Warm Liquid Spill Detection and Tracking Using Thermal Imaging
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
Detection of liquid spill is a crucial and effective task to maintain safety and protection in various environments. Thermal imaging as a passive imaging modality working in different lighting conditions and even through smoke can be advantageously used to detect liquid spill in challenging conditions. Deep learning-based object detectors are well-established techniques to detect and localize different objects or phenomena in a variety of image modalities, however they require large scale databases with bounding box annotation in order to be trained from scratch. In this work, we present, evaluate, and compare three different methods to address the unavailability of substantial datasets dedicated to liquid spill detection from thermal images in the context of health and safety prevention. A Flir A35 thermal camera is used to collect data for the experiments. The three methods are based respectively on a conventional image processing algorithm using watershed segmentation, a weakly supervised approach using Gradient Class Activation Mapping, and an unsupervised deep learning approach for salient object detection guided by motion. No pixel level annotation is required for the proposed approaches. The work demonstrates that a conventional image processing approach, achieving an average precision and an average recall as high as 0.83 and 0.72 respectively, can reliably detect and localize warm liquid spill in sequences of thermal images.
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