Dynamic integration and online evaluation of vision‐based lane detection algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lane detection techniques have been widely studied in the last two decades and applied in many advance driver assistance systems. However, the development of a robust lane detection system, which can deal with various road conditions and efficiently evaluate its detection results in real time, is still of great challenge. In this study, a vision‐based lane detection system with dynamic integration and online evaluation is proposed. To increase the robustness of the lane detection system, the integration system dynamically processes two lane detection modules. First, a primary lane detection module is designed based on the steerable filter and Hough transform algorithm. Then, a secondary algorithm, which combines the Gaussian mixture model for image segmentation and random sample consensus for lane model fitting, will be activated when the primary algorithm encounters a low detection confidence. To detect the colour and line style of the ego lanes and evaluate the lane detection system in real time, a lane sampling and voting technique is proposed. By combining the sampling and voting system system with prior lane geometry knowledge, the evaluation system can efficiently recognise the false detections. The system works robustly in various complex situations (e.g. shadows, night, and lane missing scenarios) with a monocular camera.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".