MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100463880 · doi:10.1109/avss.2012.61

Road Boundary Detection in Challenging Scenarios

2012· article· en· W2100463880 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohamed A. Helala, Ken Q. Pu, Faisal Z. Qureshi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBoundary (topology)Artificial intelligenceCluster analysisComputer visionRange (aeronautics)Perspective (graphical)Point (geometry)Object detectionPattern recognition (psychology)Cluster (spacecraft)Filter (signal processing)MathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new approach for automatic road detection in traffic cameras. The technique proposed here detects the dominant road boundary and estimates the vanishing point in images captured by traffic cameras under a wide range of lighting and environmental conditions, e.g., in images of unlit highways captured at night, etc. The approach starts by segmenting the traffic scene into a number of superpixel regions. The contours of these regions are used to generate a large number of edges which are organized into clusters of co-linearly similar sets using hierarchical bottom up clustering. A confidence level is assigned to each cluster using a statistical approach and the best clusters are chosen. Pairs of clusters with high confidence levels are then ranked and filtered according to image perspective and activity. The top ranked pair is selected as the road boundary. The proposed technique is tested on a real world dataset collected from the Ontario 401 traffic surveillance system. Experimental results demonstrate a distinct speedup and improvement in accuracy of the proposed technique in detecting the dominant road boundary in challenging scenarios compared to the state of the art Gabor filter based technique.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207