Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The last few years have witnessed an increasing volume of aerial image data because of the extensive improvements of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). These newly developed UAVs have led to a wide variety of applications. A fast assessment of the achieved coverage and overlap of the acquired images of a UAV flight mission is of great help to save the time and cost of the further steps. A fast automatic stitching of the acquired images can help to visually assess the achieved coverage and overlap during the flight mission. This paper proposes an automatic image stitching approach that creates a single overview stitched image using the acquired images during a UAV flight mission along with a coverage image that represents the count of overlaps between the acquired images. The main challenge of such task is the huge number of images that are typically involved in such scenarios. A short flight mission with image acquisition frequency of one second can capture hundreds to thousands of images. The main focus of the proposed approach is to reduce the processing time of the image stitching procedure by exploiting the initial knowledge about the images positions provided by the navigation sensors. The proposed approach also avoids solving for all the transformation parameters of all the photos together to save the expected long computation time if all the parameters were considered simultaneously. After extracting the points of interest of all the involved images using Scale-Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) algorithm, the proposed approach uses the initial image’s coordinates to build an incremental constrained Delaunay triangulation that represents the neighborhood of each image. This triangulation helps to match only the neighbor images and therefore reduces the time-consuming features matching step. The estimated relative orientation between the matched images is used to find a candidate seed image for the stitching process. The pre-estimated transformation parameters of the images are employed successively in a growing fashion to create the stitched image and the coverage image. The proposed approach is implemented and tested using the images acquired through a UAV flight mission and the achieved results are presented and discussed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".