MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fine-Grained Object Detection with Remote-Sensing Data Using Optimized YOLO-based Models

2025· article· en· W4409796158 on OpenAlexafffund
Henintsoa S. Andrianarivony, Moulay A. Akhloufi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceObject detectionObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionRemote sensingPattern recognition (psychology)Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote sensing data is used in various fields, such as environmental monitoring, urban planning, agriculture, and disaster management. Advances in satellite technology permit the creation of high-quality data, including high-resolution remote-sensing images. However, classical techniques struggle to process and extract information from large quantities and high-resolution remote-sensing data. In this context, with the advancement in computing power, deep learning has become a powerful tool for extracting features and processing remote-sensing data. Despite these advancements, remote-sensing object detection faces challenges related to the diversity of object types, variations in scale and resolution, and the presence of occlusion, which can hinder the accuracy and robustness of detection models. This paper explores YOLO-based architectures for horizontal and oriented bounding box detection in fine-grained object detection using the FAIR1M dataset. FAIR1M provides high-resolution satellite images with 5 object categories and 37 object sub-categories. The best model in horizontal object detection is the YOLOv9e, achieving a mAP50 of 44.6 %. The best model in oriented object detection is a pre-trained model using a custom weighted data loader, achieving a mAP50 of 40.5 %. We further analyze the strengths and limitations of these techniques for fine-grained remote-sensing object detection and highlight the contributions to improving the models' performances depending on the application. We then conclude and give directions for future work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrared Target Detection MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207