Comparative Analysis of Resident Space Object (RSO) Detection Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a significant increase in satellite launches, resulting in a proliferation of satellites in our near-Earth space environment. This surge has led to a multitude of resident space objects (RSOs). Thus, detecting RSOs is a crucial element of monitoring these objects and plays an important role in preventing collisions between them. Optical images captured from spacecraft and with ground-based telescopes provide valuable information for RSO detection and identification, thereby enhancing space situational awareness (SSA). However, datasets are not publicly available due to their sensitive nature. This scarcity of data has hindered the development of detection algorithms. In this paper, we present annotated RSO images, which constitute an internally curated dataset obtained from a low-resolution wide-field-of-view imager on a stratospheric balloon. In addition, we examine several frame differencing techniques, namely, adjacent frame differencing, median frame differencing, proximity filtering and tracking, and a streak detection method. These algorithms were applied to annotated images to detect RSOs. The proposed algorithms achieved a competitive degree of success with precision scores of 73%, 95%, 95%, and 100% and F1 scores of 68%, 77%, 82%, and 79%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".