Adaptive Feature Fusion for Cooperative Perception using LiDAR Point Clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative perception allows a Connected Autonomous Vehicle (CAV) to interact with the other CAVs in the vicinity to enhance perception of surrounding objects to increase safety and reliability. It can compensate for the limitations of the conventional vehicular perception such as blind spots, low resolution, and weather effects. An effective feature fusion model for the intermediate fusion methods of cooperative perception can improve feature selection and information aggregation to further enhance the perception accuracy. We propose adaptive feature fusion models with trainable feature selection modules. One of our proposed models Spatial-wise Adaptive feature Fusion (S-AdaFusion) outperforms all other State-of-the-Arts (SO-TAs) on two subsets of the OPV2V dataset: Default CARLA Towns for vehicle detection and the Culver City for domain adaptation. In addition, previous studies have only tested cooperative perception for vehicle detection. A pedestrian, however, is much more likely to be seriously injured in a traffic accident. We evaluate the performance of cooperative perception for both vehicle and pedestrian detection using the CODD dataset. Our architecture achieves higher Average Precision (AP) than other existing models for both vehicle and pedestrian detection on the CODD dataset. The experiments demonstrate that cooperative perception also improves the pedestrian detection accuracy compared to the conventional single vehicle perception process.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".