Challenges and Limitations in Human Action Recognition on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: A Comprehensive Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), commonly called a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard. Making UAVs that can accurately discover individuals on the ground is very important for various applications, such as people searches, and surveillance. UAV integration in smart cities is challenging, however, because of problems and concerns such as privacy, safety, and ethical/legal use. Human action recognition-based UAVs can utilize modern technologies. Thus, it is essential for future development of the aforementioned applications. UAV-based human activity recognition is the procedure of classifying photo sequences with action labels. This paper offers a comprehensive study of UAV-based human action recognition techniques. Furthermore, we conduct empirical research studies to assess several factors that might influence the efficiency of human detection and action recognition techniques in UAVs. Benchmark datasets commonly utilized for UAV-based human action recognition are briefly explained. Our findings reveal that the existing human action recognition innovations can identify human actions on UAVs with some limitations in range, altitudes, long-distance, and a large angle of depression.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".