An air-to-air unmanned aerial vehicle interceptor using machine-learning methods for detection and tracking of a target drone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proliferation of small or micro unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) gives rise to a potential threat for both public and military security. The small footprint and unpredictable dynamics of drones make detection and tracking difficult. Traditional methods of defence and protection may be ineffective against this new danger. This paper presents the work on developing DroneSwatter, a counter unmanned aerial system developed to track, follow, and take down a drone threat (Target Drone) using an agile, low-cost drone interceptor (Hunter Drone). The DroneSwatter project aims to apply machine learning techniques for counter-drone scenarios. Detection tasks are performed using deep learning detection algorithms. Simulation is used to build a tracking control model via proportional-derivative (PD) and machine learning algorithms. Optical pursuit based on images collected from the onboard camera of a Hunter Drone is implemented to track a Target Drone. Field experiments were conducted to test the feasibility and functionality of the current software and hardware methods for the DroneSwatter system. A benchmark was established by flying a target drone in designed patterns and the performance of the DroneSwatter tracking system was evaluated based on what speeds the Hunter Drone could follow the Target Drone in the field testing.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".