You will be shown an excerpt from a computer science scientific research paper, followed by a question about the paper. Please answer the question. Do not include any text in your response other than the answer.

Context: To understand the performance of our two SSD models in more details, we used the detection analysis tool from [21]. Figure 3 shows that SSD can detect various object categories with high quality (large white area). The majority of its confident detections are correct. The recall is around 85-90%, and is much higher with “weak” (0.1 jaccard overlap) criteria. Compared to R-CNN [22], SSD has less localization error, indicating that SSD can localize objects better because it directly learns to regress the object shape and classify object categories instead of using two decoupled steps. However, SSD has more confusions with similar object categories (especially for animals), partly because we share locations for multiple categories. Figure 4 shows that SSD is very sensitive to the bounding box size. In other words, it has much worse performance on smaller objects than bigger objects. This is not surprising because those small objects may not even have any information at the very top layers. Increasing the input size (e.g. from 300\times 300 to 512\times 512) can help improve detecting small objects, but there is still a lot of room to improve. On the positive side, we can clearly see that SSD performs really well on large objects. And it is very robust to different object aspect ratios because we use default boxes of various aspect ratios per feature map location.

Question: How did SSD handle Object localization better than F-CNN ?
SSD does better object localization than F-CNN because directly learns to regress the object shape and classify object categories instead of using two decoupled steps.