Early detection of small- and medium-sized drones in complex environments
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
Unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, have become a weapon of choice on the modern battlefield. As military and civilian industries try to develop effective counter-drone systems, early detection of flying drones still poses multiple challenges to state-of-the-art computer vision technologies. These challenges include a growing variety of military and commercial drones, their small size compared to piloted aircraft, blending with the background, similarity to birds, etc. In our experiments on drone images of variable size, we have observed a rapid drop in the accuracy of a state-of-the-art drone detection model when applied to distant drones that take a relatively small area on the entire image. However, we show that this early detection accuracy can be significantly improved by applying the drone detection model to an image masked by the Canny edge detector. We suggest applying the model to the original and the masked images in parallel and determining a drone detection decision by the highest confidence value under the condition that the detected object is not recognized as a bird by a general-purpose object detection model. The results of our evaluation experiments confirm the effectiveness of the proposed drone detection approach.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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