General Moving Object Localization from a Single Flying Camera
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
Object localization is an important task in the visual surveillance of scenes, and it has important applications in locating personnel and/or equipment in large open spaces such as a farm or a mine. Traditionally, object localization can be performed using the technique of stereo vision: using two fixed cameras for a moving object, or using a single moving camera for a stationary object. This research addresses the problem of determining the location of a moving object using only a single moving camera, and it does not make use of any prior information on the type of object nor the size of the object. Our technique makes use of a single camera mounted on a quadrotor drone, which flies in a specific pattern relative to the object in order to remove the depth ambiguity associated with their relative motion. In our previous work, we showed that with three images, we can recover the location of an object moving parallel to the direction of motion of the camera. In this research, we find that with four images, we can recover the location of an object moving linearly in an arbitrary direction. We evaluated our algorithm on over 70 image sequences of objects moving in various directions, and the results showed a much smaller depth error rate (less than 8.0% typically) than other state-of-the-art algorithms.
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