A Review and Comparative Study on Probabilistic Object Detection in Autonomous Driving
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
Capturing uncertainty in object detection is indispensable for safe autonomous driving. In recent years, deep learning has become the de-facto approach for object detection, and many probabilistic object detectors have been proposed. However, there is no summary on uncertainty estimation in deep object detection, and existing methods are either built with different network architectures and uncertainty estimation methods, or evaluated on different datasets with a wide range of evaluation metrics. As a result, a comparison among methods remains challenging, as does the selection of a model that best suits a particular application. This paper aims to alleviate this problem by providing a review and comparative study on existing probabilistic object detection methods for autonomous driving applications. First, we provide an overview of practical uncertainty estimation methods in deep learning, and then systematically survey existing methods and evaluation metrics for probabilistic object detection. Next, we present a strict comparative study for probabilistic object detection based on an image detector and three public autonomous driving datasets. Finally, we present a discussion of the remaining challenges and future works. Code has been made available at <uri xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://github.com/asharakeh/pod_compare.git</uri> .
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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