Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 31 references

VORTEX: A Spatial Computing Framework for Optimized Drone Telemetry Extraction from First-Person View Flight Data

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 Five-second temporal sampling is the optimal trade-off for OCR-based drone telemetry extraction from FPV video, and raw WGS84 coordinates systematically understate distance and speed.

desk verdict Useful open-source pipeline for OCR-from-FPV-HUD telemetry, but the evaluation is self-referential and the reported 1-second path lengths are internally inconsistent; the 5-second optimality claim is not supported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18505 v2 pith:RQNB5QND submitted 2024-12-24 cs.CV cs.LG

James E. Gallagher , Edward J. Oughton This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords opticalcharacterrecognitiondronetelemetryFPVvideotemporalsamplingratecoordinatereferencesystemsUTMprojectionHaversineformulaspatialfiltering
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

VORTEX is a four-stage pipeline that reads drone telemetry—latitude, longitude, altitude, and speed—directly from the on-screen HUD text in first-person-view (FPV) flight video, using an open-source OCR engine and image preprocessing. The paper's central claim is that a 5-second temporal sampling rate is the best trade-off: it uses only about 4% of available frames, keeps 64% of extracted points after spatial filtering, stays within 4.2% of the 1-second baseline for mean speed, and reduces computational load by 80.5%. The second claim is that coordinate processing method is a separate, equally important lever: raw WGS84 coordinates underestimate distances by 15-30% and speeds by 20-35%, whereas UTM projection and Haversine calculations agree within 0.1%. Altitude measurements remain stable (2.1% variation) across all tested sampling rates. If these benchmarks are right, drone operators and tool builders can pick sampling intervals and coordinate methods from measured trade-offs instead of guesswork.

What carries the argument

The machinery is VORTEX, a four-stage pipeline: frame extraction with configurable temporal sampling, image preprocessing (CLAHE, Gaussian blur, adaptive thresholding, and Sobel), OCR through MMOCR's SATRN model on user-defined screen regions, and spatial filtering that removes outliers with a median-based baseline and a 2-km buffer around a UTM-projected flight path. The controlling object is the sampling interval, because it determines how many frames the OCR engine reads; the controlling comparison is among three coordinate-to-distance methods—UTM Zone 33N projection, Haversine on WGS84, and raw Euclidean distance on WGS84. The 5-second interval carries the optimality claim, and the UTM-versus-Haversine agreement carries the coordinate-processing claim.

What would settle it

Run the same VORTEX pipeline on the same flight video and compare the OCR-extracted 5-second positions and speeds against the flight controller's internal telemetry log or a high-rate GPS truth track; if the mean speed discrepancy against the log exceeds the reported 4.2% (or the RMSE is much larger than 3.44 km/h), the optimality benchmark would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the accuracy of OCR-derived drone telemetry depends jointly on how often frames are sampled and on how coordinates are turned into distances, and that a 5-second interval combined with UTM or Haversine processing is the practical optimum. At 5-second sampling the extracted mean airspeed (66.93 km/h) almost matches the 1-second baseline (67.03 km/h), with an RMSE of 3.44 km/h, while the number of frames OCR must read drops from 122 to 25, an 80.5% reduction in data volume. Across all sampling rates, UTM Zone 33N projection and the Haversine formula give essentially identical distances and speeds, while raw WGS84 Euclidean calculations shrink the measured flight, understating total distance by about 20% at 1-second sampling and average speed by about 33%. The paper also finds altitude is unusually robust to downsampling, varying only 2.1% across all intervals, and presents these numbers as the first quantitative benchmarks for this application category.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy numbers are computed by comparing 5-second OCR output against 1-second OCR output, treating the denser OCR readings as ground truth rather than comparing them to the drone flight controller's own telemetry logs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Telemetry extraction from FPV video becomes practical for long flights: sampling every 5 seconds cuts the number of frames OCR must process by roughly 80% while preserving the flight path's overall shape and mean speed.
  • Drone-telemetry software should compute distances with a projected or geodesic method; using raw latitude/longitude degrees will systematically under-report path length by 15-30% and speed by 20-35%.
  • Altitude readings can be trusted even at sparse sampling, so vertical profiles are cheap to produce and can be used as a stable reference when horizontal points fail.
  • Denser sampling does not automatically mean cleaner data: the 1-second interval needed the most aggressive spatial filtering (32.8% of points removed), so outlier removal is part of any accuracy budget.
  • Future OCR telemetry studies should report sampling rate and coordinate method together, since both materially change every distance and speed number.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 5-second optimum is likely specific to this flight's dynamics; a slow, straight flight could tolerate 10-20 second sampling, while a fast, maneuver-heavy flight might need sub-5-second sampling, so the transferable result is the measured trade-off curve rather than the single number.
  • Editorial inference: the sharp RMSE spike at 15 seconds (24.46 km/h) followed by partial recovery at 20 seconds looks more like a few OCR misreads or route-segment effects than pure temporal aliasing; testing on multiple flights would show whether the spike is systematic.
  • Editorial inference: the near-identical UTM and Haversine results mean the two can be used interchangeably in practice; the important design rule is to avoid raw degree-based Euclidean distance, and that rule can be enforced as a simple automated check.
  • Editorial inference: because the baseline is denser OCR output rather than flight-controller ground truth, this paper establishes repeatability of the pipeline, not absolute accuracy; adding an external truth track would turn the benchmark into a calibration.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents VORTEX, an OCR-based pipeline for extracting drone telemetry (coordinates, speed, altitude) from FPV HUD video using MMOCR with CLAHE, adaptive thresholding, spatial filtering, and UTM/Haversine/WGS84 coordinate analysis. The authors compare temporal sampling rates (1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 seconds) and report that 5-second sampling is optimal, with 64% point retention, mean speed error within 4.2% of the 1-second baseline, and 80.5% computational overhead reduction. They also report that raw WGS84 coordinates underestimate distances and speeds relative to UTM and Haversine calculations. The manuscript includes open-source code links and claims to provide the first quantitative benchmarks for OCR-based drone telemetry extraction.

Significance. If the results were reliable, the paper would fill a genuine gap: an open-source, modular pipeline for recovering telemetry from FPV video when proprietary flight-controller data are unavailable. The systematic comparison of coordinate-processing methods and the release of code are useful strengths. However, the central accuracy and optimality claims are not supported as written. The evaluation baseline is the system's own 1-second OCR output rather than ground-truth telemetry, and key numerical results in Section IV are internally contradictory. These issues affect the paper's main conclusions, so the current significance is limited to the methodological proposal rather than the quantitative benchmarks claimed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV] The Results section contains mutually inconsistent total path lengths. The first paragraph reports that 1-second sampling produced 122 raw points, 82 retained points, average spacing of 27.5 m, and a total path length of 2.23 km, while the later distance-comparison paragraph reports that UTM and Haversine methods both give 8.181 km at 1-second sampling. The 122 raw points at 1-second intervals imply a flight duration of about 122 seconds; a 2.23 km path at the reported mean speed of 67.03 km/h implies about 2 minutes, while 8.181 km at that speed implies about 7.3 minutes. The same contradiction appears at 5 seconds, where 16 clean points at 75 m spacing imply a path length of about 1.125 km, but the UTM/Haversine measurement is reported as 4.072 km, and at 15 seconds, where 9 points at 280 m spacing imply about 2.24 km, but the reported UTM/Haversine value is 1.690 km. These contradictions mean the distance and speed values used for the accuracy comparisons cannot all be correct, and the claimed 5-second optimality is therefore not supported by the data as presented.
  2. [Section IV and RQ2] The accuracy evaluation is circular. All deviations, including the headline 'within 4.2% of the 1-second baseline,' compare OCR readings at one sampling rate against OCR readings at another sampling rate. The 1-second output is itself produced by the same MMOCR pipeline and is never validated against flight-controller telemetry, manual ground truth, or any independent source. If MMOCR makes systematic errors, those errors may be shared across sampling rates, so the RMSE and percentage-deviation figures measure internal consistency, not telemetry accuracy. This directly affects RQ2 and the conclusion that 5-second sampling is optimal, because the claim that 5-second speed is 'accurate' is meaningful only if the reference itself is accurate.
  3. [Abstract vs. Section IV] The headline numbers are internally inconsistent. The abstract states that 5-second sampling achieves 'mean speed accuracy within 4.2% of the 1-second baseline,' but Section IV reports that the 5-second mean speed (66.93 km/h) deviates from the 1-second value (67.03 km/h) by only 0.15%, while the 10-second sampling deviates by 4.4%. The abstract and conclusion also claim an 80.5% reduction in computational overhead, but the Results section derives this figure from a reduction in clean points (82 to 16), not from raw frames (122 to 25, which would be a 79.5% reduction) and not from actual processing time. The statement that 5-second sampling uses 4.07% of available frames is also unexplained, since 25 frames taken every 5 seconds from roughly 122 seconds of footage would be about 20% of the 1-second frame set. These discrepancies need to be reconciled before the claimed optimality can be assessed.
  4. [Figure 7 caption] The caption of Figure 7 directly contradicts the text in Section IV. The caption states that raw WGS84 calculations 'consistently overestimate distances and speeds,' while the Results text repeatedly states that raw WGS84 coordinates underestimate distances and speeds (e.g., 'underestimated the total distance by 1.681 km (20.5% error)' and 'raw WGS84 calculations showed an average speed of 44.85 km/h (33.0% underestimation)'). This is not a minor wording issue because RQ3 and the coordinate-method comparison are load-bearing for the paper's conclusions; the reader cannot tell which direction the claimed bias actually takes.
  5. [Section III, spatial filtering] The spatial filtering stage relies on a fixed 2-km buffer around the LineString flight path to separate OCR outliers from valid positions. No sensitivity analysis is provided for this threshold, and the retention rates (67.2%, 64%, 76.9%, etc.) that feed into the sampling-rate comparison depend directly on this choice. Since the buffer size is an ad-hoc parameter rather than a derived quantity, the paper should either justify it empirically or show that the conclusions are robust to reasonable variations; otherwise the reported outlier-removal and retention-rate results are conditional on an unexamined assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Index Terms] The index terms list 'Optical Computer Recognition' but the paper is about Optical Character Recognition; the expansion 'EXtraction' for VORTEX is also oddly capitalized.
  2. [Section III] The methodology contains tense inconsistency, such as 'will be implemented' and 'The first ROI regions are the latitude and longitude regions,' which should be unified into a consistent past or present tense.
  3. [Data Availability] The Data Availability section says 'GutHub' instead of 'GitHub,' and the code links are given as bare URLs without version or access-date information.
  4. [Section IV, Figure 6] Figure 6 panels are referenced in the text, but the text does not explain what is shown in each panel (for example, which panel contains the confidence intervals and which contains the speed distributions), making the figure harder to interpret.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central accuracy claim is self-referential: 5 s 'accuracy' is measured against the same OCR pipeline's 1 s output, not against true telemetry.

  1. self definitional [Section IV (Results), airspeed and RMSE paragraphs; Section V (RQ2); Conclusion]
    "The 1-second sampling baseline recorded a mean air speed of 67.03 km/h with 82 clean points. The 5-second interval closely matched this baseline at 66.93 km/h using 16 clean points, representing only a 0.15% deviation. RMSE analysis was employed to quantify the magnitude of measurement deviations using the 1-second sampling rate as the baseline."

    Both the 'baseline' and the 5 s readings are OCR extractions from the same HUD video via the same MMOCR pipeline; no flight-controller telemetry or independent ground truth enters the accuracy evaluation. The reported 'within 4.2%' is therefore agreement between two OCR runs, and the conclusion that 5 s is optimal is, by construction, that the densest downsampled OCR series most closely matches the 1 s OCR series. The word 'accuracy' is defined as closeness to the system's own 1 s output, so the headline claim does not validate VORTEX against external reality.

full rationale

The evaluation chain is not independent: the '1-second baseline' is OCR output from the same MMOCR pipeline, not flight-controller telemetry. All RMSE and percentage-deviation figures therefore measure internal consistency between sampling rates, and the 'within 4.2%' headline is the paper's own metric, defined as closeness to that baseline. The 5 s optimality conclusion is consequently a statement that the densest downsampled OCR series resembles the 1 s OCR series, not a validated accuracy result. This is partial circularity because the central claim's accuracy component reduces to the self-generated baseline, while the overhead reduction (80.5%), retention rate (64%), and the UTM/Haversine-vs-raw-WGS84 arithmetic comparison are independent and not circular. The self-citations [19],[20],[26] are literature-review only and not load-bearing. The paper's own Section V limitations ('the study used a single drone flight' and 'OCR accuracy depended on video quality') reinforce the absence of external validation; the paper does not acknowledge that the baseline itself is unvalidated. A separate internal inconsistency (1 s path length reported as both 2.23 km and 8.181 km) is a correctness concern, not a circularity, and does not affect this score.

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

The central benchmarks rest on hand-tuned preprocessing constants, a single chosen spatial-filter threshold, and an OCR-based self-baseline. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Spatial filtering buffer threshold = 2 km
    Chosen for outlier removal around the UTM flight path without reported sensitivity analysis; it directly affects point retention rates.
  • CLAHE clip limit = 3.0 for coordinate ROIs, 1.5 for altitude and battery ROIs
    Hand-selected preprocessing constants; no ablation or grid search is reported.
  • Adaptive threshold block size and bias = Block size 19, bias 2
    Hand-selected constants that affect OCR readability and therefore point retention and speed accuracy.
  • ROI upscaling factors = 6x for latitude and longitude, 2x for altitude and battery
    Chosen manually to make MMOCR read the HUD digits; no comparison of other scales is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MMOCR OCR output at 1-second sampling is a valid baseline for telemetry accuracy.
    The paper defines 1-second OCR readings as the reference and derives percentage deviations from it without comparing to actual flight-controller telemetry. Appears in Section IV and in the RQ2 discussion.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2-km buffer around the LineString flight path separates OCR outliers from true positions.
    The threshold is stated in Section III with no justification or sensitivity analysis, yet it determines the point retention rates that drive the optimal-sampling conclusion.
  • domain assumption A single flight at Mount Etna is representative enough to establish general optimal sampling benchmarks.
    The paper acknowledges this limitation in Section V but still generalizes to an optimal interval in the abstract and conclusion.
  • standard math UTM Zone 33N is the correct projection for the study area.
    Sicily falls in Zone 33N, so this is reasonable, but it means the projection comparison is tied to one longitude band.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VORTEX: A Spatial Computing Framework for Optimized Drone Telemetry Extraction from First-Person View Flight Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQNB5QND

@misc{pith2026241218505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VORTEX: A Spatial Computing Framework for Optimized Drone Telemetry Extraction from First-Person View Flight Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQNB5QND}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18505}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents the Visual Optical Recognition Telemetry EXtraction (VORTEX) system for extracting and analyzing drone telemetry data from First Person View (FPV) Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS) footage. VORTEX employs MMOCR, a PyTorch-based Optical Character Recognition (OCR) toolbox, to extract telemetry variables from drone Heads Up Display (HUD) recordings, utilizing advanced image preprocessing techniques, including CLAHE enhancement and adaptive thresholding. The study optimizes spatial accuracy and computational efficiency through systematic investigation of temporal sampling rates (1s, 5s, 10s, 15s, 20s) and coordinate processing methods. Results demonstrate that the 5-second sampling rate, utilizing 4.07% of available frames, provides the optimal balance with a point retention rate of 64% and mean speed accuracy within 4.2% of the 1-second baseline while reducing computational overhead by 80.5%. Comparative analysis of coordinate processing methods reveals that while UTM Zone 33N projection and Haversine calculations provide consistently similar results (within 0.1% difference), raw WGS84 coordinates underestimate distances by 15-30% and speeds by 20-35%. Altitude measurements showed unexpected resilience to sampling rate variations, with only 2.1% variation across all intervals. This research is the first of its kind, providing quantitative benchmarks for establishing a robust framework for drone telemetry extraction and analysis using open-source tools and spatial libraries.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Artificial Intelligence, Drone Swarming and Escalation Risks in Future Warfare,

    J. Johnson, “Artificial Intelligence, Drone Swarming and Escalation Risks in Future Warfare,” The RUSI Journal, vol. 165, no. 2, pp. 26–36, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1080/03071847.2020.1752026

    work page arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    The proliferation of drones to violent nonstate actors: Defence Studies: Vol 21, No 1

    “The proliferation of drones to violent nonstate actors: Defence Studies: Vol 21, No 1.” Accessed: Dec. 23,

    work page

  3. [3]

    Multifaceted applicability of drones: A review,

    M. Ayamga, S. Akaba, and A. A. Nyaaba, “Multifaceted applicability of drones: A review,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 167, p. 120677, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120677

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Drone GPS data analysis for flight path reconstruction: A study on DJI, Parrot & Yuneec make drones,

    R. Kumar and A. K. Agrawal, “Drone GPS data analysis for flight path reconstruction: A study on DJI, Parrot & Yuneec make drones,” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, vol. 38, p. 301182, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2021.301182

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Drone Forensics: A Detailed Analysis of Emerging DJI Models,

    M. Yousef, F. Iqbal, and M. Hussain, “Drone Forensics: A Detailed Analysis of Emerging DJI Models,” in 2020 11th International Conference on Information and Communication Systems (ICICS), Apr. 2020, pp. 066–071. doi: 10.1109/ICICS49469.2020.239530

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    MMOCR: A Comprehensive Toolbox for Text Detection, Recognition and Understanding,

    Z. Kuang et al., “MMOCR: A Comprehensive Toolbox for Text Detection, Recognition and Understanding,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, in MM ’21. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Oct. 2021, pp. 3791–3794. doi: 10.1145/3474085.3478328

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Comprehensive Assessment of OCR Tools for Gene Name Recognition in Biological Pathway Figures,

    S. Aldrich, M. O. Arowolo, F. He, M. Popescu, and D. Xu, “Comprehensive Assessment of OCR Tools for Gene Name Recognition in Biological Pathway Figures,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Dec. 2022, pp. 3574–3579. doi: 10.1109/BIBM55620.2022.9995448

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Analysis and Deployment of an OCR— SSD Deep Learning Technique for Real-Time Active Car Tracking and Positioning on a Quadrotor,

    L. G. M. Pinto, W. M. Martins, A. C. B. Ramos, and T. C. Pimenta, “Analysis and Deployment of an OCR— SSD Deep Learning Technique for Real-Time Active Car Tracking and Positioning on a Quadrotor,” in Data Science: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications, G. K. Verma, B. Soni, S. Bourennane, and A. C. B. Ramos, Eds., Singapore: Springer, 2021, pp. 121–155. do...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-16-1681-5_9 2021

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Automated License Plate Detection and Recognition using YOLOv8 and OCR With Tello Drone Camera,

    H. Fakhrurroja, D. Pramesti, A. R. Hidayatullah, A. A. Fashihullisan, H. Bangkit, and N. Ismail, “Automated License Plate Detection and Recognition using YOLOv8 and OCR With Tello Drone Camera,” in 2023 International Conference on Computer, Control, Informatics and its Applica...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Number Plate Detection Using Drone Surveillance,

    S. Jain, S. Patel, A. Mehta, and J. P. Verma, “Number Plate Detection Using Drone Surveillance,” in 2022 IEEE 9th Uttar Pradesh Section International Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering (UPCON), Dec. 2022, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/UPCON56432.2022.9986360

    2022

  3. [11]

    Deep Learning-Powered Ship IMO Number Identification on UAV Imagery,

    Z.-B. Cao, “Deep Learning-Powered Ship IMO Number Identification on UAV Imagery,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 107368–107384, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3438792

    2024

  4. [12]

    Extracting dashcam telemetry data for predicting energy use of electric vehicles,

    G. W. M. Hind, E. E. F. Ballantyne, T. Stincescu, R. Zhao, and D. A. Stone, “Extracting dashcam telemetry data for predicting energy use of electric vehicles,” Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, vol. 27, p. 101189, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2024.101189

    2024

  5. [13]

    Optical character recognition (OCR) solution for capturing data from legacy manufacturing machines,

    S. L. Lai, “Optical character recognition (OCR) solution for capturing data from legacy manufacturing machines,” other, UTAR, 2019. Accessed: Dec. 06,

    2019

  6. [14]

    Adaptive Real-Time Data Collection Device to Centralize Mechanical Ventilator Monitoring using Pytesseract-OCR | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore

    Facunla and Martinez, “Adaptive Real-Time Data Collection Device to Centralize Mechanical Ventilator Monitoring using Pytesseract-OCR | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore.” Accessed: Dec. 06, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10192...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Available: http://eprints.utar.edu.my/3486/

    [Online]. Available: http://eprints.utar.edu.my/3486/

  8. [16]

    Design and implementation of centralized reading system on analog postpaid water meter,

    H. Hudiono, M. Taufik, R. H. Y. Perdana, and W. R. Rohmah, “Design and implementation of centralized reading system on analog postpaid water meter,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 732, no. 1, p. 012102, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/732/1/012102

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    OCR-based Solution for The Integration of Legacy And-Or Non-Electric Counters in Cloud Smart Grids,

    V. P. Fernoaga, G.-A. S℡EA, A. BALAN, and F. SANDU, “OCR-based Solution for The Integration of Legacy And-Or Non-Electric Counters in Cloud Smart Grids,” in 2018 IEEE 24th International Symposium for Design and Technology in Electronic Packaging (SIITME), Oct. 2018, pp. 398–40...

    2018

  10. [18]

    Survey of Post-OCR Processing Approaches,

    T. T. H. Nguyen, A. Jatowt, M. Coustaty, and A. Doucet, “Survey of Post-OCR Processing Approaches,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 54, no. 6, p. 124:1-124:37, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1145/3453476

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Image Preprocessing for Improving OCR Accuracy,

    W. Bieniecki, S. Grabowski, and W. Rozenberg, “Image Preprocessing for Improving OCR Accuracy,” in 2007 International Conference on Perspective Technologies and Methods in MEMS Design, May 2007, pp. 75–80. doi: 10.1109/MEMSTECH.2007.4283429

    2007

  12. [20]

    A Multispectral Automated Transfer Technique (MATT) for Machine-Driven Image Labeling Utilizing the Segment Anything Model (SAM),

    J. E. Gallagher, A. Gogia, and E. J. Oughton, “A Multispectral Automated Transfer Technique (MATT) for Machine-Driven Image Labeling Utilizing the Segment Anything Model (SAM),” IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 4499–4516, 2025, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3522236

    2025

  13. [21]

    Assessing thermal imagery integration into object detection methods on air-based collection platforms,

    J. E. Gallagher and E. J. Oughton, “Assessing thermal imagery integration into object detection methods on air-based collection platforms,” Sci Rep, vol. 13, no. 1, Art. no. 1, May 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-34791- 8

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    OCR Using Computer Vision and Machine Learning,

    A. Ranjan, V. N. J. Behera, and M. Reza, “OCR Using Computer Vision and Machine Learning,” in Machine Learning Algorithms for Industrial Applications, S. K. Das, S. P. Das, N. Dey, and A.-E. Hassanien, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 83–105. doi: 10.10...

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Evaluating the Performance of Different Text Detection and Recognition Models for Tyre Text,

    J. M. Hendra, P. N. Subrata, N. N. Qomariyah, and V. L. Jauw, “Evaluating the Performance of Different Text Detection and Recognition Models for Tyre Text,” in 2024 International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS), Sep. 2024, pp. 1–8. doi: 10.1109/ICISS62896.2024.10751018

    2024

  16. [24]

    A Survey of Deep Learning Approaches for OCR and Document Understanding,

    N. Subramani, A. Matton, M. Greaves, and A. Lam, “A Survey of Deep Learning Approaches for OCR and Document Understanding,” Feb. 04, 2021, arXiv: arXiv:2011.13534. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2011.13534

    2021 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Comparative analysis of machine learning algorithms in OCR,

    V. Jain, A. Dubey, A. Gupta, and S. Sharma, “Comparative analysis of machine learning algorithms in OCR,” in 2016 3rd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), Mar. 2016, pp. 1089–1092. Accessed: Dec. 06, 2024. [Online]. Available: ht...

    2016

  18. [26]

    Surveying You Only Look Once (YOLO) Multispectral Object Detection Advancements, Applications, and Challenges,

    J. E. Gallagher and E. J. Oughton, “Surveying You Only Look Once (YOLO) Multispectral Object Detection Advancements, Applications, and Challenges,” IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 7366–7395, 2025, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3526458

    2025

  19. [27]

    Text Extraction and Detection from Images using Machine Learning Techniques: A Research Review,

    S. Surana, K. Pathak, M. Gagnani, V. Shrivastava, M. T. R, and S. Madhuri G, “Text Extraction and Detection from Images using Machine Learning Techniques: A Research Review,” in 2022 International Conference on Electronics and Renewable Systems (ICEARS), Mar. 2022, pp. 1201–

    2022

  20. [28]

    Computer vision and optical character recognition for the classification of batteries from WEEE,

    W. Sterkens et al., “Computer vision and optical character recognition for the classification of batteries from WEEE,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 105, pp. 110–115, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.019. JAMES E. GALLAGHER received a B.A from Mercyhurst, an M.A from American Mi...

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    Multi-Device Universal Automation Data Acquisition and Integration System,

    Q. Song, Y. Liu, H. Sun, Y. Chen, and Z. Zhou, “Multi-Device Universal Automation Data Acquisition and Integration System,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 104503–104517, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3435386

    2024

  22. [1207]

    doi: 10.1109/ICEARS53579.2022.9752274

    2022

  23. [2024]

    [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/147024 36.2020.1848426?casa_token=qun8XVXVAGYAAA AA:PDSKjmnZOgHS4KlpHjss3Jn9kyp8yYbRd_balX SL4ykH0Qzmtq1u7ZHkkan7qYwRiSl0IL-6OUYE

    2020

Pith tools

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