MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AUTOMATED VISIBILITY FIELD EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC SIGN BASED ON 3D LIDAR POINT CLOUDS

2019· article· en· W2948890734 on OpenAlexaff
Cheng Wang, Ming Cheng, Jonathan Li

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsVisibilityTraffic signComputer scienceComputer visionPoint cloudArtificial intelligenceSign (mathematics)Field (mathematics)LidarLaser scanningPoint (geometry)Road surfaceRemote sensingLaserGeographyEngineeringOpticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Maintaining high visibility of traffic signs is very important for traffic safety. Manual inspection and removal of occlusion in front of traffic signs is one of the daily tasks of the traffic management department. This paper presents a method that can automatically detect the occlusion and continuously quantitative estimate the visibility of traffic sign cover all the road surface based on Mobile Laser Scanning (MLS) systems. The concept of traffic sign’s visibility field is proposed in this paper. One of important innovation of this paper is that we use retinal imaging area to evaluate the visibility of a traffic sign. And this makes our method is in line with human vision. To validate the reasonable and accuracy of our method, we use the 2D and 3D registration technology to observe the consistence of the occlusion ratio in point clouds with it in photo. Experiment of implementation on large scale traffic environments show that our method is feasible and efficient.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207