ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Machine Learning-Based Human Detection Using Active Non-Line-of-Sight Laser Sensing.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Active non-line-of-sight (NLOS) human detection aims to infer the presence of hidden individuals by analyzing indirectly reflected photons between a relay surface and occluded targets. In this study, a single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) and time-correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC)-based acquisition system were used to measure time-photon waveforms in controlled NLOS environments designed to represent post-disaster rubble scenarios. Although the effective temporal resolution of the system is limited by the detector timing jitter and laser pulse width, the recorded transient signals retain distinguishable intensity and temporal delay patterns associated with the primary and secondary reflections. To construct a representative dataset, measurements were collected under varying subject poses, orientations, and surrounding object configurations. The recorded signals were processed using a unified preprocessing pipeline that included normalization, histogram shaping, and signal windowing. Three machine learning models, namely, Convolutional Neural Network, Gated Recurrent Unit, and Random Forest, were trained and evaluated for human presence classification. All models achieved full sensitivity in detecting human presence; however, notable differences emerged in the classification of human-absent scenarios. Among the tested approaches, random forest achieved the highest overall accuracy and specificity, demonstrating stronger robustness to statistical variations in time-photon histograms under limited photon conditions. These results suggest that tree-based classifiers capture amplitude distribution patterns and temporal dispersion characteristics more effectively than deep neural architectures under the present acquisition constraints. Overall, the findings indicate that low-cost SPAD-based NLOS sensing systems can provide reliable human detection in indirect-observation scenarios.
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.