MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380451747 · doi:10.1117/12.2663475

Development of a test bench for the assessment of digital processing efficiency in thermal imaging systems

2023· article· en· W4380451747 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Grégoire, Nathalie Roy, Michel Dupuis, Simon Potvin, Karl-Alexandre Jahjah, Jean-Claude Bouchard, Anne Martel, Jean O. Lacoursière

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceImage processingDigital image processingTest benchMicroprocessorReal-time computingComputer hardwareEmbedded systemArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern thermal imaging systems are widely used because of their broad military and commercial application range. The performance of the first generations of thermal imagers was limited by resolution and thermal sensitivity. Brightness and contrast adjustments were also the crux of the image quality. From a military user perspective, the amount of details and the interpretation of a scene depends, among others, on the experience of the user and on the time available to complete those adjustments. Modern imagers now feature embedded digital processing that can automatically adjust the device parameters in order to optimize the image quality. With the combined improvements in microprocessor power and microfabrication processes, digital processing enhanced the thermal imagers’ performance until they eventually became limited by their ability to react to different operational scenarios. That brings the need for testing the reaction of digital processing in such operational scenarios. Meanwhile, there were no significant modification in testing methodologies and metrics used for the assessment of thermal imagers. In this paper, we present DRDC-Valcartier Research Centre’s efforts to develop a test bench to measure the efficiency of the digital processing embedded in thermal imagers. The purpose of the testing methodology is to provide reliable, repeatable and user-independent metrics. Outputs quantitatively highlight the impact of digital processing for various operational situations and allow the performance of devices to be compared.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrared Target Detection MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207