Evaluates object detection performance on aerial and ground-view imagery, probing how geographic context and multi-view data fusion affect detection accuracy across different object scales. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MAVREC, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports mAP.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill mavrec-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Mavrec Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-mavrec-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: mavrec-eval
description: Evaluates object detection performance on aerial and ground-view imagery, probing how geographic context and multi-view data fusion affect detection accuracy across different object scales. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MAVREC, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports mAP.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2312.04548
bibtex_key: dutta2023mavrec
confidence: high
---
# mavrec-eval
> Multiview Aerial Visual Recognition (MAVREC): Can Multi-view Improve Aerial Visual Perception? — Dutta et al. (2023) (arXiv:2312.04548, 2023)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates object detection performance on aerial and ground-view imagery, probing how geographic context and multi-view data fusion affect detection accuracy across different object scales.
## Datasets
- **MAVREC** — total 11024; splits: train (8605), val (805), test (1614)
## Metrics
- `mAP` **(primary)** — range: [0, 100] percent
- Mean Average Precision computed over object categories, averaging the area under the precision-recall curve across IoU thresholds. The paper references COCO-style evaluation [44], which typically averages AP over IoU thresholds from 0.50 to 0.95. Sub-metrics include AP at IoU=0.50 (AP_50), and AP for small (AP_S) and medium (AP_M) objects.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Image frames from either ground or aerial perspectives, provided as labeled pairs for supervised training, labeled/unlabeled pairs for semi-supervised training, or single annotated frames for validation/testing.
**Output**: Predicted bounding boxes with class labels and confidence scores for each detected object in the input image.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_mAP(predictions, ground_truths, iou_thresh=0.5):
ap_scores = []
for cls in classes:
gt = ground_truths[cls]
pred = predictions[cls]
pred = sorted(pred, key=lambda x: x.confidence, reverse=True)
tp, fp = [], []
for p in pred:
best_iou = max(iou(p.box, g.box) for g in gt)
if best_iou >= iou_thresh and not g.used:
tp.append(1); g.used = True
else:
fp.append(1)
ap_scores.append(calculate_ap(tp, fp))
return sum(ap_scores) / len(ap_scores) * 100
```
## Common pitfalls
- Assuming pre-training on large ground-view datasets (like COCO) generalizes well to aerial views without geographic alignment; the paper shows strong domain shift across geographies.
- Overlooking scale-specific performance: aerial views contain significantly smaller objects, leading to poor AP_S scores that mask overall mAP performance.
- Treating semi-supervised results as purely supervised: the curriculum learning phase uses labeled ground/aerial images in a specific burn-in order, which critically affects pseudo-label quality.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We evaluate the models with the widely used metric for object detection, mean average precision (mAP) [[44]]; see a detailed discussion in §C.2.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{dutta2023mavrec,
title={Multiview Aerial Visual Recognition (MAVREC): Can Multi-view Improve Aerial Visual Perception?},
author={Dutta et al. (2023)},
year={2023},
note={arXiv:2312.04548}
}
```
- arXiv: 2312.04548
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!