Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Unsupervised UAV 3D Trajectories Estimation with Sparse Point Clouds

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Unsupervised LiDAR pipeline estimates drone paths to 1.35 m.

desk verdict A useful but unverified incremental trick: an unsupervised LiDAR-only drone tracker that reportedly beats supervised baselines, but the scoring rule is a heuristic and the evidence needs parameter disclosure and a distractor experiment. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12716 v5 pith:D4WIVIWD submitted 2024-12-17 cs.CV cs.RO

Hanfang Liang , Yizhuo Yang , Jinming Hu , Jianfei Yang , Fen Liu , Shenghai Yuan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords UAVdetectionLiDARpointcloudunsupervisedtrajectoryestimationspatiotemporalclusteringDBSCANsplinefittinganti-UAVsparseclouds
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 a small UAV at up to 100 meters can be tracked from a single low-cost LiDAR with no labeled training data. The method clusters each scan, merges scans across time, and scores every cluster by how its density and voxel position change between frames; the highest-scoring cluster is taken as the UAV and a spline is fitted through it. On the MMAUD v2/v3 sequences the paper reports a total RMSE of 1.35 m, which is lower than every supervised LiDAR baseline in its comparison table. If this holds, drone detection for early warning can be built without annotation effort and works equally day and night.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a spatiotemporal scoring function on clusters from DBSCAN. For each cluster, the global-local density ratio $R^k_{i,j}=\rho(C_k(P|F_i^j))/\rho(C_k(P|F))$ measures whether the cluster's density stays constant as frames are added, and the voxel IoU $\mathrm{IoU}^k_{i,j}$ measures whether its occupied voxels stay in place. The score $\psi_k=\sum e^{R^k_{i,j}}+\lambda\sum \log(1/\mathrm{IoU}^k_{i,j})$ rewards a moving cluster with stable density and penalizes stationary clusters, and the highest score selects the UAV. Spline fitting then turns the selected point set into a continuous trajectory.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on a sequence containing a walking person or a ground vehicle alongside the UAV, then compare the highest-scoring cluster with the ground-truth UAV position. If a non-UAV object outranks the drone, the spatiotemporal signature is not specific enough. A second check is to count LiDAR hits on the UAV at 100 m range across frames: if the count frequently falls below the DBSCAN minimum-sample threshold, the cluster cannot form and the method has no target to score.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a drone can be recognized without any learned appearance model, purely from the way its point cluster behaves across time. Static background objects accumulate point density as more scans are superimposed and keep their voxels in the same place, so they get a low score; a moving UAV keeps a roughly constant density (local density close to global density) while its voxels slide out of alignment between frames. The paper encodes this as a score $\psi_k = \sum e^{R^k_{i,j}} + \lambda \sum \log(1/\mathrm{IoU}^k_{i,j})$, selects the cluster with the maximum score, and reconstructs the trajectory with spline fitting through the selected points. On MMAUD v2/v3, this yields per-axis RMSEs of 0.72, 0.85, and 0.76 m and a total RMSE of 1.35 m, outperforming the supervised LiDAR baselines reported in the same table.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the drone is the only moving object whose point cluster keeps its density while shifting position; if another moving object behaves the same way, it will be chosen instead.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported errors hold, a LiDAR-only drone tracker needs no supervised training or labels, removing the main data cost for anti-UAV systems.
  • Because LiDAR does not depend on lighting, the method gives the same RMSE for day and night, unlike the visual baselines whose night error grows to 4.7–11.5 m.
  • At 0.20 Mpt/s input bandwidth, the pipeline is compatible with low-cost sparse LiDAR rather than expensive high-density sensors.
  • The spline-fitted trajectory provides continuous positions at arbitrary query times, which is the form needed for interception or early-warning handoff.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not show that the top-scoring cluster is uniquely a UAV; a bird, person, or vehicle with the same density-stable, voxel-shifting signature could also win the score, so discriminating drone from other movers would need an extra stage.
  • The comparison table reports a single aggregate RMSE without sequence-level variance or confidence intervals; re-running on more sequences with multiple moving objects would test how often the signature is ambiguous.
  • The method is unsupervised in the sense of no labels but still has free parameters (voxel size, DBSCAN eps/min-samples, and the weight $\lambda$); transferring to a different sensor or scene would likely require re-tuning those values.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an unsupervised LiDAR-only pipeline for estimating the 3D trajectory of a compact UAV from sparse point cloud sequences. The method performs global and local DBSCAN clustering, computes per-cluster density and voxel IoU statistics between frames, and selects the cluster with the highest motion-saliency score as the UAV. A spline is then fitted to the selected cluster points over time to produce the trajectory. The approach is evaluated on the MMAUD v2/v3 challenging sequences, where it reports a total RMSE of 1.35 m, outperforming the listed supervised LiDAR baselines, and the authors state that the work placed 4th in the CVPR 2024 UG2+ Challenge. The paper also announces plans to open-source code and sample data.

Significance. If the reported numbers are reliable, the contribution is practically useful: it offers a label-free, low-cost LiDAR alternative to supervised detectors, which are shown to fail on sparse UAV point clouds. The challenge placement and the breadth of modality baselines give some external credibility, and the unsupervised formulation is simple enough to be reproducible. However, the empirical support is weakened by internal inconsistencies in the main table, unspecified hyperparameters with no ablation, and the absence of any test involving UAV-free frames or distractor moving objects, so the significance currently rests on a single benchmark with a fixed target-present scenario.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table I] Table I contains internal inconsistencies that affect the central empirical claim: for example, the VisualNet day per-axis errors 0.24/0.39/0.32 do not combine to the reported day RMSE of 0.65, and the AudioNet per-axis errors 0.60/1.76/1.59 do not combine to the reported 2.80; several LiDAR rows also repeat identical day and night values without explanation. Please provide a corrected table with the exact per-axis-to-total computation and a per-sequence breakdown, and clarify whether the day/night values are independently measured.
  2. [Section III-B, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The scoring mechanism is introduced without derivation or ablation: the weight lambda, the voxel size V(C), the DBSCAN parameters (eps, min_samples), and the spline basis and control-point selection are all unspecified. As a result, the method is not reproducible and the claim that the score identifies the UAV is not supported by a sensitivity analysis. Please specify all hyperparameters, add an ablation over lambda and voxel size, and report how the scores of the true target compare with the runner-up cluster.
  3. [Section III-B and Section IV-A] The argmax selection rule in Eq. (6) has no confidence threshold or rejection mechanism, yet the abstract claims 'UAV detection'. In the MMAUD v2/v3 benchmark every sequence contains a single UAV, so the method is never tested against UAV-free frames or a second moving object (person, vehicle, bird). Please add such experiments, or explicitly scope the contribution as trajectory estimation under an assumed presence of one UAV.
  4. [Section IV-C] No error bars, multiple runs, or per-sequence statistics are reported. Given the stochastic clustering and spline fitting, the 1.35 m RMSE could be a single-run artifact. Please report variance across challenge splits or random seeds, and clarify whether the Table I values are official challenge numbers or re-computed by the authors.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The summation index n is reused for the frame count and the cluster index; please rename one of them to avoid confusion.
  2. [References] The paper repeatedly cites reference [34], which is the authors' own challenge report, as the source of the result; please include the independent challenge evaluation details and reconcile any differences between the numbers reported here and in [34].
  3. [Figure 3] The description of green/red/blue trajectories is difficult to verify from the printed figure; please enlarge the trajectories and add a zoomed inset.
  4. [Abstract and title] There are inconsistent typographical spacings such as 'UA V' versus 'UAV'; please fix these throughout the manuscript.
  5. [Table I header] The table has duplicate 'RMSE (m)' column headers and unclear grouping; please restructure the header and add footnotes explaining the repeated day/night values for the LiDAR baselines.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the trajectory estimate is produced by an explicit clustering/scoring/spline pipeline, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; self-citations are provenance only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. From the LiDAR frame sequence, the method computes global and local DBSCAN clusters, per-cluster densities (Eqs. 1-2), voxel IoU between frames (Eq. 3), and a relative density ratio (Eq. 4); these quantities are then combined in the hand-specified scoring rule (Eqs. 5-6), and the highest-scoring cluster is taken as the target, with the trajectory produced by spline fitting (Eq. 7). At no point does an equation use the ground-truth trajectory or the evaluation RMSE as an input. The scoring rule is a stated motion-saliency heuristic, not a fitted surrogate for the benchmark outcome; if it fails on scenes with multiple moving objects, that is a correctness or scope limitation, not circularity. The self-citations are not load-bearing: [34] is cited as the provenance of the challenge submission ('The proposed method [34] is an improved iteration of our award-winning solution'), and [59] is the public benchmark dataset; neither supplies a premise needed to derive the trajectory estimate. No fitted constant is described as being tuned to the test set, so the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern is absent from the text. The central result is therefore not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-tuned parameters such as lambda, DBSCAN thresholds, and voxel size, plus a domain assumption that the UAV is the only persistent moving cluster. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Scoring weight lambda = not reported
    Combines density score and voxel IoU score in Eq. (6); the balance is hand-tuned and no value or selection procedure is given.
  • DBSCAN parameters (eps, min_samples) = not reported
    Used for global and local clustering in Section III-A; clustering output depends critically on these values.
  • Voxel size V(C) = not reported
    Used to compute density and voxel IoU in Eqs. (1)-(3); no voxel resolution is specified.
  • Spline basis, degree, and control point selection = not reported
    The spline fit in Eq. (7) uses unspecified basis functions, degree, and number of control points.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The UAV is a persistent moving object whose voxels shift between frames while stationary background voxels accumulate points.
    This is the physical rationale for the scoring mechanism in Section III-B; if other moving objects exist, the highest-scoring cluster may not be the UAV.
  • domain assumption The UAV reflects enough LiDAR points at ranges up to 100 m to form a stable cluster across consecutive frames.
    Required for DBSCAN and density or IoU computation; this is not demonstrated quantitatively in the paper.
  • domain assumption MMAUD ground truth trajectories are accurate enough for RMSE evaluation.
    Evaluation in Section IV relies on the dataset's ground truth without analyzing its error.
  • standard math DBSCAN and spline basis functions are standard and correct.
    Used in Sections III-A and III-B without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unsupervised UAV 3D Trajectories Estimation with Sparse Point Clouds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D4WIVIWD

@misc{pith2026241212716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unsupervised UAV 3D Trajectories Estimation with Sparse Point Clouds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D4WIVIWD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12716}
}
read the original abstract

Compact UAV systems, while advancing delivery and surveillance, pose significant security challenges due to their small size, which hinders detection by traditional methods. This paper presents a cost-effective, unsupervised UAV detection method using spatial-temporal sequence processing to fuse multiple LiDAR scans for accurate UAV tracking in real-world scenarios. Our approach segments point clouds into foreground and background, analyzes spatial-temporal data, and employs a scoring mechanism to enhance detection accuracy. Tested on a public dataset, our solution placed 4th in the CVPR 2024 UG2+ Challenge, demonstrating its practical effectiveness. We plan to open-source all designs, code, and sample data for the research community github.com/lianghanfang/UnLiDAR-UAV-Est.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12716 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of detecting and tracking compact drones using a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System Overview: Our algorithm uses DBSCAN to cluster point clouds, compares spatial-temporal changes, filters non-UAV data, and estimates UAV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This figure shows sampled points, ground truth, and our predicted trajectory, showing the accuracy of our solution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Distributed multi-robot sweep coverage for a region with unknown workload distribution,

    Muqing Cao, Kun Cao, Xiuxian Li, Shenghai Yuan, Yang Lyu, Thien- Minh Nguyen, and Lihua Xie, “Distributed multi-robot sweep coverage for a region with unknown workload distribution,” Autonomous Intelli- gent Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 13, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Vision-based plane estimation and following for building inspection with autonomous uav,

    Yang Lyu, Muqing Cao, Shenghai Yuan, and Lihua Xie, “Vision-based plane estimation and following for building inspection with autonomous uav,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. B , 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Online trajec- tory correction and tracking for facade inspection using autonomous uav,

    Muqing Cao, Yang Lyu, Shenghai Yuan, and Lihua Xie, “Online trajec- tory correction and tracking for facade inspection using autonomous uav,” in 2020 IEEE 16th International Conference on Control & Automation (ICCA). IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Vision based autonomous uav plane estimation and following for building inspection,

    Yang Lyu, Muqing Cao, Shenghai Yuan, and Lihua Xie, “Vision based autonomous uav plane estimation and following for building inspection,” in arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01423 , 2021

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Learning to extract robust handcrafted features with a single observation via evolutionary neurogenesis,

    Mahdi Abolfazli Esfahani, Han Wang, Benyamin Bashari, Keyu Wu, and Shenghai Yuan, “Learning to extract robust handcrafted features with a single observation via evolutionary neurogenesis,” Applied Soft Computing, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Structure priors aided visual-inertial navigation in building inspection tasks with auxiliary line features,

    Yang Lyu, Shenghai Yuan, and Lihua Xie, “Structure priors aided visual-inertial navigation in building inspection tasks with auxiliary line features,” IEEE TAES, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Direct: A differential dynamic programming based framework for trajectory generation,

    Kun Cao, Muqing Cao, Shenghai Yuan, and Lihua Xie, “Direct: A differential dynamic programming based framework for trajectory generation,” IEEE RAL, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Spins: A structure priors aided inertial navigation system,

    Yang Lyu, Thien-Minh Nguyen, Liu Liu, Muqing Cao, Shenghai Yuan, Thien Hoang Nguyen, and Lihua Xie, “Spins: A structure priors aided inertial navigation system,” Journal of Field Robotics , 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Application of snns model based on multi-dimensional attention in drone radio frequency signal classification,

    Zheng Si, Chao Liu, Jianyu Liu, and Yinhao Zhou, “Application of snns model based on multi-dimensional attention in drone radio frequency signal classification,” in ICASSP, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Evaluating small uas operations and national airspace system interference using aeroscope,

    Ryan J Wallace, Kristy M Kiernan, Tom Haritos, John Robbins, and Jon M Loffi, “Evaluating small uas operations and national airspace system interference using aeroscope,” Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 24, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Survey on localization systems and algorithms for unmanned systems,

    Shenghai Yuan, Han Wang, and Lihua Xie, “Survey on localization systems and algorithms for unmanned systems,” US, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Viral-fusion: A visual-inertial- ranging-lidar sensor fusion approach,

    Thien-Minh Nguyen, Muqing Cao, Shenghai Yuan, Yang Lyu, Thien Hoang Nguyen, and Lihua Xie, “Viral-fusion: A visual-inertial- ranging-lidar sensor fusion approach,” IEEE TRO, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Drone- vs-bird detection grand challenge at icassp2023,

    Angelo Coluccia, Alessio Fascista, Lars Sommer, Arne Schumann, Anastasios Dimou, Dimitrios Zarpalas, and Nabin Sharma, “Drone- vs-bird detection grand challenge at icassp2023,” in ICASSP, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Drone-vs-bird: Drone detection using yolov7 with csrt tracker,

    Sahaj K Mistry, Shreyas Chatterjee, Ajeet K Verma, Vinit Jakhetiya, Badri N Subudhi, and Sunil Jaiswal, “Drone-vs-bird: Drone detection using yolov7 with csrt tracker,” in ICASSP, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    S-feature pyramid network and attention model for drone detection,

    Pengcheng Dong, Chuntao Wang, Zhenyong Lu, Kai Zhang, Wenbo Wan, and Jiande Sun, “S-feature pyramid network and attention model for drone detection,” in ICASSP, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Anti-uav: A large multi-modal benchmark for uav tracking,

    Nan Jiang, Kuiran Wang, Xiaoke Peng, Xuehui Yu, Qiang Wang, Junliang Xing, Guorong Li, Jian Zhao, Guodong Guo, and Zhenjun Han, “Anti-uav: A large multi-modal benchmark for uav tracking,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.08466, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    The 2nd anti-uav workshop & challenge: Methods and results.,

    J Zhao, G Wang, J Li, L Jin, N Fan, M Wang, X Wang, T Yong, Y Deng, Y Guo, et al., “The 2nd anti-uav workshop & challenge: Methods and results.,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.09909 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The 3rd anti-uav workshop & challenge: Methods and results,

    Jian Zhao, Jianan Li, Lei Jin, Jiaming Chu, Zhihao Zhang, Jun Wang, Jiangqiang Xia, Kai Wang, Yang Liu, Sadaf Gulshad, et al., “The 3rd anti-uav workshop & challenge: Methods and results,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07290, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Autonomous object level segmentation,

    Shenghai Yuan and Han Wang, “Autonomous object level segmentation,” in Proc. of ICARCV) , 2014, pp. 33–37

    2014

  12. [20]

    Heterogeneous stereo: A human vision inspired method for general robotics sensing,

    Han Wang, Shenghai Yuan, and Keyu Wu, “Heterogeneous stereo: A human vision inspired method for general robotics sensing,” in TENCON 2017-2017 IEEE Region 10 Conference . IEEE, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    A new approach to train convolutional neural networks for real-time 6- dof camera relocalization,

    Mahdi Abolfazli Esfahani, Keyu Wu, Shenghai Yuan, and Han Wang, “A new approach to train convolutional neural networks for real-time 6- dof camera relocalization,” in 2018 IEEE 14th international conference on control and automation (ICCA) . IEEE, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Towards utilizing deep uncertainty in traditional slam,

    Mahdi Abolfazli Esfahani, Keyu Wu, Shenghai Yuan, and Han Wang, “Towards utilizing deep uncertainty in traditional slam,” in 2019 IEEE 15th International Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA), 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    From local understanding to global regression in monocular visual odometry,

    Mahdi Abolfazli Esfahani, Keyu Wu, Shenghai Yuan, and Han Wang, “From local understanding to global regression in monocular visual odometry,” International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Unsupervised scene categorization, path segmentation and landmark extraction while traveling path,

    Mahdi Abolfazli Esfahani, Han Wang, Keyu Wu, and Shenghai Yuan, “Unsupervised scene categorization, path segmentation and landmark extraction while traveling path,” in Proc. of ICARCV . IEEE, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Overcoming catastrophic forgetting for semantic segmentation via incremental learning,

    Yizhuo Yang, Shenghai Yuan, and Lihua Xie, “Overcoming catastrophic forgetting for semantic segmentation via incremental learning,” in Proc. of ICARCV. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Robust rgb-d slam in dynamic environments for autonomous vehicles,

    Tete Ji, Shenghai Yuan, and Lihua Xie, “Robust rgb-d slam in dynamic environments for autonomous vehicles,” in Proc. of ICARCV . IEEE, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    De- tection and identification of non-cooperative uav using a cots mmwave radar,

    Yuan He, Jia Zhang, Rui Xi, Xin Na, Yimiao Sun, and Beibei Li, “De- tection and identification of non-cooperative uav using a cots mmwave radar,” ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks , 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Deep learning-based uav detection in pulse-doppler radar,

    Chenxing Wang, Jiangmin Tian, Jiuwen Cao, and Xiaohong Wang, “Deep learning-based uav detection in pulse-doppler radar,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Audio based drone detection and identification using deep learning,

    Sara Al-Emadi, Abdulla Al-Ali, Amr Mohammad, and Abdulaziz Al- Ali, “Audio based drone detection and identification using deep learning,” in IWCMC. IEEE, 2019, pp. 459–464

    2019

  22. [30]

    Audio array-based 3d uav trajectory estimation with lidar pseudo- labeling,

    Allen Lei, Tianchen Deng, Han Wang, Jianfei Yang, and Shenghai Yuan, “Audio array-based 3d uav trajectory estimation with lidar pseudo- labeling,” Proc. ICASSP, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Tame: Temporal audio-based mamba for enhanced drone trajectory estimation and classification,

    Zhenyuan Xiao, Huanran Hu, Guili Xu, and Junwei He, “Tame: Temporal audio-based mamba for enhanced drone trajectory estimation and classification,” Proc. ICASSP, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Av-dtec: Self-supervised audio-visual fusion for drone trajectory estimation and classification,

    Zhenyuan Xiao, Yizhuo Yang, Guili Xu, Xianglong Zeng, and Shenghai Yuan, “Av-dtec: Self-supervised audio-visual fusion for drone trajectory estimation and classification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16928 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    On onboard lidar-based flying object detection,

    Matou ˇs Vrba, Viktor Walter, V ´aclav Pritzl, Michal Pliska, Tom ´aˇs B ´aˇca, V ojtˇech Spurn`y, Daniel Heˇrt, and Martin Saska, “On onboard lidar-based flying object detection,” IEEE TRO, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Sepa- rating drone point clouds from complex backgrounds by cluster filter – technical report for cvpr 2024 ug2 challenge,

    Hanfang Liang, Jinming Hu, Xiaohuan Ling, and Bing Wang, “Sepa- rating drone point clouds from complex backgrounds by cluster filter – technical report for cvpr 2024 ug2 challenge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16947, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Air-to-air visual detection of micro-uavs: An experimental evaluation of deep learning,

    Ye Zheng, Zhang Chen, Dailin Lv, Zhixing Li, Zhenzhong Lan, and Shiyu Zhao, “Air-to-air visual detection of micro-uavs: An experimental evaluation of deep learning,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Unmanned aerial vehicle visual detection and tracking using deep neural networks: A performance benchmark,

    Brian KS Isaac-Medina, Matt Poyser, Daniel Organisciak, Chris G Willcocks, Toby P Breckon, and Hubert PH Shum, “Unmanned aerial vehicle visual detection and tracking using deep neural networks: A performance benchmark,” in CVPR, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Real-time small drones detection based on pruned yolov4,

    Hansen Liu, Kuangang Fan, Qinghua Ouyang, and Na Li, “Real-time small drones detection based on pruned yolov4,” Sensors, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    A compre- hensive approach for uav small object detection with simulation-based transfer learning and adaptive fusion,

    Chen Rui, Guo Youwei, Zheng Huafei, and Jiang Hongyu, “A compre- hensive approach for uav small object detection with simulation-based transfer learning and adaptive fusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01800, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Real-time and accurate drone detection in a video with a static background,

    Ulzhalgas Seidaliyeva, Daryn Akhmetov, Lyazzat Ilipbayeva, and Eric T Matson, “Real-time and accurate drone detection in a video with a static background,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 14, pp. 3856, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Small low-contrast target detection: Data-driven spatiotemporal feature fusion and implementation,

    Jiayang Xie, Chengxing Gao, Junfeng Wu, Zhiguo Shi, and Jiming Chen, “Small low-contrast target detection: Data-driven spatiotemporal feature fusion and implementation,” IEEE Trans. Cybern. , 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Adaptive switching spatial-temporal fusion detection for remote flying drones,

    Jiayang Xie, Jin Yu, Junfeng Wu, Zhiguo Shi, and Jiming Chen, “Adaptive switching spatial-temporal fusion detection for remote flying drones,” Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Detection, localization, and tracking of multiple mavs with panoramic stereo camera networks,

    Ye Zheng, Canlun Zheng, Xiaoyu Zhang, Fei Chen, Zhang Chen, and Shiyu Zhao, “Detection, localization, and tracking of multiple mavs with panoramic stereo camera networks,” TASE, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Fast and robust uav to uav detection and tracking from video,

    Jing Li, Dong Hye Ye, Mathias Kolsch, Juan P Wachs, and Charles A Bouman, “Fast and robust uav to uav detection and tracking from video,” IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing , 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Dog- fight: Detecting drones from drones videos,

    Muhammad Waseem Ashraf, Waqas Sultani, and Mubarak Shah, “Dog- fight: Detecting drones from drones videos,” in CVPR, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Low in resolution, high in precision: Uav detection with super-resolution and motion information extraction,

    Hanzhuo Wang, Xingjian Wang, Chengwei Zhou, Wenchao Meng, and Zhiguo Shi, “Low in resolution, high in precision: Uav detection with super-resolution and motion information extraction,” in ICASSP, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Adaptive lidar scan frame integration: Tracking known mavs in 3d point clouds,

    Li Qingqing, Yu Xianjia, Jorge Pe ˜na Queralta, and Tomi Westerlund, “Adaptive lidar scan frame integration: Tracking known mavs in 3d point clouds,” in ICAR. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Drone detection using sparse lidar measurements,

    Sedat Dogru and Lino Marques, “Drone detection using sparse lidar measurements,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Detection and tracking of small objects in sparse 3d laser range data,

    Jan Razlaw, Jan Quenzel, and Sven Behnke, “Detection and tracking of small objects in sparse 3d laser range data,” in IEEE ICRA, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Study on target detection and tracking method of uav based on lidar,

    Hong Wang, Yu Peng, Liansheng Liu, and Jun Liang, “Study on target detection and tracking method of uav based on lidar,” in 2021 Global Reliability and Prognostics and Health Management . IEEE, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Av- fdti: Audio-visual fusion for drone threat identification,

    Yizhuo Yang, Shenghai Yuan, Jianfei Yang, Thien Hoang Nguyen, Muqing Cao, Thien-Minh Nguyen, Han Wang, and Lihua Xie, “Av- fdti: Audio-visual fusion for drone threat identification,” JAI, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Real-time vehicle detection based on improved yolo v5,

    Yu Zhang, Zhongyin Guo, Jianqing Wu, Yuan Tian, Haotian Tang, and Xinming Guo, “Real-time vehicle detection based on improved yolo v5,” Sustainability, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Dronechase: A mobile and automated cross-modality system for continuous drone tracking,

    Neel V ora, Yi Wu, Jian Liu, and Phuc Nguyen, “Dronechase: A mobile and automated cross-modality system for continuous drone tracking,” in Proc. 9th Workshop Micro Aerial Vehicle Netw. Syst. Appl. , 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    V oxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection,

    Yin Zhou and Oncel Tuzel, “V oxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection,” in CVPR, 2018, pp. 4490–4499

    2018

  46. [54]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” in CVPR, 2017, pp. 652–660

    2017

  47. [55]

    Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds,

    Alex H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Holger Caesar, Lubing Zhou, Jiong Yang, and Oscar Beijbom, “Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds,” in CVPR, 2019, pp. 12697–12705

    2019

  48. [56]

    V otenet: A deep learning label fusion method for multi-atlas segmentation,

    Zhipeng Ding, Xu Han, and Marc Niethammer, “V otenet: A deep learning label fusion method for multi-atlas segmentation,” in MICCAI, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection,

    Yan Yan, Yuxing Mao, and Bo Li, “Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection,” Sensors, 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    Searching efficient 3d architectures with sparse point-voxel convolution,

    Haotian Tang, Zhijian Liu, Shengyu Zhao, Yujun Lin, Ji Lin, Hanrui Wang, and Song Han, “Searching efficient 3d architectures with sparse point-voxel convolution,” in ECCV, 2020

    2020

  51. [59]

    Mmaud: A comprehensive multi-modal anti-uav dataset for modern miniature drone threats,

    Shenghai Yuan, Yizhuo Yang, Thien Hoang Nguyen, Thien-Minh Nguyen, Jianfei Yang, Fen Liu, Jianping Li, Han Wang, and Lihua Xie, “Mmaud: A comprehensive multi-modal anti-uav dataset for modern miniature drone threats,” ICRA, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

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