Vulnerable Road Users Detection based on Convolutional Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The roads support many different types of users. With geared efforts to advance connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs), smart mobility systems, and advanced driver assistance-based vehicles, the safety of road users becomes a growing concern. Some users may require more cautious interactions and support to ensure safe usage of the road infrastructures. While considerable effort has been done to detect different types of road users or objects from a vehicle's viewpoint, there are certain classes of vulnerable road users which have been overlooked in prior works. The objective of this work is to detect vulnerable road users (e.g., Strollers, Motorbikes, and Bicycles) in order to aid in reduction of collisions. We investigate the performance of one-stage and two-stage deep object detection methods in detection of said vulnerable users. Since there is a lack of publicly accessible datasets containing objects of our interest from an infrastructure viewpoint, we introduce our own dataset collected from a road side. We highlight the benefits and shortcomings of the studied methods in the context of vulnerable road users detection under challenging conditions such as occlusions.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".