Robust Horizon Detection Using Segmentation for UAV Applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical step in navigation of unmanned aerial vehicles is the detection of the horizon line. This information can be used for adjusting flight parameters as well as obstacle avoidance. In this paper, a fast and robust technique for precise detection of the horizon path is proposed. The method is based on existence of a unique light field that occurs in imagery where the horizon is viewed. This light field exists in different scenes including sea-sky, soil-sky, and forest-sky horizon lines. Our proposed approach employs segmentation of the scene and subsequent analysis of the image segments for extraction of the mentioned field and thus the horizon path. Through various experiments carried out on our own dataset and that of another previously published paper, we illustrate the significance and accuracy of this technique for various types of terrains from water to ground, and even snow-covered ground. Finally, it is shown that robust performance and accuracy, speed, and extraction of the path as curves (as opposed to a straight line which is resulted from many other approaches) are the benefits of our method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it