Federica Bianco

The current corpus of UAP data does not meet the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) scientific data standard, limiting the applicability of machine learning and AI methods.

the current status of the data about uaps does not meet these standards - their collection is inconsistent, it's inhomogeneous, it's uncalibrated

There are two general scientific approaches to anomaly detection applicable to UAP: modeling/simulating an expected signal to search for matches, or using unsupervised machine learning to model 'the normal' comprehensively so anything inconsistent is flagged; UAP research, lacking a known expected signal, is better suited to the second approach.

the alternative approach in detecting anomalies requires a thorough and deep understanding of what is normal and usual, to tease out what is unusual

Eyewitness reports alone cannot determine the nature of UAP, but may carry value (e.g. persistent sighting locations or seasonality patterns) when combined with quantitative sensor data and psychophysical assessment of the witness.

eyewitnesses reports... cannot ascertain the nature of uaps, however they should be considered because they may contain important information, for example persistent citing locations or seasonality

NASA has recently undertaken an initiative to prepare NASA and NASA-partner archival astrophysics data for machine learning/AI use; this experience could be leveraged for UAP data, but would be much harder given the current poor state of UAP data compared to astrophysical data.

NASA has recently spearheaded an effort to review NASA and NASA-partner archival data to prepare them for machine learning and AI... we do want to emphasize that the current status of the UAP data will make this list really hard compared to even what is being done by NASA for ast

The panel states there is no conclusive evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature suggesting an extraterrestrial origin for UAP, and that the scientific standard of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' has not been met.

just like Carl Sagan I was saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - we cannot make that kind of extraordinary claims at all for any kind of big subject in science

Our check Confirmed in substance and largely in wording against the same NASA UAP panel meeting transcript (t=1:07:35-3:41:59 range, including t=3:40:55 'just like Carl Sagan I was saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... we have not seen that'). The panel repeatedly stated there is no conclusive peer-reviewed evidence of extraterrestrial origin and invoked the Sagan standard explicitly. Exact speaker attribution at the precise quoted line is genuinely ambiguous in the transcript (it could be Bianco or another panelist speaking near her turn), which the queue's own verify_hint flags; the substance of the statement is corroborated regardless of which panelist said this specific line.

Sources udel.edu