Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Defence Technology
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/defence-technology

AI-based small arms firing skill evaluation system in the military

domain
Rezoanul Hafiz Chandan, Nusrat Sharmin*, Muhaimin Bin Munir, Abdur Razzak,
Tanvir Ahamad Naim, Tasneem Mubashshira, Mokhlesur Rahman
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Military Institute of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Evaluation system of small arms firing has an important effect in the context of military domain. A
Received 25 July 2022 partially automated evaluation system has been conducted and performed at the ground level. Auto-
Received in revised form mation of such system with the inclusion of artificial intelligence is a much required process. This papers
12 February 2023
puts focus on designing and developing an AI-based small arms firing evaluation systems in the context
Accepted 24 February 2023
Available online xxx
of military environment. Initially image processing techniques are used to calculate the target firing
score. Additionally, firing errors during the shooting have also been detected using a machine learning
algorithm. However, consistency in firing requires an abundance of practice and updated analysis of the
Keywords:
Machine learning
previous results. Accuracy and precision are the basic requirements of a good shooter. To test the
Processing shooting skill of combatants, firing practices are held by the military personnel at frequent intervals that
Firing system include 'grouping' and 'shoot to hit' scores. Shortage of skilled personnel and lack of personal interest
Artificial intelligence leads to an inefficient evaluation of the firing standard of a firer. This paper introduces a system that will
automatically be able to fetch the target data and evaluate the standard based on the fuzzy systems.
Moreover it will be able to predict the shooter performance based on linear regression techniques.
Thereby, it compares with recognized patterns to analyze the individual expertise and suggest im-
provements based on previous values. The paper is developed on a Small Arms Firing Skill Evaluation
System, which makes the whole process of firing and target evaluation faster with better accuracy. The
experiment has been conducted on real-time scenarios considering the military field and shows a
promising result to evaluate the system automatically.
© 2023 China Ordnance Society. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications
Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction weapon training institutions have their own training modalities to

Efficiency in small arms firing is the most fundamental skill for
an individual serving in military [1]. Weapon training, specially
training on small arms handling encompasses a major part of
training curricula for newly inducted officers and men in military.
Because small arms like rifles, pistols or submachine guns are
portable firearms which are treated as individual weapon. Armed
forces of any country plans and conduct training in such a way that
each individual serving in military earns mastery on his personal
weapon. Coaches and trainers teach and guide the new inductees
so that they become skilled shooter in course of time. Different
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nusrat@cse.mist.ac.bd (N. Sharmin).
Peer review under responsibility of China Ordnance Society
conduct training on firing, evaluation and record keeping. The
modalities followed during the training is mostly guided by human
trainer and coaches who evaluate the errors and mistakes
committed by the firer. They also guide and motivate them to
become a good shooter following typical approaches followed in
military. The use of Artificial Intelligence can be a very useful tool
for evaluating firing skill and analyzing shortcomings of the firer.
Thereby it will enable tracking sequential skill development of a
firer which will ease up the professional responsibilities of a trainer
or coach. To sum up the whole military firing domain can be
divided into two parts: (i) Firing Evaluation System (FES) and (ii) To
analysis the performance of the firer. FES consists of target scoring
and error in grouping part and the performance analysis part,
which can be performance measure and performance prediction.
To simplify the whole concept in this paper, we have divided the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2023.02.024
2214-9147/© 2023 China Ordnance Society. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al., AI-based small arms firing skill evaluation system in the military domain,
Defence Technology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2023.02.024
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al.
discussion based on this two main part, FES and the firer perfor-
mance analysis (see Figs. 5 and 6).
Traditionally training on firing in military institutions follows its
own typical methods and drills. The evaluation and record keeping
methods are partially or entirely manual [1]. A package of drills is
followed in the firing range for smooth conduct of the firing and to
ensure safety and security of all. As soon as firing of a group of
soldiers is completed, they along with the evaluators and coach
goes for target checking. Marks and points are calculated manually
by counting total number of shots on the target and by measuring
distance among bullet impact points using a measurement scale.
Thereafter, the result of each firer is manually recorded to a data-
base or in registers. Here the difficulties arise because, though the
earned points of each firer is recorded but the pattern of shoots
cannot be recorded which is a vital information for firer's rectifi-
cation of error and further development. Firing pattern assists a
firer in comprehending his own mistakes as well as acts as a tool to
fix them. By continuous analysis of the firing pattern, a person can
minimize his mistakes and errors during firing and can takes
deliberate measures to overcome the issues. In the existing process
of evaluation, the firer remains unaware of his past mistakes and
lose focus to improve his firing efficiency. Again, the existing
evaluation and record keeping process is time consuming, effort
centric and less efficient. Thus, a computer aided automated eval-
uation and record keeping process will be useful for firing skill
development of the military personnel.
There is a vast use of image processing techniques and machine
learning in sports domain [2e7]. In literature, the performance of
the sportsmen in various sports have been predicted through ma-
chine learning. Even in different firing competitions image pro-
cessing techniques are widely used to calculate shooting scores.
There are examples of performances measurement and prediction
for sportsmen with certain factors as input. In the Olympics, the
biathlon performance [8] is predicted using machine learning and
related algorithms. The machine is initially fed with previous years'
firing data. Thereafter the factors impacting shooting performance
are studied using exploratory data analysis. This assists in various
machine learning models for predicting future hits and misses. But
considering the available open sources information it can be said
that machine learning has not been used yet to measure or predict
firing performance of a soldier.
The performance measure is therefore of utmost importance to
guide an evaluator in understanding the firing pattern of a firer.
Side by side, it assists a firer in comprehending his own mistakes as
well as acts as a tool to fix them. It carefully compares the individual
attributes within a group and works as a key element to stan-
dardize the performance. By continuous analysis of the firing
pattern, a person minimizes the mistakes and errors he/she can
commit in the process and takes deliberate measures to overcome
the issues. To our knowledge, no specific literature study based on
the performance of the military using machine learning techniques
has been found.
This paper will mostly emphasize automating the current firing
evaluation system and contribute to the following:
(1) Development of an automatic target scoring system as well
as various error detection system using Image Processing and
machine learning techniques from a real-time data-set.
(2) Proposal for a concise measurement of firer performance
with comprehensive relation among various performance
criteria using the fuzzy logic system.
(3) Analysis of an individual's firing performance and predict the
future outcomes using the linear regression model.
We divided the rest of the paper in to seven sections. Section 1
2
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
attempts to provide a brief overview of the military firing system to
assimilate the readers with the process. Section 2 provides a review
on related works and Section 3 describes in detail the methodology
followed to implement the idea of the project. Section 5 shows the
results of the proposed system as per the prototype formulated.
Section 6 enumerates the evaluation data of the prototype based on
user feedback studies. Section 7 will have the concluding remarks
on the whole paper.
2. Military firing system
Skill in firing is always considered as an important trade of a
good soldier. An organized and well-structured training package is
followed to develop the firing skill of a soldier during his induction
training in the military. Even after his induction in the military unit,
he needs to go through regular training to upkeep his quality as a
good firer. The firing training includes delivery of the knowledge
about the weapon and requirement of a good shot. Not only
knowledge but also a good built-up of hand muscle and capability
of following firing cycle efficiently is a must to be a skilled firer. So,
condition of the weapon and capacity of the firer both affect the
precision and accuracy of the firing results.
Under ideal condition, if a weapon is fired with a correct aim, the
bullet should hit the bull on the target. But this does not happen
due to two basic reasons: either the weapon is not zeroed or the
fault remains with the firer. If a weapon is not properly zeroed, then
a good firer may bring accurate firing on the target which may not
have precision. A weapon is zeroed by conducting grouping fire on
the target by a good firer. A group is the collective pattern of the
shots fired aiming each time at a single point, without any major
changes in firing position. The firer gets the chance of shooting five
bullets at the target from a 100-m distance in one shooting session.
The size of the group is a measure of a soldier's skill in weapon
firing. The smaller the size of the group the more skilled the soldier
in firing.
2.1. Firing evaluation system
The firing evaluation system depends on the target scoring and
errors in the grouping. Hence We divided this part of the discussion
into two parts: (i) Target scoring system and (ii) errors in grouping.
2.1.1. Target scoring system
The maximum distance between the two furthest impacted
bullets on the target is the size of the group. If the group size is
more than 10 inches, then the fire is declared as wash-out and he is
considered to be exposed to errors in following the firing cycle and
poor weapon handling. The pattern of impacted bullets on the
target of a standard firing is shown in Fig. 1. If the group size is 1e4
inches the firer is classified as marksman (Fig. 1(a)), if the group size
is 5e7 inches, they are classified as first-class firer (Fig. 1(b)) and if
the group size is 8e10 inch, they are called Standard firer (Fig. 1(c)).
The grouping of fire has a direct relation with the zeroing of the
weapons. A perfectly zeroed weapon creates a marksman shot close
to the center of the target (also called "bull"). A non-zeroed weapon
will formulate the same group away from the bull. The error shots
are caused mostly due to the non-zeroed weapons apart from the
mistakes made by a firer.
The grouping of fire has a direct relation with the zeroing of the
weapons. A perfectly zeroed weapon creates a marksman shot
closure to the center of the target (also called “bull”). A non-zeroed
weapon will formulate the same group away from the bull. The
error shots are caused mostly due to the non-zeroed weapons apart
from the mistakes undertaken by a firer.
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 1. (a) Marksman; (b) First class firer; (c) Standard firer.

2.1.2. Errors on grouping firer on the point of aim or on the front sight tip. Such a group is also
A firer has to learn and follow some basic principles of firing like created if the firer fails to make the correct trigger pull. If the firer
steady hold, correct aim, and correct trigger control. A firer has to has a number of errors and fails to make the correct hold while
ensure the correctness of certain aspects while he fires, like correct firing, then the impacted bullets do not create any pattern on the
body alignment with the target, correct sight picture, breathing target. These errors are shown with relevant figures in Table 1 for
control, correct trigger press, and follow through. Again, he has to further assimilation with the errors.
abide by a firing cycle to bring all the shots at the point of aim at the
target. The weakness of a firer to follow some firing principles is
clearly projected on the target. An experienced firing trainer can 2.2. Performance analysis of firer
easily identify the mistakes of a firer by seeing the pattern of the
group created on the target and can guide the firer to correct the Methods and techniques to measure the firing efficiency of
mistakes in the subsequent firing practice. military personnel are different in countries around the world.
There is four defined pattern of bullets'impact on the target Again, based on chronological development and progressive
which represents four common errors committed by a firer. These improvement of firing skills, military personnel can be grouped into
errors are shown with relevant figures in Table 1. Long horizontal three categories: trainees, new soldiers, and trained soldiers. In
error is caused by horizontal movement of the left hand due to for course of time, as the soldiers develop experience and skill in firing
poor holding. Long vertical error caused by wrong breathing con- they are trained in advanced firing techniques and are encouraged
trol or due to error in alignment of back sight U and front sight tip of to fire in varying situations with varying ranges. To give them
the weapon. A bifocal group is created due to excessive stress of the battlefield experience they are trained to fire as a team and adapted
through battlefield inoculation training. But, whatever is the state,
skill, and group of the firer they are basically evaluated based on
Table 1 two types of firing namely grouping fire and shooting to hit fire.
Different errors. Both these two types of firings are conducted at different distances
Scrial Error type Figure Remarks where the individual fires his personal weapon being at different
firing positions, e.g. laying, sitting, kneeling, standing position, etc.
1 Long horizontal error Recognized
Grouping fire is basic teaching for every soldier and is the main tool
for judging firing skills. Grouping fire is usually conducted at a 100-
m distance on a 3-feet by 3-feet square-shaped target. This type of
firing is usually conducted in a lying position. The diameter of a
2 Long Vertical error Recognized circle containing all five shots of the firer is known as his grouping
capacity. Size of the groups for counting points varies basing on the
type of weapon used in firing. For rifle firing, if the firer is able to
keep all five shots within 4 inches on the target, he gets 5 points.
3 Biforcal error Recognized For a group size of 5e7 inch and 8e10 inch 4 and 3-points are
allotted respectively. More than 10-inch group is considered as
wash-out or fail score. Shoot-to-hit fire is conducted at different
distances starting at 300, 200, 100 and ending at 25-m distance.
Soldiers fire their personal weapon being at different positions
4 Scattered group Recognized
from different distances and proceed nearer to the target. Targets
on which the firer take shots are also different in size and shape for
different distances. In case of shoot to hit fire, the firer gets one
point for each shoot hitting the target. So, at the end total points are
5 Impatient shot Unrecognized aggregates of points in grouping fire and shoot to hit fire. Rules of
counting of points to measure performance is same for male and
female soldiers irrespective of their age and service length. How-
ever, to encourage and recognize the performance of trainee sol-
diers or recruit, new soldiers joining the units and female soldiers,
3
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al.
they are categorically judged within their peers and best per-
forming among them are rewarded.
3. Related works
Researchers have previously done some works related to the
proposed firing skill evaluation system. This section will focus on
the previous research works on three main parts: (i) Automatic
target score through image processing; (ii) Performance measure
through fuzzy system; (iii) Performance prediction using machine
learning.
3.1. Firing evaluation system: automatic target score through image
processing
Ali et al. [9] proposed a computer vision based automatic scoring
system for shooting targets using simple image processing tech-
niques like morphological processing and hysteresis thresholding.
Their proposed algorithm achieved 98.3% accuracy tested on 100
images of different number of bullet hits. Another noted research
done by Ding et al. [10] proposed a machine vision based scoring
system using the back lighting illumination system. Their main
success was that, the system could recognize the overlapped holes
on real time and therefore, could perform quickly with high accu-
racy. Ye et al. [11] also developed an autocounting system using
some selected techniques of image processing and image recogni-
tion. However, with the growing technology of the pattern recog-
nition ellipse fitting algorithm, some researchers have worked with
advanced techniques for instance, Soetedjo et al. [12] implemented
an embedded camera system and used homography transform.
Their system could perform accurately regardless of camera angle
and viewpoint. Kusuma et al. [13] have used several image pro-
cessing techniques like target ring detection, and perspective
transform with other traditional techniques. They achieved an ac-
curacy of 91%.
A firer is prone to errors, the majority of the time, which is due
to a lack of understanding of how to fix errors. blackIf a firer un-
derstands the causes of his errors, he is likely to overcome his
limitations [14]. Firers’ mistakes and defective weaponry are the
two most common causes of errors. Hatamleh et al. designed a low-
cost system for visual laser shooting practice system where they
tried to overcome these errors using a developed image processing
algorithm [15].
There are several sources of dispersion that lead to firer's faults
and worsen firing performance in terms of hit probability. blackIssa
et al. addressed some of these sources of dispersion but didn't
develop any separate mechanism to overcome these issues [16].
The cause of faults leading to inaccuracy and dispersion must be
recognized to improve firing effectiveness. Ammunition dispersion
error, gun dispersion, aerodynamic jump, and aiming error are only
a few of them which were addressed by Seotedjo et al. in their
research [12]. There's also vertical error, horizontal error, bifocal
error, scattered error, and so on.
Research Gap. The majority of the aforementioned works were
created in a simulated setting rather than a real-world military
setting. Additionally, no work has used machine learning to
recognize the mistake grouping.
3.2. Firer performance analysis: performance measure through
fuzzy system
The average impact position of a shot dispersion is referred to as
the mean point of impact (MPI). A shot distribution that places the
MPI closer to the target's bullseye aids in high accuracy. On the
other hand, accuracy suffers if the rounds are placed too far apart
4
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
from one another. The primary objective of the firer, in accordance
with the study on the causes of delivery mistake conducted by
Storhm et al. [17], is to reduce the time between rounds so that the
shot distribution approaches the MPI and maintains the MPI
around the bullseye. The performance metric for the firer is ulti-
mately influenced by these shot distributions.
Another important parameter precision is defined as the value
of the precision parameters, i.e., stronger precision qualities are
represented by smaller hit pattern dimension sizes and lower
precision measure values. The average hit is one of the unique as-
pects of the hit pattern, and it may be computed or visually
determined. However, in the case of firing, the term accuracy refers
to the relationship between the hit pattern features and the di-
mensions and attributes of the specified target. Zivkovic et al. [18]
designed a non-material high-resolution target acquisition system
using IR sensor. They controlled the hardware system with a simple
algorithm to determine the precision and accuracy of the firing
system.
For determining these performance metrics more accurately,
fuzzy logic is being popular day by day. A fuzzy logic system (FLS)
[19] is a special mechanism that can manage numerical data and
linguistic information at the same time. It's a nonlinear mapping of
an input data (feature) vector to a scalar output or converting
numbers to numbers which is done through three steps: Fuzzifi-
cation, Inferencing, and Defuzzification [19].
Research Gap. There are cases where performance characteris-
tics are used for shooting, but nowhere are they used in a way that
specifically measures total performance. A fuzzy inference method
is never employed to evaluate the performances.
3.3. Performance prediction using machine learning
Performance analysis helps to determine the level of expertise
in individual firing. In the case of bullet shooting or firing, the
shooting device/weapon handling reflects a greater degree of
overall performance. The gun handling aspects of firing are hold,
stability, aiming accuracy, triggering cleanness, and time taken on
target. Ihalainen et al. [20] conducted a study to discover the most
significant factors to determine the performance in elite-level air
rifle shooting technique. They came up with four important pa-
rameters using regression analysis and Principal component anal-
ysis found two more factors.
SVM is a classical supervised learning model that can analyze
data and recognize patterns. It is based on statistical learning the-
ory and is widely used to summarize and review research and
development works. It can generate highly accurate results for the
diagnosis and finding errors. SVM is basically a collection of su-
pervised learning techniques for classification and regression [21].
They are members of the generalized linear classification family.
SVM has a unique virtue in that it minimizes the empirical classi-
fication error while also increasing the geometric margin. As a
result, SVM is also known as Maximum Margin classifier. SVM maps
the input vector to a higher-dimensional space in which a maximal
separating hyperplane is built. It allows Structural Risk Manage-
ment (SRM) meaning it can tune the capacity of the classifier to the
available amount of training data. Thus, SVM can prevent
phenomenal overfitting by balancing the complexity of models
with their fit to the data. Though there are examples of using SVM
to find out employee performances [22] in an organization, there
are no instances of using this system to evaluate firing
performances.
Regression is a very popular and basic tool for prediction anal-
ysis. Regression seeks to answer two questions. First, can an
outcome (dependent) variable be predicted using a set of predictor
variables? Second, based on the size and sign of the beta estimates,
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

what factors, in particular, are significant predictors of the outcome

variable and how do they affect the outcome variable are discussed.
Almost every sector of real-world applications has an impact with
the solution of regression problems [23].

4. Methodology

The proposed method is carried out in two separate phases in

gradual stages. The first phase consists of the generation of scores
and detection of various types of errors using machine learning and
various image processing algorithms based on real-time images of
firing. The second phase consists of performance analysis through
Fuzzy Inference System and the linear Regression technique is
utilized to predict the future performance probabilities of a fire.
The Whole methodology part has been divided into two parts: Fig. 2. Coordinates of bullet holes.

Phase 1: Firing evaluation system-generation of individual

scores and detection of errors.

Phase 2: Performance analysis of firer has also been divided into
two parts: (i) Performance analysis using fuzzy logic and (ii)
performance prediction using linear regression.
4.1. Phase 1: firing evaluation system-generation of individual
scores and detection of errors
The Structural Similarity Index (SSI) algorithm is used to sort the
bullet holes from the target that requires two images a reference
image and a target image from the same image capture. It then
measures picture quality degradation as a result of processing such
as data compression or data transmission losses.
The faults made by a firer lead to various firing errors and these
errors can be divided into 5 types. The common errors in the case of
grouping fire are Long Horizontal Error EHor, Long Vertical Error
EVer, Bi-focal Error EBF, Scattered Group ESc and Impatience Error
EIm.
The pattern of these errors can be calculated using 2 approaches.
The first approach is to detect the error analyzing the elliptical
pattern. An ellipse is drawn calculating the variance of the bullet
holes and taking the mean value as the center. Then the properties
of the ellipse was analyzed to find the particular error type.
Error Detection by Ellipse Estimation
Input: Array of points, P ¼ [P0,P1,P2,P3] P4 where Pi ¼ (xi,yi).
Output: corresponding error E.
Step 1 / Find array of distances between points.
Step 2 / Segregate x and y variables from points array.
Step 3 / Calculate variances of x and y as xvar and yvar.
Step 4 / Find Ecenter ¼ (mean.x,mean.y).
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
if xvar > 3 yvar
then E ¼ EVer
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
else if yvar > 3 xvar
then E ¼ EHor
P
else if (max(D))2 > ni¼0 ðDnewðiÞ Þ2 ,where, Dnew ¼ Dmax(D)
if max(D) ¼ ¼ Dn
then E ¼ EIm
else E ¼ EBF
else E ¼ ESc
The distinctive features assumed for the points to fulfill the
criteria for errors are the pairwise Euclidean distances between
observations in n-dimensional space (Fig. 2). A supervised learning
technique is used to predict the error class. The training data and
test data were split into 80e20 ratio to achieve good accuracy.
5
4.2. Phase 2: performance analysis of firer
4.2.1. Performance measure using fuzzy logic
Fuzzy logic helps to find out a point between any two real
numbers. Most of the cases, the performance measure of a person
or a system is obtained from a relation between few variables that
constitutes some real numbers. As a result, fuzzy logic can be
applied to find out the performances of a firer based on some pre-
selected variables that influences the firing performance measures.
4.2.1.1. Problem formulation. Practically, it is difficult to determine
the parameters that cause a change in firing performances. From
the studies, it is observed that firing performances are connected to
practice and past experiences. However, only practice and previous
experiences cannot be considered as the core performance measure
in general. The number of firings conducted per single day and
period of the interval from the previous firing are also accountable.
The effect of the season cannot be overlooked too. Therefore, a
performance measure for firing includes a wider range of param-
eters. For convenience, the parameters selected for analyzing the
performance are group, number of firings, interval, season, service
length and average group.
4.2.1.2. Solution. The firing performance of an individual is
measured with the help of Fuzzy Logic System (FLS) using neces-
sary membership functions (MF). The MFs are selected in accor-
dance with the variables that provide satisfactory results.
4.2.1.3. Fuzzy Logic System. A FLS is a system that performs its
calculations based on precise knowledge which is stated by lin-
guistic variables. The approach of FLS imitates the way of decision
making in humans that involves the intermediate possibilities be-
tween YES and NO. The conventional logic block that a computer
can understand produces a definite output as TRUE or FALSE, which
can be interpreted as human YES or NO. Unlike machines, the hu-
man decision making includes a range of other possibilities be-
tween YES and NO, such as CERTAINLY YES, POSSIBLY YES, CANNOT
SAY, POSSIBLY NO and.
4.2.1.3.1. CERTAINLY NO. The FLS works with the same levels of
possibilities of input to get the definite output. The system mainly
comprises three basic processes:
(1) Fuzzification (input stage) to receive input values and
translate them to Fuzzy type inputs via transfer functions
such as triangular, trapezoidal, Gaussian distribution curve,
sigmoidal functions, etc. A fuzzification unit supports the
application of the transfer functions based on the suitability
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

of the function in relation to inputs, and converts the crisp of employees and organizations. The same idea can be applied in
inputs into similar fuzzy inputs. the measurement of firing performance provided exact inputs are
(2) Fuzzy Inferencing (processing stage) for generating inferred fed to the system.
results based on previously fuzzified values and linguistic IF/
THEN statements. two important methods of FIS, having
4.2.1.4. Membership functions. A membership function (MF) is an
different consequent of fuzzy rules are the Mamdani Fuzzy
important part of fuzzy logic calculations that provides information
Inference System (MFIS) and the Takagi-Sugeno Fuzzy Model
that maps the inputs onto the linguistic variables. An MF is mainly a
System (TSFMS). curve that defines how each point in the input space is mapped to a
(3) Defuzzification (output stage) is applied for totaling the
membership value. The MF has a range within which the members
result using linguistic rules and converting those into output
are defined. The parameters in an MF are defined to relate to the
values. It is realized by a decision-making algorithm that
presumable results and can also be named as variables. Various
selects the best value based on a fuzzy set.
transfer functions such as triangular, trapezoidal, Gaussian distri-
bution curve, sigmoidal functions etcetera are used as MFs with
The FLS can be implemented in systems with various sizes and
crisscrossed parameters for fuzzification of the input variables. The
capabilities ranging from small micro-controllers to large control
triangular MFs are mostly used in the performance measurement
systems. Nowadays, it has become a core tool in the artificial in-
as it provides the concrete result. Different Membership Function
telligence being experimentally used in performance measurement
used as Input variables are as discussed below.

Fig. 3. The Membership Functions with its details.

6
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

(1) Groups: The shot grouping/group has a direct relation with minimum two grouping fires are conducted, therefore its
the performance. The better is the grouping performance, range is taken slightly less than the ongoing group. The range
the more skilled is the firer. The range is taken from 0 inch to is determined as between 0 and 36 inches.
53.5 inches based on the total target size and relevance with
best and worst cases The MFs used in the input variables with its details about ranges
(2) No of firings: It is tiresome to fire continuously throughout and types are shown in Fig. 3.
the day. Therefore, the number of firings per single day might A graphical representation of the MFs used as the FLS inputs are
decline the performance. The range is assumed to be from no shown below to further assimilating the idea of various types of
firings to 18 times of firing events for an individual per single functions.
day.
(3) Interval: There is a relation with the firing performance and
4.2.1.5. Fuzzy rules. Fuzzy Inferencing System at the processing
the continuation from the previous firing. The interval be-
stage works with the rules that direct the input variables towards a
tween two firings may affect the performance. Its range is
generalized output. The rule base of the proposed fuzzy perfor-
taken between 0 and 90 days.
mance analysis model is defined in three steps; firstly, three inputs
(4) Season: The seasons have a great deal of influence on the
about their performance provides performance measure 1; sec-
firing performance. The visibility an daylight varies in
ondly, the first and other two inputs give performance measure 2
different seasons. Therefore, six seasons are also taken as
and finally, the first and last input maps into performance measure
input to relate with the performance.
3. The numbers of rules were computed based on the permutation
(5) Service length: As a man in uniform ages, his/her experience
with a number of membership functions and numbers of perfor-
about techniques of fire grows as well. The service length is
mance measure parameters. The numbers of factors are nine and
therefore the sixth input in the FIS. The range of service
the number of membership functions that provide performance
length is considered from 0 to 36 years.
measures is three. The total number of rules, therefore, became
(6) Average group: To generate the performance measure, the
93 ¼ 27. The rules are shown in Tables 2e4 respectively (see
average group size of an individual is also of overwhelming
Fig. 7).
importance. As the average group is the measure when

Fig. 4. Input: No of Firings using trapezoidal MFs.

Fig. 5. Input: Interval using gaussian MFs.

7
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 6. Output: Performance 1 using triangular MFs.

4.2.1.6. Defuzzification and results. The three performance mea-

Table 2
Fuzzy rules for performance 1.
sures (see Figs. 4e7) obtained from the initial fuzzy model are used
as inputs for the second fuzzy model. Thereafter certain new rules
R/N If Then
lead to a new calculation step to finally define the performance of
Group No_of_firings Interval Performance the firing. Here, the centroid defuzzification is used the find the
1 49e54 inch Or 1e2 Or 00e10 Minimal crisp performance value. The following Fig. 10 shows an instance of
2 43e48 inch 3e4 11e20 Dismal defuzzification module in this FLS.
3 37e42_inch 5e6 21e30 Poor The total model is used in a MATLAB Simulink model and pro-
4 31e36_inch 7e8 31e40 Mediocre
vides the required analysis of performance as a concrete value.
5 25e30_inch 9e10 41e50 Average
6 19e24 inch 11e12 51e60 Decent Fig. 11 provides an example of measurement of performance using
7 13e18 inch 13e14 61e70 Good the FLS in total.
8 7e12 inch 15e16 71e80 Excellent
9 1e6 inch 17e18 81e90 Extraordinary
4.2.2. Performance analysis using linear regression
Performance analysis is required to enhance the mastering
process in a particular field. One of the tools used to conduct the
Table 3 performance analysis in AI is the Linear Regression model. Linear
Fuzzy rules for performance 2. regression helps to identify the best matches for the data points on
Group Season Svc_length/yrc Performance_2 a linear plot. As a result, it can be used to forecast output values for
10 49e54 inch Or Rainy Or 36 Minimal
inputs that aren't included in the data set, with the assumption that
11 43e48 inch Rainy 4 Dismal those outputs will fall on the line.
12 37e42_inch Winter 32 Poor
13 31e36_inch Late_autumn 8 Mediocre 4.2.2.1. Dataset. Practically, it is difficult to determine the future
14 25e30_inch Autumn 28 Average
15 19e24 inch Summer 9 Decent
performance of a firer. But as mentioned earlier, there might be
16 13e18 inch Summer 18 Good some connection between future firing performances and the
17 7e12 inch Spring 16 Excellent number of practices, past performances, and some other factors. For
18 1e6 inch Spring 20 Extraordinary convenience, the parameters selected for analyzing the perfor-
mance are the number of firings conducted per single day, the in-
terval between two firing sessions, seasonal effects, length of
Table 4 service of the firer, and their average group. These are the predictor
Fuzzy rules for performance 3.
data of the system. The target data are the performances obtained
Group Avg_gp Performance 3 from the FLS corresponding to the mentioned values. It's worth
19 49e54 inch Or 36 inch Minimal mentioning here that due to some constraints for real-time data
20 43e48 inch 32 inch Dismal collection from the military domain, the size of dataset is limited.
21 37e42_inch 28_inch Poor
22 31e36_inch 24 inch Mediocre
4.2.2.2. Training. The retrieved characteristics are used as inputs to
23 25e30_inch 20_inch Average
24 19e24 inch 16 inch Decent create a model from the data and make predictions. The dataset
25 13e18 inch 12_inch Good gathered provides two inputs to fit where X remains as the pre-
26 7e12_inch 8 inch Excellent dictor variable and Y acts as the target variable. As the cost function,
27 1e6 inch 4 inch Extraordinary the Mean Squared Error (MSE) function is used, which is the
average of squared error occurred between the predicted values
and actual values. The model performance or the goodness of fit is
A selection of surface graphs showing the relationship between checked through process of optimization. For easy understanding,
input and output variables are shown in Figs. 8 and 9 respectively. the R-squared method as shown below is used to apprehend the

8
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al.
Fig. 7. Output: Performance 2 using generalized bell MFs.
Fig. 8. Interval and group vs. performance.
Fig. 9. Average group and group vs. performance.
optimization level of the model.
P  !
ðy:true  y:predictedÞ2
R ¼ 1  P
2 
ðy:true  meanðy:trueÞÞ2
4.2.2.3. Prediction. The trained model can now predict future per-
formance based on input data, thanks to the relationship between
the datasets. The input data is adjusted to fit the elements of the
dataset. The proportion of material that is most relevant is calcu-
lated and delivered as an output. The associated relation indicates
the possible percentage of performance at a scale between 0 and
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
100 after pairing with the X (Predictor) data and Y (Target) data.
5. Experiments and results
In order to determine the accuracy of the system, the entire
experimental method was split into two major modules, namely
the Firing Evaluation System and Performance Analysis of Firer. The
goal was to comprehend the system's strengths and weaknesses
and to suggest the changes required to improve its stability. The
photographs used in this project came from a variety of military
formations and real-time units. To ascertain the frequency of
inaccuracies, the results of manual calculations compared to the
photographs were also gathered. In addition, the firing records of
each soldier were discussed, and the necessary data sets were
created to conduct the trials.
5.1. Firing evaluation system
We divided the evaluation of the firing evaluation system into
three parts: (i) Bullet hits detection; (ii) Calculations of groups; (iii)
Error detection.
5.1.1. Bullet hits detection
The experiment was conducted to find out the success rate of
the detection of bullet holes.
5.1.1.1. Dataset. The distribution of the dataset for various error
types has been illustrated in Fig. 12.
5.1.1.2. Experimental setup. At first, the images of fresh targets were
captured using a 6-megapixel phone camera at a distance of 25 m
from the targets with camera stands. Then the firing was done in
the standard manner i.e. five bullets grouping fire at the 100 m
(1) range. After the firing, the target Images were taken again in the
same manner from the same fixed distance. In this manner, 16 sets
of Images were taken from eight targets. Thereafter, the SSIM
module was used to find the similarity and detect the bullet holes.
The results are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
5.1.1.3. Result. From Tables 5 and 6, it is clearly understandable that
the program can detect all the shots quite correctly. The tables have
the following columns: Serial, Images after Firing, Bullet Hits
Detected (Indicated by Red), SSIM Scores (percentage), and Accu-
racy (percentage). The images from serial numbers 2 and 4
9
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 10. Centroid defuzzification method.

Fig. 11. Simulink model for Defuzzification module.

demonstrate that the system correctly identified a hit from two
gunshots as a single hit. But after morphological processing, these
are once again distinguishable. The technique yields similar results
while using freshly printed target paper as well as frequently used
target paper. The fact is that the bullet shots can be determined
with 100% precision is a success. The proportion of similarity be-
tween the photos taken before and after firing is determined by the
SSIM score. The variations in SSIM scores are caused by the image
10
quality, the way the bullet hit, and the brightness variations be-
tween the images.
5.1.2. Calculation of groups
The images found from the SSIM module are further processed
and subjected to group calculation module. The groups are only
calculated if five bullet marks were found by the system. Otherwise,
the system declines to calculate the results.
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al.
Fig. 12. Error distributions.
Table 5
Accuracy of bullet hits detection.
Serial After firing Bullet hits detected SSIM score/%
1 0.993
2 0.986
3 0.996
4 0.967
5.1.2.1. Experimental setup. To collect the experimental data, a
7.62 mm Sub-Machine-Gun type 1956 was selected as the primary
firing weapon. A total of 8 firers were detailed to conduct firing.
They fired 3 times. Only one set of data was taken for experimental
calculations.
5.1.2.2. Result. The information gathered through the manual
measurement method using a twelve-inch scale as well as through
the suggested software is provided in the following Table 7. As a
result of the system's ability to calculate results in fractions, the
table displays promising states. In addition to calculating the shot
deviation, the automated system also delivers results of shot
grouping. As a result, it helps with figuring out the corrections
needed for weapon zeroing. In order to achieve these values, a
manual procedure would have taken much longer. The variation in
measurement between the automatic system and the manual
scoring system (A-B). is also displayed in table. A manual procedure
is flawed because there may be little errors made when figuring out
the center-to-center distances between the bullet shots. Due to this,
two firers may occasionally achieve comparable outcomes while
having little variations in their shot grouping. The software is quite
useful in reducing this problem. In certain instances during the
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 6
Accuracy of bullet hits detection.
Serial After firing Bullet hits detected SSIM score/% Accuracy/%
5 0.997 100
6 0.988 100
7 0.997 100
Accuracy/%
100
8 0.998 100
100
trial, the groups determined by the system were larger than the
100 ones determined manually. Those were brought about by slight
flaws in the targets' geometrical design. A 0.2-inch allowance can
be added to the firers to encourage them and help alleviate the
problem.
A chart (Fig. 13) is prepared to understand the differences in
100 results more clearly. Here the various targets are listed along the X-
Axis and Y-Axis shows the measure of grouping in inches. The green
bars represent the results calculated manually and the orange bars
show the results found by the Automatic Firing Target Scoring
System.
5.1.3. Error detection
In the Error detection module, both the error detection by use of
ellipse and error detection by support vector classification modules
were tested. The results from the system were matched with actual
data to check and analyze the accuracy of the modules. Experi-
mental setup Different sets of target data were used, where the
system could easily identify the errors from analyzing the data. To
tally all types of errors, the images were manipulated to make
images of error shots. This was because manually it was difficult to
collect images that has all types of error-biased shots. The images
taken as the inputs are shown in Fig. 14.
5.1.3.1. Result. Table 8 shows the errors detected by the system
using both modules. The data indicates that there are situations
where only one of the modules is able to identify the error correctly.
Similar types of errors can have various firing patterns. Due to the
limited amount of data, however, the machine learning component
occasionally fails to detect the actual issue. Systems are occasion-
ally created through error identification using a mathematical
technique. It incorrectly conflates the impatient shot with any
horizontal or vertical flaws. If both modules have the same error,
only one error will be shown by the system. More than one error
detected by the modules will cause both errors to be displayed.
However, the success of the system is that it could identify the
11
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 7
Grouping results: Manual and software-driven.

Target serial Manually calculated Result from automatic firing target scoring system Deviation in
group in inches (A) inches (A-B)
Group in inches (B) Classification (C) Vertical correction (D) Horizontal correction (E) Error (F)

Target No-1 12.5 12.6 Wash out 1.24 rotation downwards 0.51 mm towards left Bi-focal error 0.1
Target No-2 6 5.76 First class shot 2.79 rotation upwards 0.04 mm towards right Nil þ0.04
Target No-3 12.5 12.48 Wash out 1.24 rotation upwards 0.78 mm towards right Impatient error þ0.02
Target No-4 11 10.8 Wash out 0.15 rotation downwards 0.56 mm towards right Nil þ0.2
Target No-5 9 9 Standard shot 0.45 rotation upwards 1.62 mm towards right Nil 0
Target No-6 10 9.84 Standard shot 0.87 rotation downwards 0.10 mm towards right Nil þ0.16
Target No-7 25 25.2 Wash out 0.70 rotation upwards 0.22 mm towards left Horizontal error 0.2
Target No-8 4 4.25 Marksman shot 2.43 rotation upwards 0.03 mm towards left Nil 0.25

corresponding errors with at least one of the modules. More data

sets can be fed into the system to make it more robust, which will
improve accuracy.

5.2. Performance measure

To find the performance measure, the performances of an in-

dividual were fed to the system. The fuzzy system thereafter
calculated the performance measure on a scale of 100.

5.2.1. Experimental setup

The factors to calculate the performance were stored in a
database as numbers. These data were stored against a date to
comply with real-time scenarios. The data was then analyzed by the
Fig. 13. Grouping comparison chart.

Fig. 14. Error images.

12
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 8
Error detection.

Serial Before firing Error by ellipse Error by SVM Actual Error Incorrect Reasons
module

1 Long horizontal Long vertical Long horizontal Error by SVM The pointwise distances for horizontal and vertical errors are
error error error quite similar

2 Bi-focal error Bi-focal error Bi-focal error e e

3 Scattered group Scattered group Scattered group e e

4 Impatient shot Long vertical Impatient shot Error by SVM More data set would provide accuracy in impatient shots
error

5 Bi-focal error Bi-focal error Bi-focal error e

6 Long horizontal Impatient shot Impatient shot Error by The serial wise distribution of points leads to calculations
error Ellopse

7 Impatient shot Impatient shot Impatient shot e e

8 Long vertical Long vertical Long vertical e e

error error error

MATLAB FIS module to calculate and store crisp results in a separate
database table. Two instances of the performance measures
calculated by the system are shown in Figs. 15 and 16 respectively.
5.2.2. Result
After conducting the result, it is found that the performance
measure changes differently in case of variations in the factors
affecting the performance. The service length and the interval be-
tween two consecutive firings have very less effect on the overall
performance of the firer. But the season has a remarkable impact on
the firing performance as it is related to sunlight and vision. The
most influential factor among all these is the grouping and average
group. Because a slight change in the group gets the overall per-
formance measure affected. However, the results are satisfactory as
the graph shows the ups and downs in an individual's perfor-
mances embedded with specific factors of firing. The graphical
form can be analyzed to understand the standings of a person in
case of firing.
5.3. Performance analysis
Performance analysis is important to take important decisions
regarding the employment of a firer. The performance analysis
module checks the available data related to a firer and can be

Fig. 15. Performance graph 1.

13
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 16. Performance graph 2.

utilized for future prediction. Depending on the analysis, the 6. System development
decision-makers can take viable decisions and precaution
measures. 6.1. System architecture

5.3.1. Experimental setup
For experimental purposes, we have taken data of eighteen
military personnel and put them in the prediction module of the
system. For the analysis, we have taken the records of the Number
of firings, Interval, Length of service, and Average Group from the
individuals. The table (Table 9) below shows the corresponding
predicted performances in relation to the provided data-set.
The system has a total of four integral components.
6.1.1. Component 1
The first components consists of a system that includes a good
quality camera and a wi-fi connection. The camera is connected to
the core system with wi-fi network to capture and fetch firing
images to the system.

5.3.2. Result
The Results display the expected performance of the following
firing based on the firing history and other variables. Based on a
firer's recorded results, the system anticipates the data by using
machine learning methods. If the firer conducts firing more regu-
larly and records their continuous performances in the database,
the prediction's accuracy will only rise. However, if and only if the
shooters can constantly fire, making very small in-size grouping
rounds, the entire prediction process can produce superior results.
In order to accurately determine the percentage of the performance
tables, the data set must also be robust. Good performers can be
identified and hired as appropriate if this procedure is sorted ac-
cording to performance.
6.1.2. Component 2
The second components is the software itself which is inter-
connected with other parts. It consists of the software module to
calculate and analyze the data collected from camera and the
database and provide necessary results as its output.
6.1.3. Component 3
The next one is the database system that provides a robust tool
to store necessary data.
6.1.4. Component 4
The fourth components is the output monitor display or the
printing machine (preferably the colored one) to show on screen
data or to print out the relevant results.

Table 9
Performance analysis.

Ser. Number of firings Inteval Season Length of service Average group Performance

1 2 33 0 11.00 7.35 69.5300

2 4 30 0 11.00 7.33 65.5700
3 1 3 0 11.00 7.34 66.2600
4 9 0 1.5 14.23 10.40 68.2673
5 8 0 1.5 12.22 8.16 69.0274
6 9 0 1.5 13.22 11.33 69.1585
7 8 0 1.5 12.81 18.29 53.5334
8 5 3 0 11.00 7.34 66.2600
9 4 3 0 11.00 6.34 66.6300
10 5 5 1.5 11.81 13.92 60.1855
11 4 5 1.5 12.22 17.66 56.2995
12 5 1 1.5 13.23 9.12 68.2450
13 3 1 1.5 12.81 25.56 58.1468
14 5 1 1.5 11.81 23.04 62.8377
15 4 1 1.5 12.23 17.81 61.3199
16 5 1 1.5 11.81 9.16 68.1895
17 8 0 1.5 12.23 16.95 62.9209
18 9 0 1.5 11.23 9.29 68.5262

14
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al.
Fig. 17. System architecture.
The functional system architecture is shown in Fig. 17 which
elaborates the ins and outs of the system precisely.
6.1.4.1. Platform used in the system. The platform of the whole
project is a programming language based application that can be
used for processing the input and generate necessary outputs. The
application is made using a robust language namely Python pro-
gramming language with its various modules and libraries.
6.1.4.2. Front end. The Python tkinter library is used to build the
front end of the system. The visuals are kept soothing to make the
users adaptable with the software. The built in modules of tkinter
library is utlized fully the develop the total interface of the
software.
6.1.4.3. Python libraries. Python's library is very extensive, offering
a wide range of facilities. It contains various built-in modules that
provide standardized solutions for many problems that occur in
everyday programming. Some of these modules are explicitly
designed to address specific artificial intelligence and image pro-
cessing problems. The project contains a lot of Python modules,
however, the main libraries pertinent to the implementation of the
Fig. 18. (a) Unit Selection Page; (b) Registration page.
15
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
project are mentioned here:
6.1.5. Computer vision 2
The Computer Vision 2 or the CV2 library is used mainly for the
image processing part. All the image processing modules required
for image manipulation is taken from this library.
6.1.6. Scikit image
The Scikit Image or skimage library is utilized in the structural
similarity index measurement (SSIM) process.
6.1.7. Numerical Python
Numerical Python is used for various types of mathematical
calculations. This library is commonly known as numpy library.
Scikit Learn. Scikit Learn library provides an wide range of machine
learning methods. The Linear Support Vector Classifier (SVC)
module is used in the error prediction part and the Linear Regres-
sion is used in the performance prediction part.
6.1.8. Mathematical Plotting Library
As the name says, the Mathematical Plotting Library is used to
generate various plots on the graphs.
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 19. (a) Target compilation page; (b) Target with firing result.

Fig. 20. Individual firing results.

6.1.8.1. Back-end. For back-end data storage the SQLite database 6.2. UI screenshots
library of the Python programming language is used. It provides a
workable data storage system related to the project and provide a The following figures (Figs. 18e20) consists of screenshots of the
greater range of possibilities to upgrade it further. user interface for the titled project.

6.1.8.2. MATLAB FIS. To implement the FLS, the FIS module of
MATLAB software version 2021a has been used. The MAMDANI
type interface is used to formulate the output of the system. The
system as an executable file is integrated with the Python module
afterwards to provide fuzzy outputs as a part of the project.
16
7. Conclusions
The paper presents three aspects related to small arms firing.
Firstly, it proposes an automated system to calculate points earned
by the firer along with error detection using image processing and
machine learning techniques. Structural similarity index and
R.H. Chandan, N. Sharmin, M.B. Munir et al.
adaptive algorithm are used in the image processing parts to
calculate firing scores. To find out the errors of the firer, machine
learning algorithms and ellipse recognition-based algorithms are
used. Secondly, the system carries out performance analysis of the
firer using fuzzy logic system. Thirdly, the system carries out per-
formance prediction using linear regression model.
The development of firing efficiency is a continuous process for
military personnel. Units and training institutions also conduct
practice firing regularly to upkeep the firing efficiency of their men.
The development of an artificial intelligence-based firing skill
evaluation system will play an important role in assessing the
performance of a firer, analyzing his mistakes, and guiding him
towards necessary correction. The performance predictions of a
firer will assist the officers to employ his men at the right place for
the right job. Moreover, the system will augment the trainer and
coach in performing their responsibilities. It will resolve the issue of
shortage of skilled-trainer, enable lifelong record keeping of firing
history, and decline the rate of fatigue and effort involved in a
manual or semi-automatic process.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Borander AK, Voie ØA, Longva K, Danielsen TE, Grahnstedt S, Sandvik L,
Kongerud J, Sikkeland LIB. Military small arms fire in association with acute
decrements in lung function. Occup Environ Med 2017;74(9):639e44.
[2] Ari
aujo D, Couceiro M, Seifert L, Sarmento H, Davids K. Artificial Intelligence in
sport performance analysis. Routledge; 2021.
[3] Lu G, et al. Prediction model and data simulation of sports performance based
on the artificial intelligence algorithm. Comput Intell Neurosci 2022.
[4] Owusu G. Ai and computer-based methods in performance evaluation of
sporting feats: an overview. Artif Intell Rev 2007;27(1):57e70.
[5] Li H, Zhang M. Artificial intelligence and neural network-based shooting ac-
curacy prediction analysis in basketball. Mobile Information Systems; 2021.
 Gieelczyk A, Chora
[6] wiklinski BC, s M. Who will score? a machine learning
approach to supporting football team building and transfers. Entropy
2021;23(1):90.
17
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
[7] Chandan MRH, Naim TA, Razzak MA, Sharmin N. Image processing based
scoring system for small arms firing in the military domain. In: Proceedings of
the 4th international conference on image processing and machine vision;
2022. p. 57e63.
[8] Dzhilkibaeva N, Ahrens M, Laaksonen MS. Can performance in biathlon world
cup be predicted by performance analysis of biathlon ibucup? Int J Perform
Anal Sport 2019;19(5):856e65.
[9] Ali F, Mansoor AB. Computer vision based automatic scoring of shoo-
tingtargets. In: 2008 IEEE international multitopic conference. IEEE; 2008.
p. 515e9.
[10] Ding P, Zhang X, Fan X, Cheng Q. Design of automatic target-scoring system of
shooting game based on computer vision. In: 2009 IEEE international con-
ference on automation and logistics. IEEE; 2009. p. 825e30.
[11] Ye C, Mi H. The technology of image processing used in automatic target-
scoring system. In: 2011 fourth international joint conference on computa-
tional sciences and optimization. IEEE; 2011. p. 349e52. 730.
[12] Soetedjo A, Ashari MI, Mahmudi A, Nakhoda YI. Implementation of sensor on
the gun system using embedded camera for shooting training. In: 2014 2nd
international conference on technology, informatics, management, engi-
neering & environment. IEEE; 2014. p. 69e74.
[13] Lin Y-C, Miaou S-G, Lin Y-C, Chen S-L. An automatic scoring system for air
pistol shooting competition based on image recognition of target sheets. In:
2015 IEEE international conference on consumer electronics. IEEE; 2015.
p. 140e1.
[14] Training Wing BMA. Field craft. 2000.
[15] Hatamleh KS, Khasawneh QA, Sawaqed L, Hassan MM, Yafawi S, Al-Shabi M.
Evolutionary low-cost visual shooting practice system. In: 2015 10th inter-
national symposium on mechatronics and its applications (ISMA). IEEE; 2015.
p. 1e6.
[16] Issa AH, Hasan SD, Ali WH. Automation of real-time target scoring system
based on image processing technique. Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Research and Developments 2021;44(2):316e23.
[17] Strohm LS. An introduction to the sources of delivery error for direct-fire
ballistic projectiles. In: Tech. rep., ARMY RESEARCH LAB AB- ERDEEN
PROVING GROUND MD WEAPONS AND MATERIALS RE- SEARCH; 2013.
[18] Zivkovic A, Hristov N, Jerkovíc DD, Bogdanovíc B, Milutinovíc J. Automatic
measurement of precision and accuracy from the hit pattern of small arms
using electronic target system. In: IOP conference series: materials science
and engineering. vol. 659. IOP Publishing; 2019, 012015.
[19] Mendel JM. Fuzzy logic systems for engineering: a tutorial. Proc IEEE
1995;83(3):345e77.
[20] Ihalainen S, Kuitunen S, Mononen K, Linnamo V. Determinants of elite-level
air rifle shooting performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2016;26(3):266e74.
[21] Vapnik VN. The nature of statistical learning theory. new york: spring-verlag;
1995.
[22] Hong W-C, Pai P-F, Huang Y-Y, Yang S-L. Application of support vector ma-
chines in predicting employee turnover based on job performance. In: In-
ternational conference on natural computation. Springer; 2005. p. 668e74.
[23] Hocking RR. Developments in linear regression methodology: 1959el982.
Technometrics 1983;25(3):219e30.