Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Approximate Supervised Object Distance Estimation on Unmanned Surface Vehicles

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a distance regression head to a YOLO object detector lets a single camera estimate approximate distances to boats and buoys at real-time speed.

desk verdict Practical maritime dataset plus a plausible distance head, but the headline MDE contradicts the per-interval table and is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05567 v1 pith:LVVELYLD submitted 2025-01-09 cs.CV cs.AI

Benjamin Kiefer , Yitong Quan , Andreas Zell This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords unmannedsurfacevehiclesmonoculardistanceestimationobjectdetectionYOLOmaritimedatasetregressionheadGPSchartgroundtruthreal-timeperception
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 tries to establish that an unmanned surface vehicle can get approximate distances to nearby boats, buoys, and other waterborne objects from a single ordinary camera, by adding a distance prediction to an object detector instead of using LiDAR, radar, stereo vision, or depth cameras. The central claim is that a YOLO detector with one extra regression output per anchor, trained on images labelled with bounding boxes and distance measurements, produces mean distance errors around 14.9 meters at 45.2 frames per second on an embedded platform. The authors also claim this beats geometric triangulation and the Depth Anything V2 monocular depth model on their maritime data, while maintaining real-time speed. If correct, the method gives small boats a cheap proximity-alerting capability and makes any video with distance labels usable as training data.

What carries the argument

The distance regression head is the carrying mechanism: one extra output neuron per anchor added to the YOLOv7 and YOLOv9 detector heads, trained with L1 loss on distances linearly normalized to [0,1] by d/d_max and inverted at inference. The head reuses the detector's existing visual features at no extra runtime cost, letting the network learn the size-to-distance and appearance-to-distance mapping directly from supervised labels; temporal consistency is then obtained by feeding SORT-tracked detections through a running average. The paper reports that only the basic linear normalization converged, while logarithmic and negative-range variants produced unstable training.

What would settle it

Measure distances to moving boats with a laser rangefinder while running the model on the same frames; if the 14.9-meter mean error and 12 percent outlier rate do not reproduce for moving targets, the GPS-and-chart labelling assumption is the weak link and the central claim fails for the objects that matter most in collision avoidance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that supervised object detection can double as an approximate range sensor. By appending a distance regression head to YOLOv7 and YOLOv9 detectors and training with an L1 loss on linearly normalized distances, the network learns to read distance from visual cues such as apparent object size, category, and scene context. On their collected maritime dataset, the modified YOLOv7 reaches a mean distance error of 14.9 meters with 12 percent outliers at 45.2 FPS, and the authors report that this is the lowest error and smallest outlier fraction among triangulation, Depth Anything V2 in three sizes, and the proposed method. The same architecture also supports a demonstration assistance system that projects detections with distances onto a 2D plane for operator alerts.

Load-bearing premise

The training and evaluation distances come from matching the boat's GPS position and heading to chart positions of static objects, so the reported accuracy depends on those chart associations being correct and on the deployment camera matching the training camera's field of view.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single monocular camera plus a standard YOLO detector can act as a coarse proximity sensor for maritime collision alerts, with no extra sensor hardware and no added runtime cost.
  • Distance accuracy degrades with range: on buoys, weighted error grows from roughly 15 meters at 0 to 100 meters to about 130 meters at 400 to 500 meters, so the method is an alerting layer rather than precise ranging.
  • Temporal smoothing with SORT and a running average lowers mean error from 18.4 meters to 14.9 meters and the outlier rate from 22.5 percent to 12.0 percent, making video sequences noticeably more reliable than single frames.
  • The distance-loss gain is a tunable trade-off: a gain of 0.001 keeps detection mAP at 89.5 percent with distance MAE of 19.7 meters, while a gain of 0.1 improves MAE to 9.8 meters but drops mAP to 72.1 percent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the model learns a size-to-distance mapping, feeding it the camera's field of view or focal length as an extra input could make the same regression head transfer across cameras without retraining.
  • Beyond the paper: the human pseudo-labels are reliable only under about 100 meters, so a practical pipeline could train on large volumes of human-labelled close-range images and reserve scarce GPS or chart labels for calibration of farther ranges.
  • Beyond the paper: the same detector-plus-one-regression-output recipe could be applied to other object categories on other platforms, such as vehicles or UAVs, wherever approximate range warnings rather than precise metrology are the goal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a monocular distance estimation method for USVs by appending a distance regression head to YOLOv7 and YOLOv9 object detectors. Training and evaluation labels are derived from GPS/chart data for static objects, with an additional 5,000 images labeled by human annotators. The method is evaluated on a 1,000-image maritime dataset and compared against a triangulation baseline and Depth Anything V2, reporting a mean distance error of 14.9 m at 45.2 FPS. The authors also present ablation studies on the distance loss gain and a tracking-based smoothing module.

Significance. If the claimed accuracy holds, the approach is a practical, low-cost alternative for approximate distance awareness on USVs, introducing no runtime overhead and requiring no additional sensors. The paper contributes a dataset and a simple architectural modification that could be of interest to the maritime computer vision community. However, the headline accuracy number is currently unsupported by the paper's own tables, and the comparison protocol has gaps that must be addressed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V-B, Table II; Section V-C, Table III; Section V-E, Table V] The reported headline MDE of 14.9 m for 'Proposed YOLOv7' in Table III is arithmetically inconsistent with Table II. Table II lists interval-specific weighted distance errors for YOLOv7 with a minimum of 15.1 m (buoys, 0-100 m) and average errors of 47.5 m (boats) and 63.8 m (buoys). Since any overall mean must be a weighted average of interval means, no weighted average of values all ≥15.1 m can equal 14.9 m. The same problem affects Table V: YOLOv9-M without tracking has MDE 18.4 m, yet Table II's minimum interval error for YOLOv9-m is 15.8 m, so the reported MDE of 14.9 m with tracking is also impossible unless the two tables are computed on different test subsets or with different association criteria. The paper does not state such a difference. Because the central claim of Section V-C rests on this number, the authors must clarify the computation protocol or correct the tables.
  2. [Section III-E, III-F, V-B, V-F] The use of the two label sources is ambiguous. Section III-E says the 1,000-image evaluation dataset uses GPS/chart-derived distances for static objects, and adds the parenthetical remark that 'for our proposed method, we use manually labelled data.' Section III-F then introduces 5,000 additional images with human-annotated 'pseudo-distances.' It is never stated which labels train the distance head, which labels are used in Tables II-V, and whether the 5,000 human-labeled images are included in training, validation, or excluded. Table VI evaluates human labels against chart data but does not resolve this. If the model is trained or evaluated on human pseudo-labels while the baselines are compared on chart-derived ground truth, the comparison in Table III is not apples-to-apples. Please specify the exact training/evaluation label source and dataset split for every table.
  3. [Section V-C, Table III] The Depth Anything V2 baseline comparison is not interpretable as presented. Depth Anything V2 is a relative/affine-invariant monocular depth model; it does not directly output metric distances unless a metric variant or an alignment step (e.g., median or least-squares scaling to ground-truth depth) is applied. The paper states that 'dense distance values are projected into the bounding box by taking the median distance within a box' but gives no description of how absolute scale in meters was recovered. Without this, the MDE values of 43.5, 27.1, and 19.2 m cannot be reproduced or meaningfully compared with the proposed method's metric outputs. Please describe the alignment procedure or replace the baseline with a metric-depth method.
  4. [Section V-D, Table IV] The final model configuration is underspecified. Table IV shows that the distance loss gain strongly affects results: MAE ranges from 19.7 m at gain 0.001 to 9.8 m at gain 0.1, while mAP@0.5 drops from 89.5% to 72.1%. Table III reports 14.9 m MDE for 'Proposed YOLOv7,' but the paper does not state which distance loss gain (if any) was used for the models in Tables I-III, nor does it reconcile the MAE values in Table IV with the MDE values elsewhere. Without this information, the reported performance is not reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-A] There is an incomplete sentence: 'This formulation allows us' is followed directly by a new paragraph; the sentence should be completed or removed.
  2. [Section III-E] The text refers to 'NOAH' when the intended organization is presumably NOAA; please correct the typo.
  3. [Tables III, IV, V] The error metric is referred to as 'weighted distance error,' 'MAE,' and 'MDE' across the paper; please unify the terminology and define the relationship between these quantities.
  4. [Table II] The caption 'Dist. (×100)' is ambiguous; please clarify in the text that the intervals are 0-100 m, 100-200 m, etc.
  5. [Section V-C] The statement that 'Depth Anything v2 struggles with distances beyond approx. 60m' is not supported by any distance-binned result in Table III; either add supporting evidence or soften the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the distance estimates are learned from independent GPS/chart-derived labels via standard supervised regression, and no reported prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a supervised distance-regression head on YOLO detectors, trained with an L1 loss against distances derived from GPS positions of static objects, heading, and NOAA chart data. That ground truth is external to the model and not produced by the model's own equations, so the reported mean distance error is an empirical evaluation of learned generalization rather than a quantity forced by construction. The normalization schemes in Section III-B are invertible input/output scalings, not fitted parameters that are later renamed as predictions. The authors' self-citations appear only as related-work context and workshop/challenge references, not as load-bearing justification for the distance-estimation result. The ablation in Table IV explores a loss-weight trade-off, which is a standard hyperparameter study, not a circular fit. One notable concern is that Table II lists interval-level weighted errors whose minimum is 15.1 m for the proposed YOLOv7 while Table III reports an overall MDE of 14.9 m; since an aggregate mean cannot be below every interval mean under the same protocol, this looks like an internal inconsistency. That is a correctness or reporting risk, not a circularity defect, and it does not change the conclusion that the derivation chain itself is self-contained relative to its stated supervision.

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

The method introduces no new physical entities or forces. The main assumptions are about the accuracy of GPS/chart-based ground truth and the sufficiency of visual cues for distance regression. The free parameters are the normalization constant, the loss weight, and the evaluation matching threshold.

free parameters (4)
  • d_max = 500 m
    Maximum distance used for normalization and clipping of distance labels, hand-chosen.
  • epsilon = 1
    Small constant in logarithmic normalization to avoid log(0); only used in normalization experiments that did not converge, so not central to the final model.
  • distance loss gain = not stated for final model (ablation tested 0.001, 0.01, 0.1)
    Ablation shows a trade-off between mAP and MAE, but the final gain setting used for the main results is not specified.
  • IoU threshold = 0.5
    Used for matching detections to ground truth when computing distance errors.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ground truth positions of static buoys and docked boats from NOAA charts are accurate to within a few meters.
    Used to compute distances from USV GPS position and heading (Section III-E).
  • domain assumption The USV's GPS and heading measurements provide a reliable reference for distance labels.
    Section III-E states distances are 'measured using GPS positioning for static objects'.
  • domain assumption Object appearance (bounding box size and location) contains sufficient information to regress distance for the training distribution.
    The whole method relies on visual cues; Section VI admits sensitivity to camera field of view, which is a direct consequence of this assumption.
  • standard math Standard deep learning training assumptions, such as i.i.d. data and that label noise does not exceed the reported levels.
    The model is trained with standard losses; the human-labeled pseudo-distances are noisy, but their exact role in training is unclear.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Approximate Supervised Object Distance Estimation on Unmanned Surface Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LVVELYLD

@misc{pith2026250105567,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Approximate Supervised Object Distance Estimation on Unmanned Surface Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LVVELYLD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05567}
}
read the original abstract

Unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) and boats are increasingly important in maritime operations, yet their deployment is limited due to costly sensors and complexity. LiDAR, radar, and depth cameras are either costly, yield sparse point clouds or are noisy, and require extensive calibration. Here, we introduce a novel approach for approximate distance estimation in USVs using supervised object detection. We collected a dataset comprising images with manually annotated bounding boxes and corresponding distance measurements. Leveraging this data, we propose a specialized branch of an object detection model, not only to detect objects but also to predict their distances from the USV. This method offers a cost-efficient and intuitive alternative to conventional distance measurement techniques, aligning more closely with human estimation capabilities. We demonstrate its application in a marine assistance system that alerts operators to nearby objects such as boats, buoys, or other waterborne hazards.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05567 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example scene and its bounding box and distance predictions using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of our proposed approach at the example of YOLOv7 and YOLOv9. We leave the base architecture of the networks the same except [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of distances in our dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distance Distribution by Category E. Dataset Collection and Annotation Our evaluation dataset includes images captured from USVs, manually annotated with bounding boxes and dis￾tances. We captured the images using rented boats on the east coast of the US. For ground tr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Labeling tool used for getting bounding boxes and associating chart data with vision data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Real-Time Fusion of Visual and Chart Data for Enhanced Maritime Vision

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A chart-conditioned transformer associates visible buoys with nautical chart markers end-to-end, outperforming projection and distance-estimation baselines on a single test video.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Unmanned surface vehicles: An overview of developments and challenges,

    Z. Liu, Y . Zhang, X. Yu, and C. Yuan, “Unmanned surface vehicles: An overview of developments and challenges,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 41, pp. 71–93, 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    A survey on unmanned surface vehicles for disaster robotics: Main challenges and directions,

    V . A. Jorge, R. Granada, R. G. Maidana, D. A. Jurak, G. Heck, A. P. Negreiros, D. H. Dos Santos, L. M. Gonc ¸alves, and A. M. Amory, “A survey on unmanned surface vehicles for disaster robotics: Main challenges and directions,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 702, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Radar-based collision avoidance for unmanned surface vehicles,

    J.-y. Zhuang, L. Zhang, S.-q. Zhao, J. Cao, B. Wang, and H.-b. Sun, “Radar-based collision avoidance for unmanned surface vehicles,” China Ocean Engineering , vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 867–883, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Development of the sonar system for an unmanned surface vehicle,

    H. S. Bae, W.-J. Kim, W.-S. Kim, S.-M. Choi, and J.-H. Ahn, “Development of the sonar system for an unmanned surface vehicle,” Journal of the Korea Institute of Military Science and Technology , vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 358–368, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Nepa, national security, and ocean noise: the past, present, and future of regulating the impact of navy sonar on marine mammals,

    R. S. Abate 1, “Nepa, national security, and ocean noise: the past, present, and future of regulating the impact of navy sonar on marine mammals,” Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 326–356, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Depth anything v2,

    L. Yang, B. Kang, Z. Huang, Z. Zhao, X. Xu, J. Feng, and H. Zhao, “Depth anything v2,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09414 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Wide-baseline stereo-based obstacle mapping for unmanned surface vehicles,

    X. Mou and H. Wang, “Wide-baseline stereo-based obstacle mapping for unmanned surface vehicles,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 1085, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    A survey on edge detection based recent marine horizon line detection methods and their applications,

    M. A. Hashmani, M. Umair, S. S. H. Rizvi, and A. R. Gilal, “A survey on edge detection based recent marine horizon line detection methods and their applications,” in 2020 3rd International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–5

    work page 2020

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Marine ves- sel attitude estimation from coastline and horizon,

    S. Singhal, Y . Ao, D. Maas, B. Arsenali, and S. Maran `o, “Marine ves- sel attitude estimation from coastline and horizon,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 6149–6154

    2023

  2. [10]

    Fast region of interest proposals on maritime uavs,

    B. Kiefer and A. Zell, “Fast region of interest proposals on maritime uavs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11650 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Runway and horizon detection through fusion of enhanced vision system and synthetic vision system images,

    A. F. Fadhil, R. Kanneganti, and L. Gupta, “Runway and horizon detection through fusion of enhanced vision system and synthetic vision system images,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing, Computer Vision, and Pattern Recognition (IPCV). The Steer...

    2014

  4. [12]

    Water boundary line detection for unmanned surface vehicles,

    Y . Liu, L. Ma, W. Xie, X. Zhang, and Y . Zhang, “Water boundary line detection for unmanned surface vehicles,” Recent Advances in Electrical & Electronic Engineering (Formerly Recent Patents on Electrical & Electronic Engineering) , vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1145–1152, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Effective waterline detection of unmanned surface vehicles based on optical images,

    Y . Wei and Y . Zhang, “Effective waterline detection of unmanned surface vehicles based on optical images,” Sensors, vol. 16, no. 10, p. 1590, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Waterline and obstacle detection in images from low-cost autonomous boats for environmental monitoring,

    L. Steccanella, D. D. Bloisi, A. Castellini, and A. Farinelli, “Waterline and obstacle detection in images from low-cost autonomous boats for environmental monitoring,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 124, p. 103346, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    A fast and robust vision-based horizon tracking method,

    H. Guo, Y .-M. Zhang, J. Zhou, and Y .-Q. Zhang, “A fast and robust vision-based horizon tracking method,” in 2015 12th International Computer Conference on Wavelet Active Media Technology and In- formation Processing (ICCWAMTIP). IEEE, 2015, pp. 71–74

    2015

  8. [16]

    Improved denoising autoencoder for maritime image denoising and semantic segmentation of usv,

    Y . Qiu, Y . Yang, Z. Lin, P. Chen, Y . Luo, and W. Huang, “Improved denoising autoencoder for maritime image denoising and semantic segmentation of usv,” China Communications, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 46– 57, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Image based river navigation system of catamaran usv with image semantic segmentation,

    P. Yang, C. Song, L. Chen, and W. Cui, “Image based river navigation system of catamaran usv with image semantic segmentation,” in 2022 WRC Symposium on Advanced Robotics and Automation (WRC SARA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 147–151

    2022

  10. [18]

    The mastr1325 dataset for training deep usv obstacle detection models,

    B. Bovcon, J. Muhovi ˇc, J. Per ˇs, and M. Kristan, “The mastr1325 dataset for training deep usv obstacle detection models,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 3431–3438

    2019

  11. [19]

    Fast image- based obstacle detection from unmanned surface vehicles,

    M. Kristan, V . S. Kenk, S. Kova ˇciˇc, and J. Per ˇs, “Fast image- based obstacle detection from unmanned surface vehicles,” IEEE transactions on cybernetics , vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 641–654, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Wasr—a water segmentation and re- finement maritime obstacle detection network,

    B. Bovcon and M. Kristan, “Wasr—a water segmentation and re- finement maritime obstacle detection network,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 12 661–12 674, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Lars: A diverse panoptic maritime obstacle detection dataset and benchmark,

    L. ˇZust, J. Per ˇs, and M. Kristan, “Lars: A diverse panoptic maritime obstacle detection dataset and benchmark,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 20 304–20 314

    2023

  14. [22]

    Massmind: Massachusetts maritime infrared dataset,

    S. Nirgudkar, M. DeFilippo, M. Sacarny, M. Benjamin, and P. Robi- nette, “Massmind: Massachusetts maritime infrared dataset,” The In- ternational Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 42, no. 1-2, pp. 21–32, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Automated full scene parsing for marine asvs using monocular vision,

    D. Qiao, G. Liu, W. Li, T. Lyu, and J. Zhang, “Automated full scene parsing for marine asvs using monocular vision,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems , vol. 104, no. 2, p. 37, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Saliency-based detection for maritime object tracking,

    T. Cane and J. Ferryman, “Saliency-based detection for maritime object tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops , 2016, pp. 18–25

    2016

  17. [25]

    Object detection in a maritime environment: Performance evaluation of background subtraction methods,

    D. K. Prasad, C. K. Prasath, D. Rajan, L. Rachmawati, E. Raja- bally, and C. Quek, “Object detection in a maritime environment: Performance evaluation of background subtraction methods,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1787–1802, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Stable yaw estimation of boats from the viewpoint of uavs and usvs,

    B. Kiefer, T. H ¨ofer, and A. Zell, “Stable yaw estimation of boats from the viewpoint of uavs and usvs,” in 2023 European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR) , 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  19. [27]

    C. AI. (2022, May) Captain ai viewpoint estimation model. Accessed: 2024-02-25. [Online]. Available: https://www.captainai. com/technology/captain-ai-viewpoint-estimation-model/

    2022

  20. [28]

    1st workshop on maritime computer vision (macvi) 2023: Challenge results,

    B. Kiefer, M. Kristan, J. Per ˇs, L. ˇZust, F. Poiesi, F. Andrade, A. Bernardino, M. Dawkins, J. Raitoharju, Y . Quan, A. Atmaca, T. H¨ofer, Q. Zhang, Y . Xu, J. Zhang, D. Tao, L. Sommer, R. Spraul, H. Zhao, H. Zhang, Y . Zhao, J. L. Augustin, E.-i. Jeon, I. Lee, L. Zedda, A. ...

    2023

  21. [29]

    2nd workshop on maritime computer vision (macvi) 2024: Challenge results,

    B. Kiefer, L. ˇZust, M. Kristan, J. Per ˇs, M. Ter ˇsek, A. Wiliem, M. Messmer, C.-Y . Yang, H.-W. Huang, Z. Jiang, H.-C. Kuo, J. Mei, J.-N. Hwang, D. Stadler, L. Sommer, K. Huang, A. Zheng, W. Chong, K. Lertniphonphan, J. Xie, F. Chen, J. Li, Z. Wang, L. Zedda, A. Loddo, C. D...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Video processing from electro-optical sensors for object detection and tracking in a maritime environment: A survey,

    D. K. Prasad, D. Rajan, L. Rachmawati, E. Rajabally, and C. Quek, “Video processing from electro-optical sensors for object detection and tracking in a maritime environment: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1993–2016, 2017

    1993

  23. [31]

    Sea-surface object detection based on electro-optical sensors: A review,

    H. Lyu, Z. Shao, T. Cheng, Y . Yin, and X. Gao, “Sea-surface object detection based on electro-optical sensors: A review,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 190–216, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Survey on deep learning based computer vision for sonar imagery,

    Y . Steiniger, D. Kraus, and T. Meisen, “Survey on deep learning based computer vision for sonar imagery,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 114, p. 105157, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Computer vision and deep learning for fish classification in underwater habitats: A survey,

    A. Saleh, M. Sheaves, and M. Rahimi Azghadi, “Computer vision and deep learning for fish classification in underwater habitats: A survey,” Fish and Fisheries, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 977–999, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Faster r-cnn: Towards real- time object detection with region proposal networks,

    S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster r-cnn: Towards real- time object detection with region proposal networks,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 28, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    On the performance of one-stage and two-stage object detectors in autonomous vehicles using camera data,

    M. Carranza-Garc ´ıa, J. Torres-Mateo, P. Lara-Ben ´ıtez, and J. Garc ´ıa- Guti´errez, “On the performance of one-stage and two-stage object detectors in autonomous vehicles using camera data,” Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 89, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Object detection in 20 years: A survey,

    Z. Zou, K. Chen, Z. Shi, Y . Guo, and J. Ye, “Object detection in 20 years: A survey,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 111, no. 3, pp. 257–276, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Object detection approaches in images: a survey,

    H. Ouchra and A. Belangour, “Object detection approaches in images: a survey,” in Thirteenth International Conference on Digital Image Processing (ICDIP 2021) , vol. 11878. SPIE, 2021, pp. 132–141

    2021

  30. [38]

    Object detection using yolo: Challenges, architectural successors, datasets and applications,

    T. Diwan, G. Anirudh, and J. V . Tembhurne, “Object detection using yolo: Challenges, architectural successors, datasets and applications,” multimedia Tools and Applications , vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 9243–9275, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Yolo-based object detec- tion models: A review and its applications,

    A. Vijayakumar and S. Vairavasundaram, “Yolo-based object detec- tion models: A review and its applications,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, pp. 1–40, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    A survey: object detection methods from cnn to transformer,

    E. Arkin, N. Yadikar, X. Xu, A. Aysa, and K. Ubul, “A survey: object detection methods from cnn to transformer,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 82, no. 14, pp. 21 353–21 383, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Transformer for object detection: Review and benchmark,

    Y . Li, N. Miao, L. Ma, F. Shuang, and X. Huang, “Transformer for object detection: Review and benchmark,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 126, p. 107021, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Object detection using deep learn- ing, cnns and vision transformers: A review,

    A. B. Amjoud and M. Amrouch, “Object detection using deep learn- ing, cnns and vision transformers: A review,” IEEE Access , vol. 11, pp. 35 479–35 516, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Mobile-former: Bridging mobilenet and transformer,

    Y . Chen, X. Dai, D. Chen, M. Liu, X. Dong, L. Yuan, and Z. Liu, “Mobile-former: Bridging mobilenet and transformer,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, 2022, pp. 5270–5279

    2022

  36. [44]

    Mocovit: Mobile convolutional vision transformer,

    H. Ma, X. Xia, X. Wang, X. Xiao, J. Li, and M. Zheng, “Mocovit: Mobile convolutional vision transformer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12635, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Mobilevit: light-weight, general- purpose, and mobile-friendly vision transformer,

    S. Mehta and M. Rastegari, “Mobilevit: light-weight, general- purpose, and mobile-friendly vision transformer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02178, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Efficient convolutional neural networks and network compression methods for object detec- tion: A survey,

    Y . Zhou, L. Xia, J. Zhao, R. Yao, and B. Liu, “Efficient convolutional neural networks and network compression methods for object detec- tion: A survey,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 10 167–10 209, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Obstacle avoidance usv in multi-static obstacle environments based on a deep reinforcement learning approach,

    D. Jiang, M. Yuan, J. Xiong, J. Xiao, and Y . Duan, “Obstacle avoidance usv in multi-static obstacle environments based on a deep reinforcement learning approach,” Measurement and Control, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 415–427, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Wide baseline stereovision based obstacle detection for unmanned surface vehicles,

    J. Jin, D. Liu, F. Li, Y . Dai, L. Li, and Y . Ma, “Wide baseline stereovision based obstacle detection for unmanned surface vehicles,” Signal, Image and Video Processing , vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 4605–4614, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Improving maritime traffic surveillance in inland waterways using the robust fusion of ais and visual data,

    J. Qu, R. W. Liu, Y . Guo, Y . Lu, J. Su, and P. Li, “Improving maritime traffic surveillance in inland waterways using the robust fusion of ais and visual data,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 275, p. 114198, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Small boat detection for radar image datasets with yolo v3 network,

    G. Li, Z. Song, and Q. Fu, “Small boat detection for radar image datasets with yolo v3 network,” in 2019 IEEE International Confer- ence on Signal, Information and Data Processing (ICSIDP) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–5

    2019

  43. [51]

    Artificial intelligence techniques for small boats detection in radar clutter. real data valida- tion,

    N. del Rey-Maestre, D. Mata-Moya, M.-P. Jarabo-Amores, P.-J. Gomez-del Hoyo, and J.-L. Barcena-Humanes, “Artificial intelligence techniques for small boats detection in radar clutter. real data valida- tion,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 67, pp. 2...

    2018

  44. [52]

    Radar based collision detection developments on usv roaz ii,

    C. Almeida, T. Franco, H. Ferreira, A. Martins, R. Santos, J. M. Almeida, J. Carvalho, and E. Silva, “Radar based collision detection developments on usv roaz ii,” in Oceans 2009-Europe. Ieee, 2009, pp. 1–6

    2009

  45. [53]

    Sensor evaluation for autonomous surface vehicles in inland waterways,

    P. Robinette, M. Sacarny, M. DeFilippo, M. Novitzky, and M. R. Benjamin, “Sensor evaluation for autonomous surface vehicles in inland waterways,” in Oceans 2019-Marseille. IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

    2019

  46. [54]

    Lidar-based usv close approach to vessels for manipulation purposes,

    F. Ferreira, N. Kra ˇsevac, J. Obradovi ´c, R. Milija ˇs, I. Lon ˇcar, S. Bog- dan, and N. Mi ˇskovi´c, “Lidar-based usv close approach to vessels for manipulation purposes,” in OCEANS 2022, Hampton Roads . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  47. [55]

    Research on positioning and navigation of usv based on lidar,

    Q. Zha and Y . Huang, “Research on positioning and navigation of usv based on lidar,” in Proceedings of 2021 Chinese Intelligent Systems Conference: Volume I. Springer, 2022, pp. 700–709

    2021

  48. [56]

    Persistent automatic tracking of multiple surface vessels by fusing radar and lidar,

    J. Han, J. Kim, and N.-s. Son, “Persistent automatic tracking of multiple surface vessels by fusing radar and lidar,” in OCEANS 2017- Aberdeen. IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–5

    2017

  49. [57]

    Stereo vision- based target tracking system for an usv,

    A. J. Sinisterra, M. R. Dhanak, and K. von Ellenrieder, “Stereo vision- based target tracking system for an usv,” in 2014 Oceans-St. John’s . IEEE, 2014, pp. 1–7

    2014

  50. [58]

    Characterization of a stereo vision system for object classification for usv navigation,

    C. Kaplowitz, “Characterization of a stereo vision system for object classification for usv navigation,” Master’s thesis, Florida Atlantic University, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    A usv platform for surface autonomy,

    A. Sinisterra, M. Dhanak, and N. Kouvaras, “A usv platform for surface autonomy,” in OCEANS 2017-Anchorage. IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–8

    2017

  52. [60]

    Know your limits: Accuracy of long range stereoscopic object measurements in practice,

    P. Pinggera, D. Pfeiffer, U. Franke, and R. Mester, “Know your limits: Accuracy of long range stereoscopic object measurements in practice,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part II 13. Springer, 20...

    2014

  53. [61]

    Developing a navigation, guidance and obstacle avoidance algorithm for an unmanned surface vehicle (usv) by algorithms fusion,

    H. Mousazadeh, H. Jafarbiglu, H. Abdolmaleki, E. Omrani, F. Mon- haseri, M.-r. Abdollahzadeh, A. Mohammadi-Aghdam, A. Kiapei, Y . Salmani-Zakaria, and A. Makhsoos, “Developing a navigation, guidance and obstacle avoidance algorithm for an unmanned surface vehicle (usv) by algo...

    2018

  54. [62]

    Real-time vehicle distance estimation using single view geometry,

    A. Ali, A. Hassan, A. R. Ali, H. U. Khan, W. Kazmi, and A. Zaheer, “Real-time vehicle distance estimation using single view geometry,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2020, pp. 1111–1120

    2020

  55. [63]

    Relative importance of binocular disparity and motion parallax for depth estimation: A computer vision approach,

    M. Mansour, P. Davidson, O. Stepanov, and R. Pich ´e, “Relative importance of binocular disparity and motion parallax for depth estimation: A computer vision approach,” Remote Sensing , vol. 11, no. 17, p. 1990, 2019

    1990

  56. [64]

    Vision-based environmental percep- tion for autonomous driving,

    F. Liu, Z. Lu, and X. Lin, “Vision-based environmental percep- tion for autonomous driving,” Proceedings of the Institution of Me- chanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering , p. 09544070231203059, 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Deep learning for monocular depth estimation: A review,

    Y . Ming, X. Meng, C. Fan, and H. Yu, “Deep learning for monocular depth estimation: A review,” Neurocomputing, vol. 438, pp. 14–33, 2021

    2021

  58. [66]

    Monocular depth estimation: A survey,

    A. Bhoi, “Monocular depth estimation: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09402, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Monocular depth esti- mation in new environments with absolute scale,

    T. Roussel, L. Van Eycken, and T. Tuytelaars, “Monocular depth esti- mation in new environments with absolute scale,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1735–1741

    2019

  60. [68]

    Supervised object-specific distance estimation from monocular images for autonomous driving,

    Y . Davydov, W.-H. Chen, and Y .-C. Lin, “Supervised object-specific distance estimation from monocular images for autonomous driving,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 22, p. 8846, 2022

    2022

  61. [69]

    A survey of maritime vision datasets,

    L. Su, Y . Chen, H. Song, and W. Li, “A survey of maritime vision datasets,” Multimedia Tools and Applications , vol. 82, no. 19, pp. 28 873–28 893, 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    Dataware: Sea clutter and small boat radar reflectivity databases [best of the web],

    H. De Wind, J. Cilliers, and P. Herselman, “Dataware: Sea clutter and small boat radar reflectivity databases [best of the web],” IEEE Signal processing magazine, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 145–148, 2010

    2010

  63. [71]

    Yolov9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information,

    C.-Y . Wang, I.-H. Yeh, and H.-Y . M. Liao, “Yolov9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13616, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Simple online and realtime tracking,

    A. Bewley, Z. Ge, L. Ott, F. Ramos, and B. Upcroft, “Simple online and realtime tracking,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , 2016, pp. 3464–3468

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.