DEEP LEARNING FOR OBJECT DETECTION USING RADAR DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Recently, Deep learning algorithms are becoming increasingly instrumental in autonomous driving by identifying and acknowledging road entities to ensure secure navigation and decision-making. Autonomous car datasets play a vital role in developing and evaluating perception systems. Nevertheless, the majority of current datasets are acquired using Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and camera sensors. Utilizing deep neural networks yields remarkable outcomes in object recognition, especially when applied to analyze data from cameras and LiDAR sensors which perform poorly under adverse weather conditions such as rain, fog, and snow due to the sensor wavelengths. This paper aims to evaluate the ability to use RADAR dataset for detecting objects in adverse weather conditions, when LiDAR and Cameras may fail to be effective. This paper presents two experiments for object detection using Faster-RCNN architecture with Resnet-50 backbone and COCO evaluation metrics. Experiment 1 is object detection over only one class, while Experiment 2 is object detection over eight classes. The results show that as expected the average precision (AP) of detecting one class is (47.2) which is better than the results from detecting eight classes (27.4). Comparing my results from experiment 1 to the literature results which achieved an overall AP (45.77), my result was slightly better in accuracy than the literature mainly due to hyper-parameters optimization. The outcomes of object detection and recognition based on RADAR indicate the potential effectiveness of RADAR data in automotive applications particularly in adverse weather conditions, where vision and LiDAR may encounter limitations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".