroughly examine such homogeneous design for YOLOs, we utilize the intrinsic rank [33, 16] to analyze the redundancy 2 of each stage. Specifically, we calculate the numerical rank of the last convolution in the last basic block in each stage, which counts the number of singular values larger than a threshold. Fig. 3 .(a) presents the results of YOLOv8, indicating that deep stages and large models are prone to exhibit more redundancy. This observation suggests that simply applying the same block design for all stages is suboptimal for the best capacity-efficiency trade-off. To tackle this, we propose a rank-guided block design scheme which aims to decrease the complexity of stages that are shown to be redundant using compact architecture design. We first present a compact inverted block (CIB) structure, which adopts the cheap depthwise convolutions for spatial mixing and cost-effective pointwise convolutions for channel mixing, as shown in Fig. 3 .(b). It can serve as the efficient basic building block, e.g., embedded in the ELAN structure [64, 21] (Fig. 3 .(b)). Then, we advocate a rank-guided block allocation strategy to achieve the best efficiency while maintaining competitive capacity. Specifically, given a model, we sort its all stages based on their intrinsic ranks in ascending order. We further inspect the performance variation of replacing the basic block in the leading stage with CIB. If there is no performance degradation compared with the given model, we proceed with the replacement of the next stage and halt the process otherwise. Consequently, we can implement adaptive compact block designs across stages and model scales, achieving higher efficiency without compromising performance. Due to the page limit, we provide the details of the algorithm in the appendix.1 × 1 C × 𝑁 + 3 × 3 DW 1 × 1 3 × 3 DW 1 × 1 3 × 3 DW Split 1 × 1 CIB CIB 1 × 1 Split C MHSA + FFN + 1 × 1 × 𝑁 𝑝𝑠𝑎 (a) (b) (c)Accuracy driven model design. We further explore the large-kernel convolution and self-attention for accuracy driven design, aiming to boost the performance under minimal cost.(1) Large-kernel convolution. Employing large-kernel depthwise convolution is an effective way to enlarge the receptive field and enhance the model's capability [10, 40, 39] . However, simply leveraging them in all stages may introduce contamination in shallow features used for detecting small objects, while also introducing significant I/O overhead and latency in high-resolution stages [8] . Therefore, we propose to leverage the large-kernel depthwise convolutions in CIB within the deep stages. Specifically, we increase the kernel size of the second 3×3 depthwise convolution in the CIB to 7×7, following [39] . Additionally, we employ the structural reparameterization technique [11, 10, 59] to bring another 3×3 depthwise convolution branch to alleviate the optimization issue without inference overhead. Furthermore, as the model size increases, its receptive field naturally expands, with the benefit of using large-kernel convolutions diminishing. Therefore, we only adopt large-kernel convolution for small model scales.(2) Partial self-attention (PSA). Self-attention [58] is widely employed in various visual tasks due to its remarkable global modeling capability [38, 14, 76] . However, it exhibits high computational complexity and memory footprint. To address this, in light of the prevalent attention head redundancy [69] , we present an efficient partial self-attention (PSA) module design, as shown in Fig. 3 .(c). Specifically, we evenly partition the features across channels into two parts after the 1×1 convolution. We only feed one part into the N PSA blocks comprised of multi-head self-attention module (MHSA) and feed-forward network (FFN). Two parts are then concatenated and fused by a 1×1 convolution. Besides, we follow [22] to assign the dimensions of the query and key to half of that of the value in MHSA and replace the LayerNorm [1] with BatchNorm [27] for fast inference. Furthermore, PSA is only placed after the Stage 4 with the lowest resolution, avoiding the excessive overhead from the quadratic computational complexity of self-attention. In this way, the global representation learning ability can be incorporated into YOLOs with low computational costs, which well enhances the model's capability and leads to improved performance. 
implementation details: 
 We select YOLOv8 [21] as our baseline model, due to its commendable latency-accuracy balance and its availability in various model sizes. We employ the consistent dual assignments for NMS-free training and perform holistic efficiency-accuracy driven model design based on it, which brings our YOLOv10 models. YOLOv10 has the same variants as YOLOv8, i.e., N / S / M / L / X. Besides, we derive a new variant YOLOv10-B, by simply increasing the width scale factor of YOLOv10-M. We verify the proposed detector on COCO [35] under the same training-from-scratch setting [21, 65, 62] . Moreover, the latencies of all models are tested on T4 GPU with TensorRT FP16, following [78] .As shown in Tab. 1, our YOLOv10 achieves the state-of-the-art performance and end-to-end latency across various model scales. We first compare YOLOv10 with our baseline models, i.e., YOLOv8.On N / S / M / L / X five variants, our YOLOv10 achieves YOLOv10 also exhibits superior trade-offs between accuracy and computational cost. Specifically, for lightweight and small models, YOLOv10-N / S outperforms YOLOv6-3.0-N / S by 1.5 AP and 2.0 AP, with 51% / 61% fewer parameters and 41% / 52% less computations, respectively. For medium models, compared with YOLOv9-C / YOLO-MS, YOLOv10-B / M enjoys the 46% / 62% latency reduction under the same or better performance, respectively. For large models, compared with Gold-YOLO-L, our YOLOv10-L shows 68% fewer parameters and 32% lower latency, along with a significant improvement of 1.4% AP. Furthermore, compared with RT-DETR, YOLOv10 obtains significant performance and latency improvements. Notably, YOLOv10-S / X achieves 1.8× and 1.3× faster inference speed than RT-DETR-R18 / R101, respectively, under the similar performance. These results well demonstrate the superiority of YOLOv10 as the real-time end-to-end detector.We also compare YOLOv10 with other YOLOs using the original one-to-many training approach. We consider the performance and the latency of model forward process (Latency f ) in this situation, following [62, 21, 60] . As shown in Tab. 1, YOLOv10 also exhibits the state-of-the-art performance and efficiency across different model scales, indicating the effectiveness of our architectural designs.Ablation study. We present the ablation results based on YOLOv10-S and YOLOv10-M in Tab. 2. It can be observed that our NMS-free training with consistent dual assignments significantly reduces the end-to-end latency of YOLOv10-S by 4.63ms, while maintaining competitive performance of 44.3% AP. Moreover, our efficiency driven model design leads to the reduction of 11.8 M parameters and 20.8 GFlOPs, with a considerable latency reduction of 0.65ms for YOLOv10-M, well showing its effectiveness. Furthermore, our accuracy driven model design achieves the notable improvements of 1.8 AP and 0.7 AP for YOLOv10-S and YOLOv10-M, alone with only 0.18ms and 0.17ms latency overhead, respectively, which well demonstrates its superiority.• Dual label assignments. We present dual label assignments for NMS-free YOLOs, which can bring both rich supervision of one-to-many (o2m) branch during training and high efficiency of one-to-one (o2o) branch during inference. We verify its benefit based on YOLOv8-S, i.e., #1 in Tab. 2. Specifically, we introduce baselines for training with only o2m branch and only o2o branch, respectively. As shown in Tab. 3, our dual label assignments achieve the best AP-latency trade-off. • Consistent matching metric. We introduce consistent matching metric to make the one-to-one head more harmonious with the one-to-many head. We verify its benefit based on YOLOv8-S, i.e., #1 in Tab. 2, under different α o2o and β o2o . As shown in Tab. 4, the proposed consistent matching metric, i.e., α o2o =r • α o2m and β o2o =r • β o2m , can achieve the optimal performance, where α o2m =0.5 and β o2m =6.0 in the one-to-many head [21] . Such an improvement can be attributed to the reduction of the supervision gap (Eq. ( 2)), which provides improved supervision alignment between two branches. Moreover, the proposed consistent matching metric eliminates the need for exhaustive hyper-parameter tuning, which is appealing in practical scenarios. • Performance gap compared with one-to-many training. Although achieving superior end-to-end performance under NMS-free training, we observe that there still exists the performance gap compared with the original one-to-many training using NMS, as shown in Tab. 3 and Tab. 1. Besides, we note that the gap diminishes as the model size increases. Therefore, we reasonably concludes that such a gap can be attributed to the limitations in the model capability. Notably, unlike the original one-to-many training using NMS, the NMS-free training necessitates more discriminative features for one-to-one matching. In the case of the YOLOv10-N model, its limited capacity results in extracted features that lack sufficient discriminability, leading to a more notable performance gap of 1.0% AP. In contrast, the YOLOv10-X model, which possesses stronger capability and more discriminative features, shows no performance gap between two training strategies. In Fig. 4 , we visualize the average cosine similarity of each anchor point's extracted features with those of all other anchor points on the COCO val set. We observe that as the model size increases, the feature similarity between anchor points exhibits a downward trend, which benefits the one-to-one matching. Based on this insight, we will explore approaches to further reduce the gap and achieve higher end-to-end performance in the future work. Analyses for efficiency driven model design. We conduct experiments to gradually incorporate the efficiency driven design elements based on YOLOv10-S/M. Our baseline is the YOLOv10-S/M model without efficiency-accuracy driven model design, i.e., #2/#6 in Tab. 2. As shown in Tab. 5, each design component, including lightweight classification head, spatial-channel decoupled downsampling, and rank-guided block design, contributes to the reduction of parameters count, FLOPs, and latency. Importantly, these improvements are achieved while maintaining competitive performance.• Lightweight classification head. We analyze the impact of category and localization errors of predictions on the performance, based on the YOLOv10-S of #1 and #2 in Tab. 5, like [7] . Specifically, we match the predictions to the instances by the one-to-one assignment. Then, we substitute the predicted category score with instance labels, resulting in AP val w/o c with no classification errors. Similarly, we replace the predicted locations with those of instances, yielding AP val w/o r with no regression errors. As shown in Tab. 6, AP val w/o r is much higher than AP val w/o c , revealing that eliminating the regression errors achieves greater improvement. The performance bottleneck thus lies more in the regression task. Therefore, adopting the lightweight classification head can allow higher efficiency without compromising the performance.• Spatial-channel decoupled downsampling. We decouple the downsampling operations for efficiency, where the channel dimensions are first increased by pointwise convolution (PW) and the resolution is then reduced by depthwise convolution (DW) for maximal information retention. We compare it with the baseline way of spatial reduction by DW followed by channel modulation by PW, based on the YOLOv10-S of #3 in Tab. 5. As shown in Tab. 7, our downsampling strategy achieves the 0.7% AP improvement by enjoying less information loss during downsampling. • Compact inverted block (CIB). We introduce CIB as the compact basic building block. We verify its effectiveness based on the YOLOv10-S of #4 in the Tab. 5. Specifically, we introduce the inverted residual block [51] (IRB) as the baseline, which achieves the suboptimal 43.7% AP, as shown in Tab. 8. We then append a 3×3 depthwise convolution (DW) after it, denoted as "IRB-DW", which brings 0.5% AP improvement. Compared with "IRB-DW", our CIB further achieves 0.3% AP improvement by prepending another DW with minimal overhead, indicating its superiority. • Rank-guided block design. We introduce the rank-guided block design to adaptively integrate compact block design for improving the model efficiency. We verify its benefit based on the YOLOv10-S of #3 in the Tab. 5. The stages sorted in ascending order based on the intrinsic ranks are Stage 8-4-7-3-5-1-6-2, like in Fig. 3 .(a). As shown in Tab. 9, when gradually replacing the bottleneck block in each stage with the efficient CIB, we observe the performance degradation starting from Stage 7. In the Stage 8 and 4 with lower intrinsic ranks and more redundancy, we can thus adopt the efficient block design without compromising the performance. These results indicate that rank-guided block design can serve as an effective strategy for higher model efficiency. Analyses for accuracy driven model design. We present the results of gradually integrating the accuracy driven design elements based on YOLOv10-S/M. Our baseline is the YOLOv10-S/M model after incorporating efficiency driven design, i.e., #3/#7 in Tab. 2. As shown in Tab. 10, the adoption of large-kernel convolution and PSA module leads to the considerable performance improvements of 0.4% AP and 1.4% AP for YOLOv10-S under minimal latency increase of 0.03ms and 0.15ms, respectively. Note that large-kernel convolution is not employed for YOLOv10-M (see Tab. 12).• Large-kernel convolution. We first investigate the effect of different kernel sizes based on the YOLOv10-S of #2 in Tab. 10. As shown in Tab. 11, the performance improves as the kernel size increases and stagnates around the kernel size of 7×7, indicating the benefit of large perception field. Besides, removing the reparameterization branch during training achieves 0.1% AP degradation, showing its effectiveness for optimization. Moreover, we inspect the benefit of large-kernel convolution across model scales based on YOLOv10-N / S / M. As shown in Tab. 12, it brings no improvements for large models, i.e., YOLOv10-M, due to its inherent extensive receptive field. We thus only adopt large-kernel convolutions for small models, i.e., YOLOv10-N / S. • Partial self-attention (PSA). We introduce PSA to enhance the performance by incorporating the global modeling ability under minimal cost. We first verify its effectiveness based on the YOLOv10-S of #3 in Tab. 10. Specifically, we introduce the transformer block, i.e., MHSA followed by FFN, as the baseline, denoted as "Trans.". As shown in Tab. 13, compared with it, PSA brings 0.3% AP improvement with 0.05ms latency reduction. The performance enhancement may be attributed to the alleviation of optimization problem [68, 10] in self-attention, by mitigating the redundancy in attention heads. Moreover, we investigate the impact of different N PSA . As shown in Tab. 13, increasing N PSA to 2 obtains 0.2% AP improvement but with 0.1ms latency overhead. Therefore, we set N PSA to 1, by default, to enhance the model capability while maintaining high efficiency. 
conclusion: 
 In this paper, we target both the post-processing and model architecture throughout the detection pipeline of YOLOs. For the post-processing, we propose the consistent dual assignments for NMSfree training, achieving efficient end-to-end detection. For the model architecture, we introduce the holistic efficiency-accuracy driven model design strategy, improving the performance-efficiency tradeoffs. These bring our YOLOv10, a new real-time end-to-end object detector. Extensive experiments show that YOLOv10 achieves the state-of-the-art performance and latency compared with other advanced detectors, well demonstrating its superiority. 
experimental setting/details: 
 Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?Answer: [Yes] Justification: We provide all the training and test details in the paper and appendix.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them. • The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material. 
experiment statistical significance: 
 Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?Answer: [No] Justification: We did not report the error bars because the training of YOLO on COCO is stable and consistent.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.• The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions). • The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.) • The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors). • It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean. Justification: We provide the information on the computer resources in the implementation details in the appendix.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage. • The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute. • The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't make it into the paper). 
code of ethics: 
 Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines? 
broader impacts: 
 Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?Answer: [Yes] Justification: We discuss the impacts in the appendix.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.• If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact. • Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations. • The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster. • The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology. • If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML). 
safeguards: 
 Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?Answer: [NA] Justification: Our work poses no such risks.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.• Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters. • Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images. • We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.12. Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?Answer: [Yes] Justification: We used the publicly available dataset in our work. We cited the corresponding papers in the paper.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.• The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.• The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL. • The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.• For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.• If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset. • For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided. • If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators. 
new assets: 
 Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?Answer: [NA] Justification: Our work does not release new assets.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.• Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/model as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc. • The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset is used. • At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file. 
crowdsourcing and research with human subjects: 
 Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?Answer: [NA] Justification: Our work does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects. • Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribution of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper. • According to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector. 
institutional review board (irb) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects: 
 Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?Answer: [NA] Justification: Our paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects. • Depending on the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.• We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution. • For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review. 
: 
 Figure 1 : Comparisons with others in terms of latency-accuracy (left) and size-accuracy (right) trade-offs. We measure the end-to-end latency using the official pre-trained models.Over the past years, YOLOs have emerged as the predominant paradigm in the field of real-time object detection owing to their effective balance between computational cost and detection performance. Researchers have explored the architectural designs, optimization objectives, data augmentation strategies, and others for YO-LOs, achieving notable progress. However, the reliance on the non-maximum suppression (NMS) for post-processing hampers the end-to-end deployment of YOLOs and adversely impacts the inference latency. Besides, the design of various components in YOLOs lacks the comprehensive and thorough inspection, resulting in noticeable computational redundancy and limiting the model's capability. It renders the suboptimal efficiency, along with considerable potential for performance improvements. In this work, we aim to further advance the performance-efficiency boundary of YOLOs from both the post-processing and the model architecture. To this end, we first present the consistent dual assignments for NMS-free training of YOLOs, which brings the competitive performance and low inference latency simultaneously. Moreover, we introduce the holistic efficiency-accuracy driven model design strategy for YOLOs. We comprehensively optimize various components of YOLOs from both the efficiency and accuracy perspectives, which greatly reduces the computational overhead and enhances the capability. The outcome of our effort is a new generation of YOLO series for real-time end-to-end object detection, dubbed YOLOv10. Extensive experiments show that YOLOv10 achieves the state-of-the-art performance and efficiency across various model scales. For 
 
 Appendix: Following [21, 62, 65] , all YOLOv10 models are trained from scratch using the SGD optimizer for 500 epochs. The SGD momentum and weight decay are set to 0.937 and 5×10 -4 , respectively. The initial learning rate is 1×10 -2 and it decays linearly to 1×10 -4 . For data augmentation, we adopt the Mosaic [2, 20] , Mixup [74] and copy-paste augmentation [18] , etc., like [21, 65] . Tab. 14 presents the detailed hyper-parameters. All models are trained on 8 NVIDIA 3090 GPUs. Besides, we increase the width scale factor of YOLOv10-M to 1.0 to obtain YOLOv10-B. For PSA, we employ it after the SPPF module [21] and adopt the expansion factor of 2 for FFN. For CIB, we also adopt the expansion ratio of 2 for the inverted bottleneck block structure. Following [65, 62] , we report the standard mean average precision (AP) across different object scales and IoU thresholds on the COCO dataset [35] .Moreover, we follow [78] to establish the end-to-end speed benchmark. Since the execution time of NMS is affected by the input, we thus measure the latency on the COCO val set with the batch size of 1, like [78] . We adopt the same NMS hyperparameters used by the detectors during their validation. The TensorRT efficientNMSPlugin is appended for post-processing and the I/O overhead is omitted. We report the average latency across all images. 0.5/0.5/0.9/0.9/0.9/0.9 mosaic augmentation 1.0 Mixup augmentation 0.0/0.0/0.1/0.1/0.15/0.15 copy-paste augmentation 0.0/0.0/0.1/0.1/0.3/0.3 close mosaic epochs 10We provide the detailed derivation of consistent matching metric here.As mentioned in the paper, we suppose that the one-to-many positive samples is Ω and the one-toone branch selects i-th prediction. We can then leverage the normalized metric [15] to obtain the classification target for task alignment learning [21, 15, 65, 29, 70] , i.e.,t o2m,j = u * • mo2m,j m * o2m ≤ u * for j ∈ Ω and t o2o,i = u * • mo2o,i m * o2o = u * .We can thus derive the supervision gap between two branches by the 1-Wasserstein distance [46] of the different classification targets, i.e.,EQUATIONwhere I(•) is the indicator function. We denote the classification targets of the predictions in Ω as { t1 , t2 , ..., t|Ω| } in descending order, with t1 ≥ t2 ≥ ... ≥ t|Ω| . We can then replace t o2o,i with u * and obtain:EQUATIONWe further discuss the supervision gap in two scenarios, i.e.,1. Supposing i ̸ ∈ Ω, we can obtain:EQUATION2. Supposing i ∈ Ω, we denote t o2m,i = tn and obtain:EQUATIONDue to tn ≥ 0, the second case can lead to smaller supervision gap. Besides, we can observe that A decreases as tn increases, indicating that n decreases and the ranking of i within Ω improves. Due to tn ≤ t1 , A thus achieves the minimum when tn = t1 , i.e., i is the best positive sample in Ω withm o2m,i = m * o2m and t o2m,i = u * • mo2m,i m * o2m = u * .Furthermore, we prove that we can achieve the minimized supervision gap by the consistent matching metric. We suppose α o2m > 0 and β o2m > 0, which are common in [21, 65, 29, 15, 70] . Similarly, we assume α o2o > 0 and β o2o > 0. We can obtain r 1 = αo2o αo2m > 0 and r 2 = βo2o βo2m > 0, and then derive m o2o byEQUATIONTo achieve m o2m,i = m * o2m and m o2o,i = m * o2o , we can make m o2o monotonically increase with m o2m by assigning (r 2 -r 1 ) = 0, i.e.,EQUATIONSupposing r 1 = r 2 = r, we can thus derive the consistent matching metric, i.e., α o2o = r • α o2m and β o2o = r • β o2m . By simply taking r = 1, we obtain α o2o = α o2m and β o2o = β o2m .We present the details of the algorithm of rank-guided block design in Algo. 1. Besides, to calculate the numerical rank of the convolution, we reshape its weight to the shape of (C o , K 2 × C i ), where C o and C i denote the number of output and input channels, and K means the kernel size, respectively.In addition to the inference efficiency analyses, we also investigate the training cost of our YOLOv10 models. We compare with other YOLO variants and measure the training throughput on 8 NVIDIA 3090 GPUs using the official codebases. Tab. 15 presents the comparison results based on the medium model scale. We observe that despite having 500 training epochs, YOLOv10 achieves a high training throughput, making its training cost affordable. We also note that the one-to-many head in the NMS-free training will introduce the extra overhead for YOLOv10. To investigate this, we measure the training cost of YOLOv10 with only the one-to-one head, which is denoted as "YOLOv10-o2o". As shown in Tab. 15, YOLOv10-M results in a small increase in the training time over "YOLOv10-M-o2o", about 18s each epoch, which is affordable. To fairly verify the benefit of the one-to-many head in NMS-free training, we also adopt longer 550 training epochs for "YOLOv10-M-o2o", which Fig. 6 presents the visualization results of our YOLOv10 in the complex and challenging scenarios. It can be observed that YOLOv10 can achieve precise detection under various difficult conditions, such as low light, rotation, etc. It also demonstrates a strong capability in detecting diverse and densely packed objects, such as bottle, cup, and person. These results indicate its superior performance.A.9 Contribution, Limitation, and Broader Impact Contribution. In summary, our contributions are three folds as follows:1. We present a novel consistent dual assignments strategy for NMS-free YOLOs. A dual label assignments way is designed to provide rich supervision by one-to-many branch during training and high efficiency by one-to-one branch during inference. Besides, to ensure the harmonious supervision between two branches, we innovatively propose the consistent matching metric, which can well reduce the theoretical supervision gap and lead to improved performance.Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?Answer: [Yes] Justification: As shown in the abstract, we provide the code at https://github.com/ THU-MIG/yolov10 and the data is available at https://www.cocodataset.org/. Besides, we provided sufficient information in the paper and appendix to reproduce the experimental results.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code. • Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.Justification: Our work conforms with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.• If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require a deviation from the Code of Ethics. • The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction).A lower rank implies greater redundancy, while a higher rank signifies more condensed information. 


Decision: This paper proposes YOLOv10, an advancement of the real-time YOLO series object detection methods. The reviewers have a consensus that the proposed method is effective, and the experiments are sufficient and solid, demonstrating impressive performance improvements. All reviewers acknowledged that their concerns were addressed by the authors in the rebuttal phase. The AC agrees with the reviewers and recommends Accept for this paper.

Reviews: review: paper_summary: paper_summary: The paper presents YOLOv10, an advancement in the YOLO series for real-time object detection. The authors have focused on eliminating the need for Non-Maximum Suppression (NMS) and optimizing the model architecture for efficiency and accuracy. The paper includes a novel training strategy and architectural enhancements, demonstrating improved performance on the COCO dataset.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1.  While the paper introduces a new training strategy, the innovations in the model's architectural design are not as pronounced. A more detailed exposition of the creative process and rationale behind the architectural choices would strengthen the paper's contribution to the field.
2. The paper acknowledges a 1% Average Precision (AP) difference when comparing the YOLOv10-N model trained with NMS-free to the original one-to-many training with NMS. It is better to provide further performance analysis of NMS-free training.
3. Latency of YOLOv10 with the original one-to-many training using NMS should be reported.
questions: questions: 1. Could you report more details on the training cost compared to other YOLOs, such as total training epochs and throughput( with dual label assignments training).
2.  Given that previous iterations of the YOLO series have typically been trained for 300 epochs, would the authors be able to present the training outcomes for YOLOv10 at this epoch count?
limitations: limitations: This paper has discussed the limitations in Appendix.
paper_summary: paper_summary: The authors further improve the YOLO series detector to the tenth generation, through the following two points. The first part is the post-processing improvement, and the authors propose consistent dual assignments for NMS-free training. The second part is the effective model architecture design, where the authors reconstruct the internal structure details. Comprehensive experiments are performed to validate that YOLOv10 strikes a balance between efficiency and accuracy well.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. The novelty of the paper is weak. First, the “dual assignments” is similar to H-DETR [1], where the hybrid matching scheme has been proposed, and is consistent with the dual assignment of LRANet [2]. Besides, the lightweight classification head and spatial-channel decoupled downsampling have been proposed by DAMO-YOLO [3] and large-kernel convolution is common in previous methods. The paper is more like a technical report.
2. More lightweight detectors should be listed in Table 1, including DAMO-YOLO, and YOLOv7. Besides, the authors should specify at what batch size the delay is calculated.

[1] Jia, Ding, et al. "Detrs with hybrid matching." *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition*. 2023.

[2] Su, Yuchen, et al. "LRANet: Towards Accurate and Efficient Scene Text Detection with Low-Rank Approximation Network." *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*. Vol. 38. No. 5. 2024.

[3] Xu, Xianzhe, et al. "Damo-yolo: A report on real-time object detection design." *arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15444* (2022).
questions: questions: 1. This End-to-End paradigm is still based on the anchor-based dense detection paradigm, so the final prediction results have a lot of background. Usually, there are only less than 300 objects in a picture, so there will be almost 8000 invalid detections in YOLOs, which is undoubtedly a waste. In terms of efficiency, I think it is a bit inferior to the object query of the DETR framework.
limitations: limitations: The authors adequately addressed the limitations.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper presents a one-stage object detector that introduces a consistent dual assignments strategy, effectively eliminating the need for NMS and significantly accelerating inference speed with minimal impact on accuracy. Additionally, the paper explores a series of model designs aimed at balancing efficiency and accuracy, enhancing overall model performance.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. The paper could benefit from discussing related works on hybrid or multiple group label assignment strategies, which are prevalent in recent DETR-based detectors.

2. The implementation of a one-to-many head as an auxiliary head likely increases training costs. The paper lacks comparative data on training time and costs, which should be addressed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the model's efficiency.
questions: questions: See weakness. Besides, you mention that intrinsic ranks indicate redundancy, leading to the replacement of certain blocks with CIB in high redundancy stages. After these modifications, do the intrinsic ranks in these stages actually decrease?
limitations: limitations: The paper discusses their limitations in the appendix.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper further advances the performance-efficiency boundary of YOLOs from both the post-processing and the model architecture. Specifically, the paper presents the consistent dual assignments for NMS-free training of YOLOs, which brings the competitive performance and low inference latency simultaneously. In addition, this paper performs engineering optimizations on components of YOLOs in terms of speed and accuracy to achieve optimal performance.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. The motivation of this paper is not clear, and it seems to be intended to further optimize YOLOs from an engineering perspective to achieve better results. The analysis and solutions on NMS and model architecture are almost from existing technologies in the detection field. For example, Hbrid-DETR[1] proposed the drawbacks of one-to-one matching to achieve NMS-free, and then adopted a solution combining one-to-one matching and one-to-many matching; the results of this paper are inspiring, but more like a technical report, providing a stronger baseline for the field of real-time detection.
2. The paper claims that "the inherent complexity in deploying DETRs impedes its ability to attain the optimal balance between accuracy and speed." This seems to lack the necessary evidence. RT-DETR retains most of the components of DETRs and achieves strong results, greatly improving the detection speed and accuracy of DETRs and providing multiple deployment options.
3. If possible, please provide speed comparison results of YOLOv10 and competitors on other hardware.

[1] Jia, Ding, et al. "Detrs with hybrid matching." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2023.
questions: questions: Please answer the questions stated in the weakness.
limitations: limitations: See Weaknesses.

Comments: comment: Thank you for addressing my concerns. With the clarifications provided, I am satisfied and will maintain my current evaluation score.
Thank you for your kind and detailed responses and most of my concerns are now resolved. Although I still maintain a cautious attitude toward the innovative aspect of this paper, I would like to keep my positive score for the submission.
Thank you for your response, it solved my concerns and I will change my rating to 6.