Integrated Multimodal AI System for Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning, Object Sensing, and Damage Analysis

Erika Ardiles-Cruz; Evan Perez; Israel Pina; Jie Wei; Kalelo Dukuray

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 11 references

Integrated Multimodal AI System for Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning, Object Sensing, and Damage Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fusing IR and EO sensing lifts UAV detection to 94.2 percent, and graph-based retrieval beats vector search on multi-hop damage queries.

desk verdict A clearly described multimodal integration whose headline empirical claims are undercut by the evaluation: the RAG test comes from narrative corpora rather than damage assessment, and the 'fusion improves detection' result is partly a union artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08935 v1 pith:PIIEBEIR submitted 2026-08-09 cs.AI

Kalelo Dukuray , Israel Pina , Evan Perez , Erika Ardiles-Cruz , Jie Wei This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords multimodalAIretrieval-augmentedgenerationknowledgegraphinfraredsensingobjectdetectiondamageassessmentvisionfoundationmodelswireless

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 argues that reliable damage assessment comes from arranging complementary sensing and reasoning modalities so that each covers the others' known failure modes, and it reports an integrated system that realizes that design. On the reasoning side, a graph-based retrieval-augmented generator wins 15 of 18 multi-hop queries against a vector-only retriever, while vector retrieval stays competitive on single-passage questions. On the sensing side, fusing infrared and electro-optical detections yields a 94.2 percent mean UAV detection rate across 40 paired sequences, above either sensor alone (91.8 percent IR-only, 44.2 percent EO-only). The system rounds out with vision-model damage classification and wireless emitter sensing for scenes where optical sensors are blind.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pairing of each component with a partner whose blind spots are different: vector retrieval plus a knowledge graph over the same corpus, IR plus EO detection streams joined by per-frame union, YOLO (a single-shot object detector) boxes feeding SAM (the Segment Anything Model) for class-specific segmentation, and wireless emitter detection as a last-resort channel. The argument runs on the observation that each pair's failure modes barely overlap, so even a simple fusion rule produces measurable gains without retraining a stronger model.

What would settle it

Have independent annotators, blind to which retrieval method produced which answer, score the paper's 40 queries against a fixed rubric; if graph RAG does not win a clear majority of the multi-hop queries under blind scoring, the central RAG claim fails. A second check on the sensing side: filter the 40 Anti-UAV sequences to frames where both IR and EO miss the same UAV; if union fusion does not beat IR-only there, the disjoint-failure-mode premise fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that a multimodal system gains accuracy not by picking the best single model but by pairing components whose failure modes are largely disjoint and combining their outputs with simple operations. The evidence is concrete: a 40-query comparison in which knowledge-graph RAG—built by entity-relation extraction over the same chunks that feed the vector store—wins 15 of 18 multi-hop queries and 19 of 40 overall; and a 40-sequence Anti-UAV tracking comparison in which a per-frame union of IR and EO detections reaches 94.2 percent mean detection, recovering the night and low-light frames that EO alone misses (44.2 percent) and the thermally cluttered frames that IR alone misses (91.8 percent). The same pattern extends to the wireless channel, where emitter signatures remain detectable even when no optical sensor can resolve the scene.

Load-bearing premise

The result that graph RAG beats vector RAG on multi-hop questions rests on one person's preference votes over 40 hand-written queries recorded in a small local table, with no independent judges or statistical test; a different set of questions or a different judge could flip the outcome.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Damage-assessment query systems should route multi-hop questions to graph-aware or hybrid retrieval rather than relying on vector-only search.
Operational UAV trackers can adopt a simple union of IR and EO detections as an immediate accuracy gain over either sensor alone.
In scenes where EO, IR, and LiDAR cannot resolve anything, wireless emitter signatures can still provide presence and motion cues for survivor or activity search.
Vision-language-model generated synthetic damage imagery can support training and validation of downstream damage classifiers when real damage data is scarce.
Human corrections can be written back into both vector and graph stores, so the retrieval system improves with operational use.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: if the disjoint-failure-mode observation generalizes, the same union-style design should transfer to other sensor pairs, such as audio with video or radar with IR; the paper itself names audio as a plausible next step.
Editorial inference: the 94.2 percent union rate is a lower bound for fusion quality; a confidence-weighted or learned fusion rule could push it higher by exploiting cases where one modality is known to be unreliable, such as IR against sun-warmed backgrounds.
Editorial inference: the RAG results suggest a routing extension—classify each incoming query as single-passage or multi-hop and send it to the retriever best suited to that type, which would reduce the cost of always consulting the graph.
Editorial inference: the wireless sensing results are exploratory, so a natural next test is whether emitter-signature changes correlate with structural damage levels, turning wireless data from a presence detector into a damage estimator.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: this is a systems integration paper, not a new research result. The authors combine known components—graph-based vs. vector RAG, YOLOv8 plus SAM, IR/EO fusion, and a wireless sensing sketch—and report small internal evaluations. The most interesting empirical claim, that graph RAG outperforms vector RAG on multi-hop queries, is undermined by the fact that the sample queries come from narrative corpora, not damage-assessment tasks. The fusion result is partly guaranteed by defining 'fused' as the per-frame union of detections.

What's genuinely useful: the architecture is clearly described, and the YOLO-guided SAM segmentation pipeline is a sensible, practical approach. The observation that IR and EO fail in complementary conditions—EO at night, IR against thermally similar backgrounds—is a plausible empirical pattern, and union fusion is a reasonable operational design even if the reported gain lacks statistical support.

Soft spots, in order of severity. First, the RAG evaluation: 40 queries, post-hoc categorization, no released query list or rubric, and the two illustrative questions are about a harbor mocha and a detective, not damage assessment. That makes the 15/18 win on multi-hop queries evidence about narrative comprehension, not about the damage-analysis task the abstract and conclusion claim. Second, Table 2 defines fused detection as the union, so the fused rate is mathematically at least the max of the two streams; the 94.2% number is not independent evidence that fusion helps. The win/tie counts across sequences are more informative, but there is no significance test, no variance, and no per-sequence breakdown. Third, the wireless section has no metrics, only a figure, and is explicitly exploratory; as exploratory work that's acceptable, but it doesn't carry the complementary-modality weight the conclusion assigns it. Finally, no code or data are released, so none of these numbers can be independently checked.

These are not flaws in the engineering—the system likely does what it says—but they are flaws in the evidence for the paper's payoff claims. This paper is for practitioners who want a template for assembling such a system, and for readers who want to see failure-mode patterns across modalities. As a research contribution, it needs major revision and a different evaluation strategy. I'd still send it to peer review rather than desk reject, because a serious referee could push the authors to either narrow their claims or redo the evaluations, and the engineering substance is enough to make that worthwhile. I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a multimodal damage-assessment system with three components: a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) module comparing vector-store and knowledge-graph retrieval; an infrared/electro-optical object detection and segmentation pipeline with a paired UAV tracking study; and an exploratory wireless signal sensing module. It reports that graph-based RAG wins 15 of 18 multi-hop queries, that the fused IR+EO detection rate is 94.2% versus 91.8% for IR-only, and that wireless emitters can be detected regardless of building damage. The paper concludes that arranging complementary modalities improves robustness and accuracy for damage assessment.

Significance. If the claims were substantiated, the RAG comparison would be a useful practical result for grounding LLMs in project-specific damage-assessment documentation, and the paired-modality Anti-UAV analysis is a sensible way to expose failure modes. I credit the authors for using public datasets (Anti-UAV, HIT-UAV, FLIR-ADAS), for running the IR and EO detectors at matched confidence and IoU thresholds, and for building a locally hosted stack rather than relying on closed APIs. However, the current evidence does not yet support the central claims: the RAG evaluation is performed on narrative QA rather than damage-assessment tasks, the fusion comparison is partly definitional because the fused detection is defined as a per-frame union, and the wireless sensing section is anecdotal. The paper therefore needs a substantial evaluation revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Section 2, Table 1] The RAG evaluation does not measure damage-assessment reasoning, so the paper's central assertion that graph-based retrieval produces stronger responses for 'damage assessment queries requiring cross-document reasoning' is unsupported by the presented evidence. The corpus is described as 'a mixture of project documentation, narrative test corpora, and short technical references,' and the only two illustrative queries concern 'Felix's harbor mocha' and 'Detective Castellan,' which are narrative QA questions rather than damage-assessment questions. No per-collection breakdown is provided, so the 15/18 multi-hop win could be driven entirely by one collection. The authors should re-run the comparison on a released damage-assessment query set drawn from the project documentation and judged by domain experts.
[Section 2, Table 1 (evaluation protocol)] The per-query preference votes lack reliability and significance analysis. The manuscript states that wins are 'persisted in a small SQLite table,' but it does not provide a scoring rubric, blinded annotators, inter-annotator agreement, or a statistical test. With 40 total queries and cells as small as 2-9, a modest number of flipped votes could reverse the reported advantage. The post-hoc categorization of queries into single-passage and multi-hop after testing creates an additional selection-bias risk. The authors should report the exact query set, a rubric, and a significance test such as a sign test or a bootstrap confidence interval.
[Section 3.2, Table 2] The claimed advantage of fusion is definitionally guaranteed rather than empirically demonstrated. Table 2 explicitly defines 'Fused = per-frame union of IR-based and EO-based detections'; under this rule, the fused detection rate is at least the maximum of the two single-modality rates by set inclusion. The reported improvement from 91.8% to 94.2% is therefore not evidence that fusion extracts complementary information; it is an upper bound of a naive union rule. The authors should either compare against a learned fusion model, present the union result only as an oracle upper bound, or evaluate a fusion rule that can actually fail. In addition, Table 2 gives no variance, no per-sequence breakdown, and no significance test, and the 5-percentage-point win threshold is not justified.
[Section 4, Figure 3] The wireless-sensing claim is not quantitatively supported. The text asserts that 'wireless signal strengths of different wireless emitters are reliably detected, which is not affected by the damage levels of buildings in any way,' but Figure 3 appears to be a single illustrative measurement and no methodology or metrics are provided. Because the paper presents wireless sensing as the component that handles cases of total destruction, this evidence gap is material to the concluding claim that the three modalities complement one another. The authors should either present a proper experimental setup with quantitative detection results across damage scenarios or clearly label the contribution as a preliminary proof-of-concept.

minor comments (3)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'conditioniations,' 'Languae,' 'knowledgethat,' 'fortytestqueries,' and the heading 'T able 1'; these should be corrected in a careful proofreading pass.
[Table 2] The rows 'Sequences Wins' and 'Sequences Ties' are ambiguous; the caption should state that the counts are out of 40 sequences and define the tie rule in the caption as well as in the text.
[References] Reference [10] is a respiratory-motion perturbation model and does not appear to be a relevant supporting citation for the wireless sensing section; please replace it with a wireless-sensing reference or justify the connection.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

IR/EO fusion improvement is definitional: 'Fused' is the per-frame union of detections, so the 94.2% > 91.8% gap is guaranteed by set inclusion rather than measured fusion gain.

self definitional [Section 3.2, Table 2 caption and Results paragraph]
"Fused = per-frame union of IR-based and EO-based detections. ... the 94.2% fused detection rate exceeds either single-modality stream and recovers the EO-only frames that an IR-only tracker would miss."

The fused detection rate is defined as the union of the IR-only and EO-only per-frame detections. By elementary set theory, the union detection rate is at least the maximum of the two component rates, so the reported improvement (94.2% vs 91.8%) is a formal consequence of the definition of 'Fused', not an empirical discovery about fusion. The paper presents this inequality as evidence that fusing EO with IR 'can essentially deliver better results', but any union of the two detection sets would trivially satisfy the inequality. Thus Table 2 cannot serve as independent evidence that a fusion method outperforms the better single modality; the 'improvement' is built into the definition.

full rationale

The paper's central claim of multimodal benefit rests on three pillars: RAG comparison, IR/EO fusion, and wireless sensing. The IR/EO fusion pillar is partially circular: Table 2 defines 'Fused' as the per-frame union of IR and EO detections, so the fused detection rate being higher than either stream is guaranteed by construction and provides no independent evidence of fusion efficacy. This is a genuine definitional reduction of a quantitative claim. The RAG comparison, by contrast, is not circular: the per-query preference votes are empirical, and the graph RAG winning multi-hop queries is a measured outcome, even though the query selection and annotation are subjective and the external validity to damage assessment is questionable. The wireless sensing section is exploratory and makes no quantitative claim that reduces to its inputs. Self-citations to prior damage-classification and VLM work are present but not load-bearing for the derivation. Overall, one central quantitative 'prediction' reduces by construction, while the rest of the system retains independent content, yielding a partial circularity score of 6.

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

The central claims rest on subjective preference votes, a union-fusion identity, unlisted data splits, and a wireless measurement with no acquisition details. No new entities, forces, or fitted physical constants are introduced. The main free parameters are hand-chosen thresholds and chunking settings that affect the reported results.

free parameters (3)

UAV win-margin threshold = 5 percentage points
Section 3.2 credits a sequence to one modality only if its detection rate exceeds the other by more than five percentage points. This hand-chosen threshold changes win/tie counts and is not justified by data.
Detection confidence and IoU thresholds = not stated (matched across modalities)
Section 3.2 says both detectors run at matched confidence and IoU thresholds, but the actual values are not reported, so the comparison cannot be reproduced or checked for hidden bias.
RAG chunk window and overlap = 250-token window, 20-token overlap
Section 2 uses RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter at 250 tokens with 20 overlap. These hand-chosen settings affect retrieval behavior and were not varied in the reported experiments.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Per-query preference votes by the authors are a valid measure of answer quality
Section 2 Results records wins as per-query preference votes with no blinded annotators, no scoring rubric, and no inter-annotator agreement. The validity of this measure is assumed.
ad hoc to paper The 40 hand-written queries and three test collections are representative of damage-assessment workloads
Section 2 says the collections are a mixture of project documentation, narrative test corpora, and short technical references. No damage-assessment corpus is used, yet the paper generalizes to damage assessment.
ad hoc to paper Union of per-frame detections is a valid fusion rule
Section 3.2, Table 2 defines fused detection as the per-frame union of IR and EO detections, and then treats the resulting rate as evidence for multimodal fusion. Union coverage is guaranteed to be at least as high as each stream, so this is an assumption about what should count as fusion.
domain assumption The selected 40 Anti-UAV sequences cover the relevant operating conditions
Section 3.2 states the harness was applied to forty sequences from the Anti-UAV dataset, but no sequence list, sampling strategy, or stratification is given. The claim that the observed failure modes generalize depends on this assumption.
ad hoc to paper Wireless emitter detections in Fig. 3 are unaffected by structural damage
Section 4 claims wireless signals are not affected by damage levels of buildings 'in any way', but no attenuation, blockage, or emitter survival modeling is provided. The relevance of the single wireless figure depends on this unstated assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrated Multimodal AI System for Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning, Object Sensing, and Damage Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIIEBEIR

@misc{pith2026260808935,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrated Multimodal AI System for Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning, Object Sensing, and Damage Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIIEBEIR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08935}
}

read the original abstract

This work presents a unified multimodal AI system for damage assessment that integrates retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) models, thermal spectrum perception, vision foundation model pipelines, and exploratory wireless signal sensing. A RAG component is developed to ground a locally hosted language model in project-specific documentation, including specialized damage level classification criteria to mitigate hallucinations during inference. Controlled comparisons against static few-shot prompting demonstrate that dynamic retrieval improves grounding and factual consistency. We further compare vector-based RAG with a knowledge graph variant constructed via entity-relation extraction, and show that graph-based retrieval produces stronger responses for damage assessment queries requiring cross-document reasoning, motivating hybrid dense, sparse, and graph-aware retrieval. To address limitations of EO imagery under adverse lighting and weather conditions, infrared (IR)/thermal sensing is employed for object detection and segmentation. Our detectors generate candidate detections, yielding improved segmentation of a broad array of objects. Paired IR versus visible spectrum tracking experiments reveal failure modes, motivating multimodal fusion for robust object detection and damage analysis. Vision foundation and vision-language models are leveraged to generate synthetic damage imagery and classify damage severity with high accuracy, supporting training and validation of downstream damage assessment models. Finally, exploratory Wireless-based sensing demonstrates potential to detect presence, motion, and post-event environmental changes where EO and IR sensing are ineffective.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08935 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** DDDAS integration of this work: sensing, fusion, and damage analysis interact dynamically, enabling adaptive data acquisition and computational steering for resilient, real-time decision support. In the next three sections, the technical details, evaluation strategy, and observed results for each of the above three components are expanded at length, and algorithmic developments as well as empirical results are repo… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** IR-based object detection results for HIT-UAV (Row 1), FLIR-ADAS (Row 2), and Electrical Grid Proliferation (Row 3) datasets: Each image on the right shows the result of running each of the three datasets’ dedicated trained model on the test image illustrated on the left. 3.2 Paired IR vs EO UAV tracking Reliable UAV tracking has applications across surveillance and air defense, but it is rarely robust to environmen… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The detected wireless emitters’ frequencies and strengths are a valuable detector when other data modalities are of no power in case of total damage. 5 Conclusion In this work, using cutting-edge AI approaches and models, we developed a system that can exploit the advantages of different data modalities, such as natural language, EO, IR, and wireless signals, to deliver better object detection or damage analysis in… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

11 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

Applied Acoustics211, 109540 (2023) Integrated Multimodal AI System 9

Jiao, Q., Wang, X., Wang, L., Bai, H.: Audio features based ads-cnn method for flight attitude recognition of quadrotor uav. Applied Acoustics211, 109540 (2023) Integrated Multimodal AI System 9

work page 2023
[2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A.C., Lo, W.Y., et al.: Segment anything. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 4015–4026 (2023)

2023
[3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08154 (2025)

Li, Y., Wei, J., Kamga, C.: Investigating vision-language model for point cloud- based vehicle classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08154 (2025)

arXiv 2025
[4]

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing204, 110725 (2023)

Thompson, Z., Downey, A.R., Bakos, J.D., Wei, J., Dodson, J.: Multi-modal gener- ative adversarial networks for synthesizing time-series structural impact responses. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing204, 110725 (2023)

2023
[5]

In: 2024 International conference on advances in data engineering and intelligent computing systems (ADICS)

Varghese, R., Sambath, M.: Yolov8: A novel object detection algorithm with en- hanced performance and robustness. In: 2024 International conference on advances in data engineering and intelligent computing systems (ADICS). pp. 1–6. IEEE (2024)

2024
[6]

In: Proceedings 2001 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat

Wei, J.: Image segmentation using situational dct descriptors. In: Proceedings 2001 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No. 01CH37205). vol. 1, pp. 738–741. IEEE (2001)

work page 2001
[7]

International Journal of Image and Graphics13(03), 1350014 (2013)

Wei, J.: Small moving object detection from infra-red sequences. International Journal of Image and Graphics13(03), 1350014 (2013)

work page 2013
[8]

In: NAECON 2025-IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference

Wei, J., Ardiles-Cruz, E., Panasyuk, A., Blasch, E.: Effective damage data gen- eration by fusing imagery with human knowledge using vision-language models. In: NAECON 2025-IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference. pp. 1–6. IEEE (2025)

2025

Show all 11 references

[9]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14518 (2021)

Wei, J., Zhu, Z., Blasch, E., Abdulrahman, B., Davila, B., Liu, S., Magracia, J., Fang, L.: Nida-clifgan: natural infrastructure damage assessment through efficient classification combining contrastive learning, information fusion and generative adversarial networks. arXiv pre...

2021 arXiv
[10]

Interna- tional Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics96(5), 1087–1096 (2016)

Yuan, A., Wei, J., Gaebler, C.P., Huang, H., Olek, D., Li, G.: A novel respiratory motion perturbation model adaptable to patient breathing irregularities. Interna- tional Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics96(5), 1087–1096 (2016)

2016
[11]

Zhu, X., Xie, Y., Liu, Y., Li, Y., Hu, W.: Knowledge graph-guided retrieval aug- mented generation. In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- guage Technologies (Volume 1: Long Pap...

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Applied Acoustics211, 109540 (2023) Integrated Multimodal AI System 9

Jiao, Q., Wang, X., Wang, L., Bai, H.: Audio features based ads-cnn method for flight attitude recognition of quadrotor uav. Applied Acoustics211, 109540 (2023) Integrated Multimodal AI System 9

work page 2023

[2] [2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A.C., Lo, W.Y., et al.: Segment anything. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 4015–4026 (2023)

2023

[3] [3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08154 (2025)

Li, Y., Wei, J., Kamga, C.: Investigating vision-language model for point cloud- based vehicle classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08154 (2025)

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing204, 110725 (2023)

Thompson, Z., Downey, A.R., Bakos, J.D., Wei, J., Dodson, J.: Multi-modal gener- ative adversarial networks for synthesizing time-series structural impact responses. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing204, 110725 (2023)

2023

[5] [5]

In: 2024 International conference on advances in data engineering and intelligent computing systems (ADICS)

Varghese, R., Sambath, M.: Yolov8: A novel object detection algorithm with en- hanced performance and robustness. In: 2024 International conference on advances in data engineering and intelligent computing systems (ADICS). pp. 1–6. IEEE (2024)

2024

[6] [6]

In: Proceedings 2001 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat

Wei, J.: Image segmentation using situational dct descriptors. In: Proceedings 2001 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No. 01CH37205). vol. 1, pp. 738–741. IEEE (2001)

work page 2001

[7] [7]

International Journal of Image and Graphics13(03), 1350014 (2013)

Wei, J.: Small moving object detection from infra-red sequences. International Journal of Image and Graphics13(03), 1350014 (2013)

work page 2013

[8] [8]

In: NAECON 2025-IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference

Wei, J., Ardiles-Cruz, E., Panasyuk, A., Blasch, E.: Effective damage data gen- eration by fusing imagery with human knowledge using vision-language models. In: NAECON 2025-IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference. pp. 1–6. IEEE (2025)

2025