Objective:
The objective evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as those used for satellite image analysis, requires a specific organisation whereby systems are tested on datasets that are new to the systems (blind testing), but that are representative of the tasks under study, and using common protocols. This scheme is commonly referred to as a “technological challenge”. One objective of the call is to organise a technological challenge driving research toward enhanced satellite image analysis for defence applications, and in particular for the combined analysis of optical and radar images. While a few challenges on satellite image analysis are organised in other contexts, there is a need for evaluations focusing on defence use cases, and for large datasets with annotations enabling accurate performance measurements.
Scope:The proposals must address the organisation of a technological challenge on multi-source satellite image analysis based on the preliminary evaluation plan provided as part of the call document (see Annex 4b). This includes the collection, annotation and distribution of data, and the writing of the evaluation plans. The proposals must also address the possibility to involve representative defence users testing the demonstrators produced by the participating teams and providing feedback.
The following use cases should be considered when elaborating the evaluation plans:
Both optical and radar images must be considered. They may include the following:
Optical
This may include multi-view stereo or video modes where available.
Radar
The use of optical and radar aerial imagery may also be considered, in particular to test systems on high-resolution images for certain types of images (e.g. hyperspectral or infrared, simulation of higher resolution images).
Metadata that would normally be used in operational scenarios should be provided.
The actual types of images and metadata to be used for the challenge should be described in the proposals.
Types of activities
The following table lists the types of activities which are eligible for this topic, and whether they are mandatory or optional (see Article 10(3) EDF Regulation):
Types of activities (art 10(3) EDF Regulation) | Eligible? | |
(a) | Activities that aim to create, underpin and improve knowledge, products and technologies, including disruptive technologies, which can achieve significant effects in the area of defence (generating knowledge) | Yes(optional) |
(b) | Activities that aim to increase interoperability and resilience, including secured production and exchange of data, to master critical defence technologies, to strengthen the security of supply or to enable the effective exploitation of results for defence products and technologies (integrating knowledge) | Yes(mandatory) |
(c) | Studies, such as feasibility studies to explore the feasibility of new or upgraded products, technologies, processes, services and solutions | Yes(optional) |
(d) | Design of a defence product, tangible or intangible component or technology as well as the definition of the technical specifications on which such a design has been developed, including any partial test for risk reduction in an industrial or representative environment | Yes(optional) |
(e) | System prototyping of a defence product, tangible or intangible component or technology | No |
(f) | Testing of a defence product, tangible or intangible component or technology | No |
(g) | Qualification of a defence product, tangible or intangible component or technology | No |
(h) | Certification of a defence product, tangible or intangible component or technology | No |
(i) | Development of technologies or assets increasing efficiency across the life cycle of defence products and technologies | No |
Accordingly, the proposals must cover at least the following tasks as part of mandatory activities:
The proposals should include clear descriptions of the proposed criteria to assess work package completion. Criteria should include the production of detailed evaluation plans agreed upon by all stakeholders, the production of the annotated databases needed for the evaluations, the production of measurements for all systems submitted to the tests by the participating teams following these plans, and the organisation of the needed events.
Functional requirements
The proposed solutions should enable the measurement of the performances of satellite image analysis systems according to detailed evaluation plans based on the preliminary evaluation plan provided as part of this call document (see Annex 4b). Key aspects of the foreseen detailed evaluation plans and associated data management should be described in the proposals.
Proposals should in particular describe:
A user board consisting of representative defence users should be set up and involved in the preparation of the evaluation plans and of the data. Data should be representative of use cases of interest for defence. Proposals should describe the foreseen efforts from users to test demonstrators and provide feedback.
Data may be annotated in a semi-automatic way. Agreements may be sought with participants to use automatic tools developed by them. All annotations should be manually checked. To assess the relevance and accuracy of the data annotations, at least part of the data should be annotated by two independent annotators. The two sets of annotations should be compared to each other using the same metrics as for the evaluation of system outputs. An analysis of this inter-annotator agreement should be presented during the evaluation campaign workshops.
During the challenge, a detailed evaluation plan should be prepared for each evaluation campaign. Drafts of these detailed evaluation plans should be submitted for discussion to the participating teams, early enough to take into account feedback and leave time for system development before the actual test campaigns. Any evolution of the evaluation plans should take into account several factors: technical possibilities and cost, scientific relevance of the measurement, and representativeness of the metrics and protocols with respect to military needs. The justification of any change that is not subject to a consensus should be documented.
The user board and the participating teams should be involved in the steering of the challenge. Proposals should include a clear description of the foreseen governance and decision-making processes.
Expected Impact:The outcome should contribute to: