Evaluation and Selection of Video Stabilization Techniques for UAV-Based Active Infrared Thermography Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) that can fly around an aircraft carrying several sensors, e.g., thermal and optical cameras, to inspect the parts of interest without removing them can have significant impact in reducing inspection time and cost. One of the main challenges in the UAV based active InfraRed Thermography (IRT) inspection is the UAV's unexpected motions. Since active thermography is mainly concerned with the analysis of thermal sequences, unexpected motions can disturb the thermal profiling and cause data misinterpretation especially for providing an automated process pipeline of such inspections. Additionally, in the scenarios where post-analysis is intended to be applied by an inspector, the UAV's unexpected motions can increase the risk of human error, data misinterpretation, and incorrect characterization of possible defects. Therefore, post-processing is required to minimize/eliminate such undesired motions using digital video stabilization techniques. There are number of video stabilization algorithms that are readily available; however, selecting the best suited one is also challenging. Therefore, this paper evaluates video stabilization algorithms to minimize/mitigate undesired UAV motion and proposes a simple method to find the best suited stabilization algorithm as a fundamental first step towards a fully operational UAV-IRT inspection system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".