Infrared and Visible Camera Integration for Detection and Tracking of Small UAVs: Systematic Evaluation
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
Given the recent proliferation of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) and the consequent importance of counter-UASs, this project aims to perform the detection and tracking of small non-cooperative UASs using Electro-optical (EO) and Infrared (IR) sensors. Two data integration techniques, at the decision and pixel levels, are compared with the use of each sensor independently to evaluate the system robustness in different operational conditions. The data are submitted to a YOLOv7 detector merged with a ByteTrack tracker. For training and validation, additional efforts are made towards creating datasets of spatially and temporally aligned EO and IR annotated Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) frames and videos. These consist of the acquisition of real data captured from a workstation on the ground, followed by image calibration, image alignment, the application of bias-removal techniques, and data augmentation methods to artificially create images. The performance of the detector across datasets shows an average precision of 88.4%, recall of 85.4%, and mAP@0.5 of 88.5%. Tests conducted on the decision-level fusion architecture demonstrate notable gains in recall and precision, although at the expense of lower frame rates. Precision, recall, and frame rate are not improved by the pixel-level fusion design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it