Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Bayesian Data Augmentation and Training for Perception DNN in Autonomous Aerial Vehicles

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Bayesian optimization over two augmentation settings lifts a simulated VTOL's landing success from 50% to 70%.

desk verdict Sensible BO-for-augmentation integration for VTOL landing, but the 20% improvement claim rests on a single 10-trial comparison and no baselines for night conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07655 v1 pith:RKYHFVJG submitted 2024-12-10 cs.RO cs.CVcs.LG

Ashik E Rasul , Humaira Tasnim , Hyung-Jin Yoon , Ayoosh Bansal , Duo Wang , Naira Hovakimyan , Lui Sha , Petros Voulgaris This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CVcs.LG
keywords BayesianoptimizationdataaugmentationVTOLlandingperceptionDNNYOLOobjectdetectionCARLAsimulatorGUAMvehicledynamicssim-to-realgap
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the perception detector guiding a VTOL landing can be tuned substantially without collecting new real-world data, by closing a loop between simulation and retraining. The detector is retrained with image augmentation parameters—scale and brightness—selected by Bayesian optimization, where the objective is the landing success rate measured in a photorealistic urban simulator coupled to a high-fidelity VTOL dynamics model. The authors report that after 30 optimization iterations the simulated success rate rises from 50% to 70%, and that a single parameter pair (scale 0.77, brightness 0.66) keeps the detector working across clear day, clear night, and night-with-rain scenarios. If these simulation results transfer to physical flight, the framework would let perception be adapted to safety-critical landing maneuvers without the cost of exhaustive real-world data collection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the closed retraining loop. A Gaussian Process models the unknown mapping from augmentation parameters (scale, brightness) to landing success rate, and an Upper Confidence Bound acquisition function proposes the next parameter pair to test; the detector is retrained with those parameters and the success rate from ten simulated landings updates the surrogate. This sample-efficient search is what makes 30 retraining iterations feasible, and the resulting surrogate contour maps identify scale=0.77 and brightness=0.66 as a common high-performing region across the three scenarios.

What would settle it

Repeat the final landing evaluation with the paper's augmentation pair (scale=0.77, brightness=0.66) and with a baseline detector over a larger batch, for example 100 randomized starting positions per scenario; if the 95% confidence intervals for landing success overlap, the reported improvement is within trial noise. A real-flight test with the same camera and controller that shows no improvement would likewise falsify the transfer claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that repeatedly retraining a helipad detector with data augmentations chosen by a Gaussian-process surrogate—using the simulated landing success rate as the reward—discovers augmentation settings that generalize across lighting and weather. In the paper's experiments, the initial detector trained with default random augmentations reached 50% landing success in clear-day conditions; the Bayesian loop improved that to 70% in both clear day and clear night, kept 50% in night rain, and raised the detector's confidence at extreme start offsets from 30% to 50% in clear day and from 0% to 50% in clear night. The authors also report that optimizing only under clear day produced parameters that failed completely at night, whereas optimizing under adverse conditions yielded a parameter pair shared by all three scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The entire reported gain rests on the assumption that the simulated landing success rate—ten trials with a PID controller in a photorealistic urban simulator—is a faithful, low-noise proxy for how the same detector would perform on a physical VTOL, and the paper provides no repeated trials, variance estimate, or real-flight validation for that proxy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the numbers hold, one detector retrained with scale=0.77 and brightness=0.66 can be used without per-condition retraining in clear day, clear night, and night rain.
  • The night-rain success rate stays at 50% for the common model, so the framework's gain is not uniform; adverse conditions remain the hardest scenario.
  • Because the objective is measured in simulation, the same loop can be rerun for a new aircraft, camera placement, or landing-pad design before any hardware exists.
  • The clear-day-only optimization failure at night indicates that augmentation parameters should be tuned under the target operating conditions, not only under nominal ones.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the ten-trial success metric has 10-percentage-point resolution, so the reported 50%-to-70% gain is two extra successful landings; repeating the final evaluation over 100 or more starting positions and comparing distributions would show whether the GP was fitting signal or trial noise.
  • Editorial extension: the decisive test is a sim-to-real transfer experiment with the same downward-facing camera, tracking, and PID controller on a physical VTOL, checking whether the simulation-optimized augmentation pair retains its advantage.
  • Editorial extension: the two-parameter search could be widened to other augmentation dimensions such as hue, rotation, blur, or occlusion; the Bayesian loop's sample efficiency would limit how many dimensions can be explored at the same cost.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a closed-loop framework for improving a YOLOv8 perception model used for autonomous VTOL landing. The framework combines photorealistic CARLA simulation with JAX-GUAM vehicle dynamics, a PID landing controller, and Bayesian optimization over two data-augmentation hyperparameters (scale and brightness) to retrain the detector against simulated landing success. The authors report that the initial model achieves a 50% landing success rate in clear day conditions, and that after 30 iterations of Bayesian optimization the success rate rises to 70%. They further report a shared parameter set (scale=0.77, brightness=0.66) that yields 70% success in clear day and clear night, and 50% success at night with rain. Real-flight testing is explicitly deferred to future work.

Significance. If the reported improvements are robust, the framework is a useful integration of photorealistic simulation, high-fidelity vehicle dynamics, perception, and Bayesian optimization for aerial landing tasks. The authors make their code available, and the decision to disable stochastic YOLO augmentations for reproducible training is a genuine strength. However, the current evidence is insufficient to support the headline quantitative claims: the central comparison rests on single ten-trial evaluations without variance or confidence intervals, baseline performance is only reported for one condition, and the paper contains an internal inconsistency about per-condition success rates. These issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope, so the framework itself appears promising rather than fundamentally flawed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV.B] The claim that the model 'consistently improved the perception-based landing success rate by at least 20% under different lighting and weather conditions' is not supported by the reported data. The 50% to 70% improvement is based on one set of ten trials for the baseline and one set for the optimized model, with no repeated seeds, no variance, and no confidence intervals. For 5/10 versus 7/10 successes, a two-tailed Fisher exact test gives a p-value of roughly 0.6, so the observed difference is well within sampling noise. Moreover, Section IV.B reports a baseline only for clear day; no baseline success rates are given for clear night or night-with-rain, so the 'at least 20% under different conditions' claim cannot be verified for those conditions.
  2. [Section III.E and Section IV.B] There is an internal contradiction in the reported results. Section III.E states that 'We obtained models that consistently perform with more than 70% landing success rates for each condition,' but Section IV.B reports that the final shared-parameter model achieves a 50% landing success rate in night-with-rain conditions. The authors should reconcile these statements and clearly distinguish the per-condition optimized models from the single shared-parameter model.
  3. [Section III.D and Figure 9] The Gaussian process surrogate is used to model the landing success rate, but the contour plots in Figure 9a and 9c show predicted success rates greater than 1.0. Since a success rate is a probability, the GP is not a calibrated model of the objective, and the UCB acquisition function may query parameter regions with impossible predictions. The authors should either use a link function appropriate for binary or proportional outcomes (e.g., a logistic GP) or otherwise constrain the surrogate to [0,1], and they should discuss how the reported optimal parameters depend on this modeling choice.
  4. [Algorithm 1 and Section IV.B] The reported 70% success rate is the maximum over the 30 Bayesian-optimization iterations, not an unbiased estimate of the performance of the final selected model. This winner's-curse effect means the quoted improvement is likely inflated relative to the expected performance of the chosen hyperparameters on a fresh evaluation. The authors should re-evaluate the final selected hyperparameters (scale=0.77, brightness=0.66) on multiple independent sets of landing trials and report the mean and variance (or a confidence interval) for both the baseline and the optimized model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.A] The 80/20 train-validation split and the five data subsets are described as random, but no random seed or reproducibility mechanism is specified for these splits; please provide the seeds or the code configuration so that the claimed reproducibility can be assessed.
  2. [Figure 8 caption] The caption says '20% Improvement in Landing Success Rate,' but the improvement is 20 percentage points (50% to 70%), not 20% relative; please reword for accuracy.
  3. [Section IV.B] The sentence comparing mAP50-95 of 43% to YOLOv8's 44.9% on COCO should clarify that this is the initial model before applying the proposed framework, and should state whether the final model's detection metrics are also reported.
  4. [Section III.C] The PID gains Kp, Ki, and Kd are not specified; please provide the numerical values used in the simulations so that the experiments could be reproduced.
  5. [Figure 9] The axis label 'Brightness Value (hsv_v)' is not defined in the text; please define brightness as the V channel of the HSV color space and state the augmentation range used.
  6. [Figure 1] The schematic includes a step labeled 'Validation: Address sim2real GAP,' but real-world deployment is only mentioned as future work; the caption should be updated to reflect that this step is not performed in the present study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the landing-success improvement is an explicitly optimized objective value, not a derivation or prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical optimization result, not a prediction or first-principles derivation. Algorithm 1 explicitly defines the success rate function f(S,B) = EvaluateModel(TrainModel(S,B)) and the output as the best observed success rate y* = max Y. The improvement from 50% to 70% is therefore the maximum of the evaluated landing-success rates, which is exactly what an optimization loop is supposed to produce. The paper does not disguise this as an independent prediction: Section IV.B states that the optimizer 'identifies more suitable data augmentation hyperparameters,' and the final evaluation is reported as the outcome of that optimization. The selection of the shared parameters scale=0.77 and brightness=0.66 was performed using the same simulation conditions on which they are later evaluated, so the claim of 'consistent improvement' is a summary of the selection criterion rather than a generalization to held-out scenarios; however, this is a limitation in external validity, not circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited works by co-authors (e.g., L1 adaptive control, UQ switching control) are background literature and do not justify the framework's validity. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or known result is smuggled in via citation. The statistical fragility of 10-trial success rates and the absence of reported baselines for night and night-rain conditions are correctness risks, not circular reasoning. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained and the paper honestly presents an optimization loop, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is empirical: two augmentation hyperparameters (scale, brightness) are fitted to simulated landing success via Bayesian optimization. The remaining ledger items are domain assumptions about simulator fidelity, trial statistics, the restricted search space, the PID controller, and ensemble uncertainty. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • scale augmentation factor S = 0.77
    Selected by Bayesian optimization to maximize simulated landing success (Section IV.B, Figure 9). Central to the reported result.
  • brightness augmentation value B = 0.66
    Selected jointly with S by Bayesian optimization; reported as part of the shared high-performing parameter set.
  • UCB exploration constant kappa = 2.567
    Hand-chosen in Section III.D to balance exploration and exploitation; affects the optimization trajectory but is secondary to the main fitted parameters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CARLA photorealistic rendering combined with JAX-GUAM vehicle dynamics is a valid proxy for real-world VTOL landing conditions.
    Invoked in Sections III.C and IV.A; Section V states real-flight testing is future work, so the simulation-to-real transfer is assumed.
  • domain assumption Landing success rate from 10 random trials per condition is a stable, low-noise objective for Bayesian optimization.
    Section III.C defines the evaluation as 10 trials; no variance, repeats, or confidence intervals are reported.
  • domain assumption The two-dimensional parameter space (scale, brightness) is sufficient to capture augmentation factors that materially affect landing performance.
    Algorithm 1 restricts X to (S,B) in [0,1]^2 and no other augmentation dimensions are studied.
  • domain assumption Bounding box center and size error with a PID controller constitutes a valid closed-loop landing controller for the VTOL.
    Section III.C defines e = b_c - b_o and the PID velocity command; no comparison to other controllers or ablation is given.
  • domain assumption Ensemble disagreement from five subsampled YOLO models is a meaningful estimate of epistemic uncertainty.
    Section III.B uses the standard deviation of five bounding box predictions as uncertainty and cites random forest subsampling; no calibration is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Data Augmentation and Training for Perception DNN in Autonomous Aerial Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RKYHFVJG

@misc{pith2026241207655,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Data Augmentation and Training for Perception DNN in Autonomous Aerial Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RKYHFVJG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07655}
}
read the original abstract

Learning-based solutions have enabled incredible capabilities for autonomous systems. Autonomous vehicles, both aerial and ground, rely on DNN for various integral tasks, including perception. The efficacy of supervised learning solutions hinges on the quality of the training data. Discrepancies between training data and operating conditions result in faults that can lead to catastrophic incidents. However, collecting vast amounts of context-sensitive data, with broad coverage of possible operating environments, is prohibitively difficult. Synthetic data generation techniques for DNN allow for the easy exploration of diverse scenarios. However, synthetic data generation solutions for aerial vehicles are still lacking. This work presents a data augmentation framework for aerial vehicle's perception training, leveraging photorealistic simulation integrated with high-fidelity vehicle dynamics. Safe landing is a crucial challenge in the development of autonomous air taxis, therefore, landing maneuver is chosen as the focus of this work. With repeated simulations of landing in varying scenarios we assess the landing performance of the VTOL type UAV and gather valuable data. The landing performance is used as the objective function to optimize the DNN through retraining. Given the high computational cost of DNN retraining, we incorporated Bayesian Optimization in our framework that systematically explores the data augmentation parameter space to retrain the best-performing models. The framework allowed us to identify high-performing data augmentation parameters that are consistently effective across different landing scenarios. Utilizing the capabilities of this data augmentation framework, we obtained a robust perception model. The model consistently improved the perception-based landing success rate by at least 20% under different lighting and weather conditions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Verification and Validation of a Vision-Based Landing System for Autonomous VTOL Air Taxis

    cs.RO 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using Verse and CARLA, the authors compute reachable sets for a simulated VTOL landing system and claim safe landing within a helipad and collision avoidance in five scenarios.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A survey of deep learning techniques for autonomous driving,

    Grigorescu, S., Trasnea, B., Cocias, T., and Macesanu, G., “A survey of deep learning techniques for autonomous driving,” Journal of Field Robotics, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2020, pp. 362–386

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,

    Redmon, J., Divvala, S., Girshick, R., and Farhadi, A., “You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,”Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 779–788

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    YOLO9000: better, faster, stronger,

    Redmon, J., and Farhadi, A., “YOLO9000: better, faster, stronger,”Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 7263–7271

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    YOLOv5: You Only Look Once version 5,

    Ultralytics, “YOLOv5: You Only Look Once version 5,”https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    YOLOv8: You Only Look Once version 8,

    Ultralytics, “YOLOv8: You Only Look Once version 8,”https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Robust Object Detection in Challenging Weather Conditions,

    Gupta, H., Kotlyar, O., Andreasson, H., and Lilienthal, A. J., “Robust Object Detection in Challenging Weather Conditions,” Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 2024, pp. 7523–7532

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    How to Train a Defect Detection Model Using Synthetic Data with NVIDIA Om- niverse Replicator,

    Docca, A., and Torculas, M., “How to Train a Defect Detection Model Using Synthetic Data with NVIDIA Om- niverse Replicator,” https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/how-to-train-a-defect-detection-model-using- synthetic-data-with-nvidia-omniverse-replicator , 2023. Accessed: 2024-05-22

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Digitaltwinofanindustrialworkstation: Anovelmethodofanauto-labeled data generator using virtual reality for human action recognition in the context of human–robot collaboration,

    Dallel,M.,Havard,V.,Dupuis,Y.,andBaudry,D.,“Digitaltwinofanindustrialworkstation: Anovelmethodofanauto-labeled data generator using virtual reality for human action recognition in the context of human–robot collaboration,”Engineering applications of artificial intelligence, Vol. 118, 2023, p. 105655. 14

    work page 2023

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Efficient Development of Simulated Environments for Autonomous Vehicle Training,

    Technologies, U., “Efficient Development of Simulated Environments for Autonomous Vehicle Training,”https://unity. com/how-to/simulated-environments-for-autonomous-vehicle-training , 2023. Accessed: 2023-08-22

    2023

  2. [10]

    The computational limits of deep learning,

    Thompson, N. C., Greenewald, K., Lee, K., and Manso, G. F., “The computational limits of deep learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.05558, Vol. 10, 2020

    2007 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A tutorial on Bayesian optimization,

    Frazier, P. I., “A tutorial on Bayesian optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02811, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Automatic Tuning of Hyperparameters Using Bayesian Optimization,

    Victoria, A. H., and Maragatham, G., “Automatic Tuning of Hyperparameters Using Bayesian Optimization,”Evolving Systems, Vol. 12, 2021, pp. 217–223

    2021

  5. [13]

    CARLA: An Open Urban Driving Simulator,

    Dosovitskiy, A., Ros, G., Codevilla, F., Lopez, A., and Koltun, V., “CARLA: An Open Urban Driving Simulator,”Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2017, pp. 1–16

    2017

  6. [14]

    Generic Urban Air Mobility (GUAM),

    NASA, “Generic Urban Air Mobility (GUAM),”https://github.com/nasa/Generic-Urban-Air-Mobility-GUAM,

  7. [15]

    ADA: Adversarial Data Augmentation for Object Detection,

    Xie, C., Tan, M., Gong, B., Wang, J., Yuille, A., and Le, Q. V., “ADA: Adversarial Data Augmentation for Object Detection,” Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), IEEE, 2019, pp. 7364–7373

    2019

  8. [16]

    Closing the Visual Sim-to-Real Gap with Object-Composable NeRFs,

    Mishra, N., Sieb, M., Abbeel, P., and Chen, X., “Closing the Visual Sim-to-Real Gap with Object-Composable NeRFs,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04114, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2403.04114

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Deep learning on a data diet: Finding important examples early in training,

    Paul, M., Ganguli, S., and Dziugaite, G. K., “Deep learning on a data diet: Finding important examples early in training,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 34, 2021, pp. 20596–20607

    2021

  10. [18]

    Prioritized training on points that are learnable, worth learning, and not yet learnt,

    Mindermann, S., Brauner, J. M., Razzak, M. T., Sharma, M., Kirsch, A., Xu, W., Höltgen, B., Gomez, A. N., Morisot, A., Farquhar, S., et al., “Prioritized training on points that are learnable, worth learning, and not yet learnt,”International Conference on Machine Learning, PM...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Deepcore: A comprehensive library for coreset selection in deep learning,

    Guo, C., Zhao, B., and Bai, Y., “Deepcore: A comprehensive library for coreset selection in deep learning,”International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications, Springer, 2022, pp. 181–195

    2022

  12. [20]

    Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruning,

    Sorscher, B., Geirhos, R., Shekhar, S., Ganguli, S., and Morcos, A., “Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruning,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 35, 2022, pp. 19523–19536

    2022

  13. [21]

    Towards Accelerated Model Training via Bayesian Data Selection,

    Deng, Z., Cui, P., and Zhu, J., “Towards Accelerated Model Training via Bayesian Data Selection,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Taking the human out of the loop: A review of Bayesian optimization,

    Shahriari, B., Swersky, K., Wang, Z., Adams, R. P., and De Freitas, N., “Taking the human out of the loop: A review of Bayesian optimization,”Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 104, No. 1, 2015, pp. 148–175

    2015

  15. [23]

    Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms,

    Snoek, J., Larochelle, H., and Adams, R. P., “Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms,”Advances in neural information processing systems, Vol. 25, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    Uncertainty Quantification-Based Switching Control Method for Vision-Based Object Tracking in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,

    Fernández Castaño, A., Patton, C., Yoon, H. J., and Voulgaris, P., “Uncertainty Quantification-Based Switching Control Method for Vision-Based Object Tracking in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,”AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, 2024, p. 0516

    2024

  17. [25]

    Design and analysis of a novelL1 adaptive control architecture with guaranteed transient performance,

    Cao, C., and Hovakimyan, N., “Design and analysis of a novelL1 adaptive control architecture with guaranteed transient performance,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2008, pp. 586–591

    2008

  18. [26]

    Fine-TuningofNeuralNetworkApproximate MPC without Retraining via Bayesian Optimization,

    Hose,H.,Brunzema,P.,vonRohr, A.,Gräfe,A.,Schoellig,A.P.,andTrimpe,S.,“Fine-TuningofNeuralNetworkApproximate MPC without Retraining via Bayesian Optimization,”CoRL Workshop on Safe and Robust Robot Learning for Operation in the Real World, 2024. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Learning-based nonlinear model predictive control to improve vision-based mobile robot path-tracking in challenging outdoor environments,

    Ostafew, C. J., Schoellig, A. P., and Barfoot, T. D., “Learning-based nonlinear model predictive control to improve vision-based mobile robot path-tracking in challenging outdoor environments,”2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014, pp. 4029...

    2014

  20. [28]

    A Comprehensive Review of YOLO Architectures in Computer Vision: From YOLOv1 to YOLOv8 and YOLO-NAS,

    Terven, J., and Cordova-Esparza, D., “A Comprehensive Review of YOLO Architectures in Computer Vision: From YOLOv1 to YOLOv8 and YOLO-NAS,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.00501, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.00501

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    HelipadCat: Categorised Helipad Image Dataset and Detection Method,

    Bitoun, J., and Winkler, S., “HelipadCat: Categorised Helipad Image Dataset and Detection Method,”Proceedings of the IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON), IEEE, 2020, pp. 685–689. 15

    2020

  22. [30]

    URL https://docs.ultralytics.com/usage/cfg/, accessed: 2024-12-01

    Ultralytics,Ultralytics YOLO Documentation: Configuration, 2024. URL https://docs.ultralytics.com/usage/cfg/, accessed: 2024-12-01

    2024

  23. [31]

    State of the Art: Reproducibility in Artificial Intelligence,

    Tatman, R., Vanderplas, J., and Dane, K., “State of the Art: Reproducibility in Artificial Intelligence,”Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2018, pp. 1–10

    2018

  24. [32]

    A practical taxonomy of reproducibility for machine learning research,

    Tatman, R., VanderPlas, J., and Dane, S., “A practical taxonomy of reproducibility for machine learning research,” , 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Ultralytics, “YOLOv8,” https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,

    Lin, T.-Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., Dollár, P., and Zitnick, C. L., “Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,”European conference on computer vision, Springer, 2014, pp. 740–755

    2014

  27. [35]

    Random forests,

    Breiman, L., “Random forests,”Machine Learning, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2001, pp. 5–32

    2001

  28. [36]

    Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty in Machine Learning: An Introduction to Concepts and Methods,

    Hüllermeier, E., and Waegeman, W., “Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty in Machine Learning: An Introduction to Concepts and Methods,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09457, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09457

    1910 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Unreal Engine,

    “Unreal Engine,” , 2021. URL https://www.unrealengine.com/, accessed: 2021-12-01

    2021

  30. [38]

    JAX-GUAM: General Uncertainty Approximation Models,

    So, O., “JAX-GUAM: General Uncertainty Approximation Models,” https://github.com/oswinso/jax_guam, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    PyTorch: AnImperativeStyle,High-PerformanceDeepLearningLibrary,

    Paszke,A.,Gross,S.,Massa,F.,Lerer,A.,Bradbury,J.,Chanan,G.,Killeen,T.,Lin,Z.,Gimelshein,N.,Antiga,L.,Desmaison, A., Kopf, A., Yang, E., DeVito, Z., Raison, M., Tejani, A., Chilamkurthy, S., Steiner, B., Fang, L., Bai, J., and Chintala, S., “PyTorch: AnImperativeStyle,High-Perf...

    2019

  32. [40]

    Robotic Operating System,

    Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory et al., “Robotic Operating System,” , 2018. URL https://www.ros.org

    2018

  33. [41]

    Simple online and realtime tracking,

    Bewley, A., Ge, Z., Ott, L., Ramos, F., and Upcroft, B., “Simple online and realtime tracking,”2016 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP), IEEE, 2016, pp. 3464–3468

    2016

  34. [42]

    J., and Murray, R.,Feedback systems: an introduction for scientists and engineers, Princeton university press, 2021

    Åström, K. J., and Murray, R.,Feedback systems: an introduction for scientists and engineers, Princeton university press, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Simulation and PID control of a Stewart platform with linear motor,

    Şumnu, A., Güzelbey, İ. H., and Çakir, M. V., “Simulation and PID control of a Stewart platform with linear motor,”Journal of mechanical science and technology, Vol. 31, 2017, pp. 345–356

    2017

  36. [44]

    Gaussian processes for machine learning (GPML) toolbox,

    Rasmussen, C. E., and Nickisch, H., “Gaussian processes for machine learning (GPML) toolbox,”The Journal of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 11, 2010, pp. 3011–3015

    2010

  37. [45]

    Bayesian Optimization: Open source constrained global optimization tool for Python,

    Nogueira, F., “Bayesian Optimization: Open source constrained global optimization tool for Python,” , 2014–. URL https://github.com/bayesian-optimization/BayesianOptimization. 16

    2014

  38. [2024]

    Accessed: November 23, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.