MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304099324 · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.21257082.v1

Machine Learning for UAV Classification Employing Mechanical Control Information

2022· preprint· en· W4304099324 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed N. Sayed, Omar M. Ramahi, George Shaker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCMC Microsystems
KeywordsDroneSignature (topology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceDoppler effectClassifier (UML)Range (aeronautics)QuadcopterPattern recognition (psychology)EngineeringPhysicsMathematicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Range-Doppler images are widely used to classify different types of UAVs because each UAV has a unique range-doppler signature. However, a drone’s range-doppler signature depends on its movement mechanism. This is why the classifier accuracy would be degraded if the effect of the mechanical control system wasn’t taken into consideration, which may lead to a non-unique signature of a drone while in-flight. In this paper, a full-wave electromagnetic CAD tool is used to investigate the effect of the control systems of a quadcopter and a hexacopter UAVs on their range-doppler signatures. A Mechanical Control-Based Machine Learning (MCML) algorithm is introduced to classify the two UAVs and its accuracy is found to exceed 90%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207