Experimental Evaluation of Computer Vision and Machine Learning-Based UAV Detection and Ranging
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
We consider the problem of vision-based detection and ranging of a target UAV using the video feed from a monocular camera onboard a pursuer UAV. Our previously published work in this area employed a cascade classifier algorithm to locate the target UAV, which was found to perform poorly in complex background scenes. We thus study the replacement of the cascade classifier algorithm with newer machine learning-based object detection algorithms. Five candidate algorithms are implemented and quantitatively tested in terms of their efficiency (measured as frames per second processing rate), accuracy (measured as the root mean squared error between ground truth and detected location), and consistency (measured as mean average precision) in a variety of flight patterns, backgrounds, and test conditions. Assigning relative weights of 20%, 40% and 40% to these three criteria, we find that when flying over a white background, the top three performers are YOLO v2 (76.73 out of 100), Faster RCNN v2 (63.65 out of 100), and Tiny YOLO (59.50 out of 100), while over a realistic background, the top three performers are Faster RCNN v2 (54.35 out of 100, SSD MobileNet v1 (51.68 out of 100) and SSD Inception v2 (50.72 out of 100), leading us to recommend Faster RCNN v2 as the recommended solution. We then provide a roadmap for further work in integrating the object detector into our vision-based UAV tracking 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.
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