REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by
LRDDv2: Enhanced Long-Range Drone Detection Dataset with Range Information and Comprehensive Real-World Challenges
T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read LRDDv2 supplies 39,516 annotated drone images, with range labels on over 8,000, and models trained on it beat a standard drone dataset on two benchmarks.
desk verdict Worth a serious look for the range-labeled long-range drone data, but the paper has to earn the range claim by documenting how the distances were measured and validated. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the dataset itself, specifically its composition: 39,516 annotated images with a deliberate majority of drones at 50 pixels or fewer in 1080p resolution, and a subset of over 8,000 images carrying explicit range labels. The paper uses bounding box area as a proxy for range, and its evaluation machinery is a fixed YOLOv8 model trained on different data sources and tested on the Detfly and UAV-Detect benchmarks; the range labels are the novel component that would enable distance-estimation algorithms.
What would settle it
Take a sample of the 8,000+ range-labeled images and compare each labeled distance against independent ground truth, such as a GPS flight log or laser rangefinder measurement taken at the same moment; if errors are large or systematic, the range-estimation claim collapses. A simpler check is whether labeled distance correlates monotonically with pixel size across the sample.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that LRDDv2 improves long-range drone detection by providing a larger, more diverse set of small, distant drone images than existing datasets, and that this translates to measurable gains on independent benchmarks. Concretely, YOLOv8 trained on LRDDv2 reaches mAP@50 of 0.458 on Detfly versus 0.376 for Drone-vs-Bird training, and 0.562 versus 0.510 on UAV-Detect; combining Drone-vs-Bird with LRDDv2 yields 0.463 and 0.644 respectively. The paper also shows that detection probability falls as bounding box area shrinks, and that LRDDv2-trained models decay more gracefully at small sizes, supporting the claim that long-range-tailored data is a key ingredient for detecting distant UAVs.
Load-bearing premise
The distance values attached to the 8,000+ images are stated but their measurement or verification is not described; if these labels are inaccurate or inconsistent, the dataset's main novelty, enabling range estimation, would be compromised.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Researchers can train long-range drone detectors without collecting their own hard-to-find small-object imagery, since LRDDv2 supplies a large, varied set of such cases.
- The 8,000+ range-labeled images open a route to supervised monocular distance estimation, a capability the paper identifies for air traffic control, collision avoidance, and surveillance.
- Combining LRDDv2 with existing datasets like Drone-vs-Bird is a stronger recipe than either alone, suggesting that complementary data sources are valuable rather than redundant.
- The detection-probability-versus-bounding-box analysis gives a concrete baseline for how far current YOLO-style detectors can see, and where performance degrades.
- LRDDv2 can serve as a benchmark for future long-range detection datasets and for methods such as patch-based inference that are suggested for small-object detection.
Reading between the lines
- If the range labels are accurate, LRDDv2 could be used to calibrate detection confidence against physical distance, letting safety systems decide when a drone is close enough to act on.
- A natural validation step, not performed in the paper, would be to check whether labeled distance correlates monotonically with bounding box size; strong correlation would support the labels, while weak correlation would signal inconsistency.
- The paper suggests patch-based training but does not test it; a follow-up could measure whether LRDDv2's small-object cases benefit even more from tiling than current benchmarks suggest.
- The dataset's real utility for range estimation will only be clear once a model trained on its 8,000 labels is evaluated on held-out distances; that evaluation is absent from this release.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper introduces LRDDv2, a second release of the Long-Range Drone Detection dataset, comprising 39,516 annotated images with a stated emphasis on long-range small-object detection and with target range information claimed for over 8,000 images. The authors report YOLOv8 detection experiments showing that models trained on LRDDv2 outperform models trained solely on the Drone-vs-Bird dataset when evaluated on the external Detfly and UAV-Detect datasets, and that combining both training sets yields the best results. The paper also analyzes detection probability as a function of bounding-box area and proposes future work on range estimation enabled by the range labels.
Significance. If the range information is accurate and the dataset is released as described, LRDDv2 would be a useful contribution: existing drone-detection datasets rarely include range labels, and the empirical comparison on external evaluation sets (Detfly, UAV-Detect) gives concrete evidence about the value of diverse long-range training data. The dataset size alone is substantial for this niche. However, the central novelty—the range labels—is currently an unsupported claim: the manuscript documents neither how the ranges were measured nor how their accuracy was checked. Because the paper's distinguishing value over prior drone datasets rests on these labels, the contribution cannot be fully assessed from the preprint. The benchmark results are presented without training details or variability measures, which limits reproducibility but does not invalidate the qualitative trend.
major comments (4)
- [Abstract and Section 8] The paper's headline feature—explicit target range information for over 8,000 images—is not accompanied by any description of how those ranges were measured. The manuscript never states whether distances came from GPS/RTK logs, a laser rangefinder, known drone size projected through the camera model, or another method, nor does it report the camera(s) and capture geometry used. Without this methodology, the range labels are unverifiable, and the claimed capability of training range-estimation algorithms is not supported.
- [Section 8 (dataset description)] No validation or error analysis of the range labels is provided. There is no statement about the accuracy tolerance, no comparison against a ground-truth measurement, and no per-image confidence or flags for uncertain ranges. Because the range label is the primary novelty, the authors should report a quantitative validation (e.g., mean absolute error against independent measurements, or inter-annotator consistency) and state the distribution of ranges across the 8,000+ images.
- [Section 6] The analysis of detection probability versus bounding-box area treats bounding-box area as a direct proxy for range ('As the distance increases (represented by smaller bounding boxes)'), yet the paper never calibrates bounding-box area to actual distance using the range labels that it claims to provide. Given that range information exists for over 8,000 images, the authors should either plot detection probability against the measured range or explicitly justify why bounding-box area is an adequate substitute, including its variability at fixed range due to differing drone sizes and camera focal lengths.
- [Table 2 and Section 5 (benchmark)] The reported benchmark lacks essential experimental details needed to assess or reproduce the comparison: the number of training epochs, hyperparameters, input resolution, data split between training and validation, and whether the evaluation sets were used only for testing are not specified. Additionally, only single-point mAP values are given without variance across runs. Since the paper's main empirical claim is that LRDDv2 training improves detection on Detfly and UAV-Detect, these details and some measure of run-to-run variability are needed.
minor comments (4)
- [Throughout] There are numerous typos and formatting issues, including 'UA Vs' with an inconsistent space, 'Drone vs Birds' inconsistent capitalization, and a stray sentence fragment '0.32. The improvements represent...' before Table 2. These should be corrected.
- [Section 1 / Dataset description] The paper should include a summary table of dataset statistics—number of images per category (drone vs. no-drone, if applicable), number of bounding boxes, image resolution distribution, distribution of bounding-box sizes, and environmental conditions—so readers can evaluate the dataset's composition without downloading it.
- [Section 8] The conclusion states 'over 39,516' images, while the abstract and introduction state '39,516' exactly; the discrepancy should be resolved.
- [References] Reference [14] is the authors' own LRDDv1 paper; the text should explicitly state what was added relative to v1 (e.g., number of new images, new scenarios, range labels) rather than only saying 'greater variety.' Reference [7] and [8] are Roboflow Universe URLs and should note access dates consistently.
Circularity Check
No circular derivation: LRDDv2's performance claims are measured against external benchmarks; the main weakness is unvalidated range labels, not circularity.
full rationale
This paper is an empirical dataset contribution rather than a derivation from fitted parameters or self-referential equations. Its central claims are that LRDDv2 contains 39,516 annotated images, that over 8,000 images include range information, and that models trained on LRDDv2 outperform models trained only on Drone-vs-Bird when evaluated on the external Detfly and UAV-Detect datasets. The benchmark results (Table 2) are produced by training YOLOv8 on one or more training datasets and evaluating on datasets collected by third parties (GET / Roboflow), so the evaluation is outside the authors' control and not constructed from the paper's own outputs. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no equation reduces a claimed result to an input by definition. The paper does include self-citations to prior work by the same authors (LRDDv1 and a UAV perception overview), but these are contextual references to earlier releases, not load-bearing evidence for the current empirical comparisons. The visible manuscript does not describe how the range labels for over 8,000 images were measured or validated; this is a genuine scientific-rigor weakness and a risk to the dataset's headline novelty, but it is not circularity, because nothing in the text indicates that the range values are defined in terms of the detection benchmark or derived from the models evaluated later. The lack of range-label validation is therefore noted as a non-circular correctness risk, while the circularity score remains low because the core empirical claims are self-contained against external benchmarks.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (2)
- domain assumption The range labels for over 8,000 images are accurate and consistent.
- domain assumption A drone occupying 50 or fewer pixels in a 1080p image is a valid proxy for 'long range'.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of LRDDv2: Enhanced Long-Range Drone Detection Dataset with Range Information and Comprehensive Real-World Challenges." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IX2MEH3N
@misc{pith2026250803331,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: LRDDv2: Enhanced Long-Range Drone Detection Dataset with Range Information and Comprehensive Real-World Challenges},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IX2MEH3N}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.03331}
}
read the original abstract
The exponential growth in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) usage underscores the critical need of detecting them at extended distances to ensure safe operations, especially in densely populated areas. Despite the tremendous advances made in computer vision through deep learning, the detection of these small airborne objects remains a formidable challenge. While several datasets have been developed specifically for drone detection, the need for a more extensive and diverse collection of drone image data persists, particularly for long-range detection under varying environmental conditions. We introduce here the Long Range Drone Detection (LRDD) Version 2 dataset, comprising 39,516 meticulously annotated images, as a second release of the LRDD dataset released previously. The LRDDv2 dataset enhances the LRDDv1 by incorporating a greater variety of images, providing a more diverse and comprehensive resource for drone detection research. What sets LRDDv2 apart is its inclusion of target range information for over 8,000 images, making it possible to develop algorithms for drone range estimation. Tailored for long-range aerial object detection, the majority of LRDDv2's dataset consists of images capturing drones with 50 or fewer pixels in 1080p resolution. For access to the complete Long-Range Drone Detection Dataset (LRDD)v2, please visit https://research.coe.drexel.edu/ece/imaple/lrddv2/ .
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
SkyEV: RGB-Event UAV detection and tracking dataset and baseline
The paper introduces SkyEV, a 2.17-hour RGB-event drone detection dataset with ego-motion and varied optics, plus a SAST+YOLOX fusion baseline.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
https://www.aicrowd.com/challenges/ airborne-object-tracking-challenge (2021)
Air, A.P.: Airborne object tracking dataset. https://www.aicrowd.com/challenges/ airborne-object-tracking-challenge (2021)
work page 2021
-
[2]
https://doi.org/10.21227/n27q-7e06, https: //dx.doi.org/10.21227/n27q-7e06
Ajakwe, S.O., Ihekoronye, V.U., Mohtasin, G., Akter, R., Aouto, A., Kim, D.S., Lee, J.M.: Visiodect dataset: An aerial dataset for scenario-based multi-drone detection and identification (2022). https://doi.org/10.21227/n27q-7e06, https: //dx.doi.org/10.21227/n27q-7e06
-
[3]
2022 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) pp
Akyon, F.C., Altinuc, S.O., Temizel, A.: Slicing aided hyper infer- ence and fine-tuning for small object detection. 2022 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) pp. 966–970 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP46576.2022.9897990 16 Rouhi et al
arXiv 2022
-
[4]
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5718950, https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5718950
Akyon, F.C., Cengiz, C., Altinuc, S.O., Cavusoglu, D., Sahin, K., Eryuksel, O.: SAHI: A lightweight vision library for performing large scale object detection and instance segmentation (Nov 2021). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5718950, https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5718950
-
[5]
Chen, Y., Aggarwal, P., Choi, J., Kuo, C.C.J.: A deep learning approach to drone monitoring. In: 2017 Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA ASC). pp. 686–691. IEEE (2017)
work page 2017
-
[6]
bird detection: Deep learning algorithms and results from a grand challenge
Coluccia, A., Fascista, A., Schumann, A., Sommer, L., Dimou, A., Zarpalas, D., M´ endez, M., de la Iglesia, D., Gonz´ alez, I., Mercier, J.P., et al.: Drone vs. bird detection: Deep learning algorithms and results from a grand challenge. Sensors 21(8), 2824 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082824, https://doi.org/10.3390/ s21082824
-
[7]
GET: uav detect dataset. https://universe.roboflow.com/get/uav-detect-pfiqs (jan 2023), https://universe.roboflow.com/get/uav-detect-pfiqs, visited on 2023-06-25
work page 2023
-
[8]
GET: YOLOv8 DetFly 02 Dataset (Mar 2023), https://universe.roboflow.com/ yolov8-drone-detection/yolov8 detfly-02
work page 2023
Show all 19 references
-
[9]
arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.08466 (2021)
Jiang, N., Wang, K., Peng, X., Yu, X., Wang, Q., Xing, J., Li, G., Zhao, J., Guo, G., Han, Z.: Anti-uav: A large multi-modal benchmark for uav tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.08466 (2021)
2021 arXiv
-
[10]
IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing 10(3), 1519–1531 (2021)
Li, J., Ye, D.H., Kolsch, M., Wachs, J.P., Bouman, C.A.: Fast and robust uav to uav detection and tracking from video. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing 10(3), 1519–1531 (2021)
2021
-
[11]
In: 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)
Li, J., Murray, J., Ismaili, D., Schindler, K., Albl, C.: Reconstruction of 3d flight trajectories from ad-hoc camera networks. In: 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 1621–1628. IEEE (2020)
2020
-
[12]
IEEE Access 8, 174394–174409 (2020)
Pawe lczyk, M., Wojtyra, M.: Real world object detection dataset for quadcopter unmanned aerial vehicle detection. IEEE Access 8, 174394–174409 (2020)
2020
-
[13]
In: 2024 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE)
Rouhi, A., Arezoomandan, S., Kapoor, R., Klohoker, J., Patal, S., Shah, P., Umare, H., Han, D.: An overview of deep learning in uav perception. In: 2024 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE). pp. 1–6. IEEE (2024)
2024
-
[14]
In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE)
Rouhi, A., Umare, H., Patel, S., Kapoor, R., Deshpande, N., Arezoomandan, S., Shah, P., Han, D.: Long-range drone detection dataset. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE). pp. 1–6. IEEE (2024)
2024
-
[15]
In: 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR)
Svanstr¨ om, F., Englund, C., Alonso-Fernandez, F.: Real-time drone detection and tracking with visible, thermal and acoustic sensors. In: 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). pp. 7265–7272. IEEE (2021)
2021
-
[16]
In: 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV)
Vidal, R.G., Banerjee, S., Grm, K., Struc, V., Scheirer, W.J.: Ugˆ 2: A video benchmark for assessing the impact of image restoration and enhancement on automatic visual recognition. In: 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV). pp. 1597–1606. IEEE (2018)
2018
-
[17]
PloS one 14(11), e0225092 (2019)
Wyder, P.M., Chen, Y.S., Lasrado, A.J., Pelles, R.J., Kwiatkowski, R., Comas, E.O., Kennedy, R., Mangla, A., Huang, Z., Hu, X., et al.: Autonomous drone hunter operating by deep learning and all-onboard computations in gps-denied environments. PloS one 14(11), e0225092 (2019)
2019
-
[18]
IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 43(2), 392–403 (2019)
Xu, X., Zhang, X., Yu, B., Hu, X.S., Rowen, C., Hu, J., Shi, Y.: Dac-sdc low power object detection challenge for uav applications. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 43(2), 392–403 (2019)
2019
-
[19]
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23(12), 25323–25334 (2022)
Zhao, J., Zhang, J., Li, D., Wang, D.: Vision-based anti-uav detection and tracking. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23(12), 25323–25334 (2022)
2022
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.