A Data-Driven Radar Object Detection and Clustering Method Aided by Camera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The majority of road accidents are caused by human oversight. Advanced Driving Assistance System (ADAS) has the potential to reduce human error and improve road safety. With the rising demand for safety and comfortable driving experience, ADAS functions have become an important feature when car manufacturers developing new models. ADAS requires high accuracy and robustness in the perception system. Camera and radar are often combined to create a fusion result because the sensors have their own advantages and drawbacks. Cameras are susceptible to bad weather and poor lighting condition and radar has low resolution and can be affected by metal debris on the road.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">Clustering radar targets into objects and determine whether radar targets are valid objects are challenging tasks. In the literature, rule-based and thresholding methods have been proposed to filter out stationary objects and objects with low reflection power. However, static vehicles could be missed and thus result in low detection accuracy. To overcome these drawbacks, a data-driven method has been proposed, which uses a variety of features and thus is more suitable for complex real-world scenarios.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">Data-driven methods require a large amount of labeled data. In this paper, we propose a data-driven radar object detection and clustering method aid by camera data. As cameras have high accuracy in object detection, it is used to train a classifier to determine whether radar object is valid. The algorithm is validated with real-world driving data and has shown good performance in object detection.</div></div>
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".