MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771583656 · doi:10.1109/iccvw.2017.33

Are They Going to Cross? A Benchmark Dataset and Baseline for Pedestrian Crosswalk Behavior

2017· article· en· W2771583656 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchema crosswalkPedestrianBaseline (sea)Computer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Minimum bounding boxBounding overwatchPoint (geometry)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningPedestrian detectionPedestrian crossingInformation retrievalHuman–computer interactionTransport engineeringImage (mathematics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing autonomous vehicles suitable for urban environments remains an unresolved problem. One of the major dilemmas faced by autonomous cars is how to understand the intention of other road users and communicate with them. The existing datasets do not provide the necessary means for such higher level analysis of traffic scenes. With this in mind, we introduce a novel dataset which in addition to providing the bounding box information for pedestrian detection, also includes the behavioral and contextual annotations for the scenes. This allows combining visual and semantic information for better understanding of pedestrians' intentions in various traffic scenarios. We establish baseline approaches for analyzing the data and show that combining visual and contextual information can improve prediction of pedestrian intention at the point of crossing by at least 20%.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Quick stats

Citations403
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207