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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.063
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