Animal-Vehicle Collision Mitigation System for Automated Vehicles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detecting large animals on roadways using automated systems such as robots or vehicles is a vital task. This can be achieved using conventional tools such as ultrasonic sensors, or with innovative technology based on smart cameras. In this paper, we investigate a vision-based solution. We begin the paper by performing a comparative study between three detectors: 1) Haar-AdaBoost; 2) histogram of oriented gradient (HOG)-AdaBoost; and 3) local binary pattern (LBP)-AdaBoost, which were initially developed to detect humans and their faces. These detectors are implemented, evaluated, and compared to each other in terms of accuracy and processing time. Based on our evaluation and comparison results, we design a two-stage architecture which outperforms the aforementioned detectors. The proposed architecture detects candidate regions of interest using LBP-AdaBoost in the first stage, which offers robustness to false positives in real-time conditions. The second stage is based on support vector machine classifiers that were trained using HOG features. The training data are generated from our novel dataset called large animal dataset, which contains common and thermographic images of large road-animals. We emphasize that no such public dataset currently exists.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it