MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206608377 · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3144407

Autonomous Vehicles Perception (AVP) Using Deep Learning: Modeling, Assessment, and Challenges

2022· article· en· W4206608377 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)PerceptionObject detectionSegmentationArtificial intelligenceTask (project management)Component (thermodynamics)Process (computing)Field (mathematics)Deep learningLidarMachine learningComputer visionHuman–computer interactionSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perception is the fundamental task of any autonomous driving system, which gathers all the necessary information about the surrounding environment of the moving vehicle. The decision-making system takes the perception data as input and makes the optimum decision given that scenario, which maximizes the safety of the passengers. This paper surveyed recent literature on autonomous vehicle perception (AVP) by focusing on two primary tasks: Semantic Segmentation and Object Detection. Both tasks play an important role as a vital component of the vehicle’s navigation system. A comprehensive overview of deep learning for perception and its decision-making process based on images and LiDAR point clouds is discussed. We discussed the sensors, benchmark datasets, and simulation tools widely used in semantic segmentation and object detection tasks, especially for autonomous driving. This paper acts as a road map for current and future research in AVP, focusing on models, assessment, and challenges in the field.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.247 · 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