# Thermal, Multispectral, and RGB Vision Systems Analysis for Victim Detection in SAR Robotics
## Appendix 1```
Significant differentials were observed, particularly in scenarios involving fully covered victims and poor light conditions, where thermal cameras exhibit a considerable advantage. In contrast, in aspects such as heat sources or summer weather conditions, RGB and multispectral images are better alternatives. Concerning indoor, outdoor, and changing light conditions, the three cameras' mean effectiveness values remain within a similar range. However, for scenarios involving partially covered victims or those wearing \"camouflage\" clothing that may be confused with the surroundings, the ranges differ moderately, with differences of up to 20 per cent. The rounded mean values corresponding to the radial Figure 8, relative to the coefficients of situational analysis for environmental conditions, are synthesized in Table 4 under the Metrics Analysis section. Here, the results of Equation (3) are also presented, representing the values for each image type in a generic sense and specifically according to Equation (4) for the Search and Rescue case. The highest to lowest calculated scores for generic detection scenarios in exploration missions are Thermal 755, Multispectral 714, and RGB 662. The variation between extremes is 93 points. A similar situation arises with the SAR Score, where the order remains unchanged. Still, the specific incidence difference for **Search and Rescue** is much higher (with a difference of up to 222 points), considering the weighting factors for the proposed coefficients. Figure 8: Comparative radial graph of the different coefficients that evaluate the indication of mission success for each light spectrum range. Source: authors. In all three cases, as well as for experiments conducted indoors and outdoors, the best individual performer is the thermal range for victim detection, followed by multispectral and RGB. #### 4.2.3 Combined Evaluation of Systems Using the Proposed Metrics

Figure 9 presents a boxplot diagram of the percentage values of victim detection in each configuration of the coefficients \((\alpha,\ldots,\tau)\). The most significant differences were observed among the coefficients related to \(\epsilon\) and \(\theta\), highlighting their pronounced impact on victim identification. In contrast, \(\tau\) and \(\gamma\) exhibit a minimal influence on their respective parameters of identifying victims with either type of camera. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Parameter** & **Thermal Range** & **RGB Range** & **Multispectral Range** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Metrics Analysis} & \(\alpha\) & 89.3 & 97.1 & 95.4 \\  & \(\beta\) & 97.2 & 54.6 & 67.4 \\  & \(\gamma\) & 92.1 & 93.4 & 94.8 \\  & \(\delta\) & 97.1 & 98.2 & 67.5 \\  & \(\epsilon\) & 31.7 & 78.1 & 88.4 \\  & \(\theta\) & 95.1 & 12.7 & 13.8 \\  & \(\phi\) & 96.7 & 89.2 & 89.4 \\  & \(\omega\) & 93.1 & 75.5 & 90.7 \\  & \(\lambda\) & 68.1 & 84.7 & 85.2 \\  & \(\tau\) & 94.2 & 86.5 & 93.4 \\  & **General Score** & 755 & 662 & 714 \\  & **SAR Score** & 966 & 744 & 839 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Indoors Experiments} & Victims & & & \\  & detection success & 92.4 & 84.7 & 86.5 \\  & rate \% & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Outdoors Experiments} & Victims & & & \\  & detection success & 91.1 & 79.4 & 81.2 \\  & rate \% & & & \\ \hline Time Evaluation & Inference time & & & \\  & f.p.s & 26 & 28 & 8 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Individual area covered \%} & 85.2 & 76.0 & 78.1 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Total Covered Area of Analysis \%} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{93.5} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Metrics obtained from the coefficients proposed for the type of image in the three ranges of the light spectrum. Figure 9: Evaluation of the errors in the mean values of the proposed coefficients in Figure 8. Source: authors. These findings underscore the sensitivity of the detection outcomes to variations in specific coefficients, particularly those associated with environmental and contextual considerations.