Detection of Airborne Collision-Course Targets for Sense and Avoid on Unmanned Aircraft Systems Using Machine Vision Techniques
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
Detecting collision-course targets in aerial scenes from purely passive optical images is challenging for a vision-based sense-and-avoid (SAA) system. Proposed herein is a processing pipeline for detecting and evaluating collision course targets from airborne imagery using machine vision techniques. The evaluation of eight feature detectors and three spatio-temporal visual cues is presented. Performance metrics for comparing feature detectors include the percentage of detected targets (PDT), percentage of false positives (POT) and the range at earliest detection ([Formula: see text]). Contrast and motion-based visual cues are evaluated against standard models and expected spatio-temporal behavior. The analysis is conducted on a multi-year database of captured imagery from actual airborne collision course flights flown at the National Research Council of Canada. Datasets from two different intruder aircraft, a Bell 206 rotor-craft and a Harvard Mark IV trainer fixed-wing aircraft, were compared for accuracy and robustness. Results indicate that the features from accelerated segment test (FAST) feature detector shows the most promise as it maximizes the range at earliest detection and minimizes false positives. Temporal trends from visual cues analyzed on the same datasets are indicative of collision-course behavior. Robustness of the cues was established across collision geometry, intruder aircraft types, illumination conditions, seasonal environmental variations and scene clutter.
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