<?xml version="1.1" encoding="utf-8"?>
<article xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.1/xsd/JATS-journalpublishing1-mathml3.xsd" dtd-version="1.1" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JERA</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Electronic Research and Application</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn>2208-3502</issn><eissn>2208-3510</eissn><publisher><publisher-name>Bio-Byword Scientific Publishing Pty. Ltd.</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.26689/jera.v10i6.15345</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title>Architectural Design of RT-DETR-L for PCB Surface Defect Detection: A Systematic Comparison of Attention Mechanisms, Backbone Replacement, and Cross-Dataset Generalization</title><url>https://artdesignp.com/journal/JERA/10/6/10.26689/jera.v10i6.15345</url><author>HuangTao</author><pub-date pub-type="publication-year"><year>2026</year></pub-date><volume>10</volume><issue>6</issue><history><date date-type="pub"><published-time>2026-07-07</published-time></date></history><abstract>Based on RT-DETR-L, this paper systematically compares five attention mechanisms (SE, CBAM, CA, ECA, and EMA) at the P3/P4/P5 outputs of the feature-pyramid neck under identical training conditions, and evaluates FasterNet backbone replacement and a P2 small-object detection head as complementary improvements. Experiments reveal a performance gap of up to 4.29 percentage points (CA: 93.04% to EMA: 97.33% in mAP50), indicating that the choice of attention mechanism has a substantial impact on RT-DETR-type PCB detectors. EMA achieves the best mAP50 (97.33%) and the highest mAP50:95 (56.45%); ECA offers a competitive trade-off without increasing GFLOPs (96.69%); CA performs worst (93.04%), a 3.34 pp drop below the baseline, tentatively attributed to an architectural conflict with the AIFI encoder. FasterNet backbone replacement trades accuracy for efficiency (31% fewer parameters, 40% lower GFLOPs); and, when trained from scratch on the second dataset DeepPCB, the EMA variant again yields the largest gain (mAP5089.33%, 4.83 pp over the baseline), showing that the improvement is not specific to a single dataset.</abstract><keywords/></article-meta></front><body/><back><ref-list><ref id="B1" content-type="article"><label>1</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Ling Q, Isa N, 2023, Printed Circuit Board Defect Detection Methods Based on Image Processing, Machine Learning and Deep Learning: A Survey. IEEE Access, 11: 15921–15944.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B2" content-type="article"><label>2</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Zhao Y, Lv W, Xu S, et al., 2024, DETRs Beat YOLOs on Real-Time Object Detection. CVPR.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B3" content-type="article"><label>3</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Wang Y, Wu B, Zhang L, et al., 2025, Enhanced PCB Defect Detection Via HSA-RTDETR on RT-DETR. Scientific Reports, 15: 31783.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B4" content-type="article"><label>4</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Ouyang D, He S, Zhang G, et al., 2023, Efficient Multi-Scale Attention Module with Cross-Spatial Learning. ICASSP.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B5" content-type="article"><label>5</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Hu J, Shen L, Sun G, 2018, Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks. CVPR: 7132–7141.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B6" content-type="article"><label>6</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Woo S, Park J, Lee J, et al., 2018, CBAM: Convolutional Block Attention Module. ECCV: 3–19.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B7" content-type="article"><label>7</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Hou Q, Zhou D, Feng J, 2021, Coordinate Attention for Efficient Mobile Network Design. CVPR: 13713–13722.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B8" content-type="article"><label>8</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Chen J, Kao S, He H, et al., 2023, Run, Don’t Walk: Chasing Higher FLOPS for Faster Neural Networks. CVPR: 12021–12031.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B9" content-type="article"><label>9</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Tang S, He F, Huang X, et al., 2019, On-Line PCB Defect Detector on a New PCB Defect Dataset. arXiv: 1902.06197.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B10" content-type="article"><label>10</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Wang Q, Wu B, Zhu P, et al., 2020, ECA-Net: Efficient Channel Attention for Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. CVPR: 11534–11542.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
