Geo-Rectified Entity Tracking with AI Detection Validation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing AI-based automated entity detection systems often fail due to obstruction, misidentification, and discontinuities in image frames, leading to false positives and negatives in tracking entities within environments.

Innovation Solution

A system and method for validating or rejecting automated detections by allowing user input to correct AI-generated tracklets, incorporating user-provided detections, and geo-rectifying the track to align with static map data, thereby improving the accuracy of entity tracking.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Extent of automation

If AI-based automated entity detection is used to track entities, then detection speed and automation are improved, but detection accuracy and reliability deteriorate due to obstructions, misidentifications, and false positives/negatives

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomated entity detectionVSAvoiddetection accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements feedback by allowing users to validate or reject AI-generated detections. User feedback on detected entities is collected and used to correct inaccuracies, creating a closed-loop system that improves detection reliability while maintaining automation. This resolves the contradiction by enabling the automated system to learn from and correct its own errors through user interaction.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system introduces an intermediary layer between automated detection and final tracking results. This intermediary consists of user validation and geo-rectification processes that mediate between AI detections and the final track output. The intermediary filters and corrects AI errors without completely removing automation, thus improving reliability while preserving the benefits of automated detection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Measurement precision

If user validation of each detection is implemented, then detection accuracy is improved, but processing time and operational complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection accuracyVSAvoidprocessing time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies partial validation by allowing users to validate or reject detections selectively rather than requiring complete manual review of all detections. This partial action approach maintains high accuracy for critical detections while reducing processing time by not uniformly applying validation to every single detection, thus resolving the time-accuracy tradeoff.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary geo-rectification and track generation using AI detections before user validation. This preliminary action creates a draft track that can be quickly generated and then refined through selective user validation, reducing the overall time investment required while maintaining accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Device complexity

If AI detection algorithms are used without correction, then system simplicity is maintained, but track accuracy deteriorates due to false positives and negatives

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem simplicityVSAvoidtrack accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements self-service by enabling users to directly validate and correct detections in the interface. Users can independently verify and adjust track accuracy without requiring complex automated correction algorithms. This self-service approach maintains relative system simplicity while significantly improving track accuracy through direct user intervention.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

4Measurement precision

If geo-rectification is performed to align track with map data, then spatial accuracy is improved, but processing complexity and time increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespatial accuracyVSAvoidprocessing complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system replaces complex mechanical or algorithmic geo-rectification processes with a simplified approach that leverages the user's visual verification and manual validation. Instead of implementing sophisticated automated coordinate transformation systems, the patent uses user feedback to implicitly perform geo-rectification, reducing processing complexity while maintaining spatial accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentEP3800582B1Tracked entity detection validation and track generation with geo-rectification
Publication Date: 2025.11.19 PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC
  • EP3800582B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3800582B1 patent drawingFigure 2A
  • EP3800582B1 patent drawingFigure 2B

AI summary

Described herein are systems, methods, and non-transitory computer readable media for validating or rejecting automated detections of an entity being tracked within an environment in order to generate a track representative of a travel path of the entity within the environment. The automated detections of the entity may be generated by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm. The track may represent a travel path of the tracked entity across a set of image frames. The track may contain one or more tracklets, where each tracklet includes a set of validated detections of the entity across a subset of the set of image frames and excludes any rejected detections of the entity. Each tracklet may also contain one or more user-provided detections in scenarios in which the tracked entity is observed or otherwise known to be present in an image frame but automated detection of the entity did not occur.