Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Classification Using Neural Neworks and Radar Digital Twins: UAV Classification Using Neural Networks and Radar Digital Twins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, have emerged as versatile tools with a wide range of applications across various fields. UAV technology has rapidly evolved, leading to its adoption in civilian and commercial sectors. UAVs offer numerous benefits, including cost-effectiveness, flexibility, and accessibility, making them invaluable assets in various industries such as precision agriculture, environmental monitoring, disaster response, and infrastructure inspection. They provide real-time aerial data and imagery, enabling farmers to optimize crop management, conservationists to monitor ecosystems, and emergency responders to assess disaster-affected areas[1]. Additionally, UAVs play a crucial role in contactless vital sign monitoring[2]and in entertainment and filmmaking, revolutionizing aerial cinematography and photography[3]. With their versatility and accessibility, UAVs continue to drive innovation and efficiency in industries worldwide. However, the increased accessibility and availability of UAVs have also raised concerns about their potential use in illegal activities and terrorist attacks[4],[5],[6],[7]. This highlights the importance of identifying and classifying drones for safety and security purposes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".