MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improving Accuracy of Object Detection in Autonomous Drones with Convolutional Neural Networks

2025· article· en· W4408793680 on OpenAlexaff
Himanshu Rai Goyal, Anurag Shrivastava, Krishna Kant Dixit, Amandeep Nagpal, B. Ravali Reddy, Jaysheel Kumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceObject detectionComputer visionObject (grammar)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing use of autonomous drones in such areas as agriculture, disaster response and surveillance means that an effective and precise method of object recognition is becoming more important. In this study, we use Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) to bring additional precision to autonomous drone object detecting systems. While conventional machine learning approaches fail miserably in having complicated contexts and real time processing, CNN have sucessfully handles visual identification task. Based on state of the art methods being data augmentation and transfer learning, plus being real time with data augmentation of the raw data on the edge processor, this research introduces a convolutional neural network (CNN) model which has been fine-tuned and can be used for drones. The model is trained and tested on a big dataset of aerial photos acquired by drones. The item classification on this dataset varies from lighting conditions, to weather variables, etc. A considerable increase in the object detection accuracy is found from experimental findings in reducing false positives and improving resilience in dynamic contexts. Furthermore, the suggested model allows for detection with little latency, making it a good model for drones that must be deployed in real-time. Not only does this work contribute to bolstering rapidly growing autonomous drone navigation, it has great promise in environmental monitoring, SAR, and precision agriculture, and other applications. The components of the models are being researched on how scalable they are and how do they scale up on hardware that has limited resources.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207