Object Semantics Give Us the Depth We Need: Multi-Task Approach to Aerial Depth Completion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depth completion and object detection are two crucial tasks often used for aerial 3D mapping, path planning, and collision avoidance of Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Common solutions include using measurements from a LiDAR sensor; however, the generated point cloud is often sparse and irregular and limits the system's capabilities in 3D rendering and safety-critical decision-making. To mitigate this challenge, information from other sensors on the UAV (viz., a camera used for object detection) is utilized to help the depth completion process generate denser 3D models. Performing both aerial depth completion and object detection tasks while fusing the data from the two sensors poses a challenge to resource efficiency. We address this challenge by proposing a novel approach to jointly execute the two tasks in a single pass. The proposed method is based on an encoder-focused multi-task learning model that exposes the two tasks to jointly learned features. We demonstrate how semantic expectations of the objects in the scene learned by the object detection pathway can boost the performance of the depth completion pathway while regressing the missing depth values. Experimental results show that the proposed multi-task network outperforms its single-task counterpart, particularly when exposed to defective inputs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".