A More Efficient Algorithm for Small Target Detection in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the relatively high shooting altitude of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), the captured images often contain a multitude of small‐scale targets. To solve the problems of small target scale, lack of semantic information, and high miss detection in drone target detection, in this paper we proposed a more effective unmanned aerial vehicle small target detection algorithm(MEU‐YOLOv5) based on YOLOv5s. Firstly, an efficient global contextual module is proposed to enhance the algorithm's performance in feature extraction while reducing the excessive loss of shallow features. Secondly, a small‐scale target detector is added to enhance the algorithm's detection capability for smaller targets. Lastly, a recursive multi‐level feature fusion path is introduced to better fuse the shallow and deep features of the images, reducing overfitting and improving the algorithm's generalizability and robustness. Experimental results demonstrated that compared to YOLOv5s, MEU‐YOLOv5 achieves a 7.4% improvement in mAP@0.5 and a 4.9% improvement in mAP@0.5:0.95. Additionally, the overall performance of this algorithm surpassed various algorithms in the YOLO series, including YOLOv3, YOLOv5l, YOLOv5m, and YOLOv8s. © 2024 Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan. Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it