MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390271183 · doi:10.18280/ria.370608

Deep Learning Model for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle-based Object Detection on Thermal Images

2023· article· en· W4390271183 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Moch Arief Soeleman, Catur Supriyanto, Purwanto Purwanto

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceObject detectionComputer visionDeep learningObject (grammar)Computer scienceRemote sensingAerial imageGeographyImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research is related to the use of deep learning models on thermal images for object detection using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Thermal imaging proves to be efficient in environments with minimal light and during nighttime, as it operates based on emitted heat rather than visible light. The ability to detect objects in thermal images enhances surveillance and security measures, particularly in dark conditions. During search and rescue missions, especially in settings with restricted visibility, thermal imaging aids in the identification of individuals or animals by detecting their heat signatures. This facilitates the process of locating them in diverse conditions. Detecting objects at night is challenging due to the lack of illumination. Experiments were conducted using the publicly available HIT-UAV dataset, consisting of 2898 images. This dataset includes several classes such as Person, Car, Bicycle, Other Vehicle, and DontCare. This study proposes the use of both YOLOv5 and YOLOv8 for object detection on this dataset. The YOLOv8 model is the latest model currently available. Both YOLOv5 and YOLOv8 variants were developed by Ultralytics. The experiment used five Yolo models: nano (n), small (s), medium (m), large (l), and extra-large (x). By using YOLOv8m, we achieved a mean Average Precision at IoU threshold 0.5 (mAP@0.5) of 0.855. The performance exceeds that of several previously proposed models, such as YOLOv4-tiny, Faster-RCNN, and YOLOv4, which yielded mAP scores of 0.504, 0.768, and 0.847, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicInfrared Target Detection MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207