ArticleThe Journal of supercomputing2022
On the performance evaluation of object classification models in low altitude aerial data.
Article in The Journal of supercomputing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance and Accuracy Comparisons of Classification Methods and Perspective Solutions for UAV-Based Near-Real-Time "Out of the Lab" Data Processing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- PDC: Pearl Detection with a Counter Based on Deep Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper compares the classification performance of machine learning classifiers vs. deep learning-based handcrafted models and various pretrained deep networks. The proposed study performs a comprehensive analysis of object classification techniques implemented on low-altitude UAV datasets using various machine and deep learning models. Multiple UAV object classification is performed through widely deployed machine learning-based classifiers such as K nearest neighbor, decision trees, naïve Bayes, random forest, a deep handcrafted model based on convolutional layers, and pretrained deep models. The best result obtained using random forest classifiers on the UAV dataset is 90%. The handcrafted deep model's accuracy score suggests the efficacy of deep models over machine learning-based classifiers in low-altitude aerial images. This model attains 92.48% accuracy, which is a significant improvement over machine learning-based classifiers. Thereafter, we analyze several pretrained deep learning models, such as VGG-D, InceptionV3, DenseNet, Inception-ResNetV4, and Xception. The experimental assessment demonstrates nearly 100% accuracy values using pretrained VGG16- and VGG19-based deep networks. This paper provides a compilation of machine learning-based classifiers and pretrained deep learning models and a comprehensive classification report for the respective performance measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.