Cargando…
Comparing YOLOv3, YOLOv4 and YOLOv5 for Autonomous Landing Spot Detection in Faulty UAVs
In-flight system failure is one of the major safety concerns in the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in urban environments. To address this concern, a safety framework consisting of following three main tasks can be utilized: (1) Monitoring health of the UAV and detecting failures, (2) F...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8778480/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35062425 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22020464 |
_version_ | 1784637335723311104 |
---|---|
author | Nepal, Upesh Eslamiat, Hossein |
author_facet | Nepal, Upesh Eslamiat, Hossein |
author_sort | Nepal, Upesh |
collection | PubMed |
description | In-flight system failure is one of the major safety concerns in the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in urban environments. To address this concern, a safety framework consisting of following three main tasks can be utilized: (1) Monitoring health of the UAV and detecting failures, (2) Finding potential safe landing spots in case a critical failure is detected in step 1, and (3) Steering the UAV to a safe landing spot found in step 2. In this paper, we specifically look at the second task, where we investigate the feasibility of utilizing object detection methods to spot safe landing spots in case the UAV suffers an in-flight failure. Particularly, we investigate different versions of the YOLO objection detection method and compare their performances for the specific application of detecting a safe landing location for a UAV that has suffered an in-flight failure. We compare the performance of YOLOv3, YOLOv4, and YOLOv5l while training them by a large aerial image dataset called DOTA in a Personal Computer (PC) and also a Companion Computer (CC). We plan to use the chosen algorithm on a CC that can be attached to a UAV, and the PC is used to verify the trends that we see between the algorithms on the CC. We confirm the feasibility of utilizing these algorithms for effective emergency landing spot detection and report their accuracy and speed for that specific application. Our investigation also shows that the YOLOv5l algorithm outperforms YOLOv4 and YOLOv3 in terms of accuracy of detection while maintaining a slightly slower inference speed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8778480 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87784802022-01-22 Comparing YOLOv3, YOLOv4 and YOLOv5 for Autonomous Landing Spot Detection in Faulty UAVs Nepal, Upesh Eslamiat, Hossein Sensors (Basel) Article In-flight system failure is one of the major safety concerns in the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in urban environments. To address this concern, a safety framework consisting of following three main tasks can be utilized: (1) Monitoring health of the UAV and detecting failures, (2) Finding potential safe landing spots in case a critical failure is detected in step 1, and (3) Steering the UAV to a safe landing spot found in step 2. In this paper, we specifically look at the second task, where we investigate the feasibility of utilizing object detection methods to spot safe landing spots in case the UAV suffers an in-flight failure. Particularly, we investigate different versions of the YOLO objection detection method and compare their performances for the specific application of detecting a safe landing location for a UAV that has suffered an in-flight failure. We compare the performance of YOLOv3, YOLOv4, and YOLOv5l while training them by a large aerial image dataset called DOTA in a Personal Computer (PC) and also a Companion Computer (CC). We plan to use the chosen algorithm on a CC that can be attached to a UAV, and the PC is used to verify the trends that we see between the algorithms on the CC. We confirm the feasibility of utilizing these algorithms for effective emergency landing spot detection and report their accuracy and speed for that specific application. Our investigation also shows that the YOLOv5l algorithm outperforms YOLOv4 and YOLOv3 in terms of accuracy of detection while maintaining a slightly slower inference speed. MDPI 2022-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8778480/ /pubmed/35062425 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22020464 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Nepal, Upesh Eslamiat, Hossein Comparing YOLOv3, YOLOv4 and YOLOv5 for Autonomous Landing Spot Detection in Faulty UAVs |
title | Comparing YOLOv3, YOLOv4 and YOLOv5 for Autonomous Landing Spot Detection in Faulty UAVs |
title_full | Comparing YOLOv3, YOLOv4 and YOLOv5 for Autonomous Landing Spot Detection in Faulty UAVs |
title_fullStr | Comparing YOLOv3, YOLOv4 and YOLOv5 for Autonomous Landing Spot Detection in Faulty UAVs |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing YOLOv3, YOLOv4 and YOLOv5 for Autonomous Landing Spot Detection in Faulty UAVs |
title_short | Comparing YOLOv3, YOLOv4 and YOLOv5 for Autonomous Landing Spot Detection in Faulty UAVs |
title_sort | comparing yolov3, yolov4 and yolov5 for autonomous landing spot detection in faulty uavs |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8778480/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35062425 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22020464 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nepalupesh comparingyolov3yolov4andyolov5forautonomouslandingspotdetectioninfaultyuavs AT eslamiathossein comparingyolov3yolov4andyolov5forautonomouslandingspotdetectioninfaultyuavs |