Evaluating the Performance of Corner Detection Approaches for Features Extraction from UAV Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many corner detector techniques have already been used in extracting information from UAV images to perform various photogrammetric and mapping activities. Among these techniques is the Feature from Accelerated Segment Test (FAST) and the Harris corner detector. It is widely agreed that the evaluation of detectors is of great importance because it evaluates and enhances the accuracy of the detected features. This research evaluates the performance of FAST-9 and FAST-12 as well as the Harris detector in terms of the repeatability rate, completeness, and correctness under different threshold values. Each method is evaluated in terms of its ability for detection UAV objects (crowd and cars features). Then the common detected features between both FAST versions and the Harris detector are extracted. This is to determine which method performs best under different image conditions (e.g., illumination variations, camera position and orientation, and image noise). The results show that the size of the threshold plays a crucial role in determining the number of detected feature points. An increase in the threshold value leads to a decrease in the number of detected points and vice versa. Thus, the correctness decreases whereas the completeness increases as a function of the threshold values. Furthermore, the relationship between the FAST-9 and the Harris detector is slightly better than those between the FAST-12 and the Harris detector. This is because the number of common features between the FAST-9 and the Harris detector are relatively higher than those between the FAST-12 and the Harris detector.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".