MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing Lidar-Based Object Detection in Adverse Weather Using Offset Sequences in Time

2023· article· en· W4391095614 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raphael van Kempen, Tim Rehbronn, Abin Jose, Johannes Stegmaier, Bastian Lampe, Timo Woopen, Lutz Eckstein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarComputer scienceObject detectionPreprocessorLeverage (statistics)Offset (computer science)Adverse weatherArtificial intelligencePoint cloudRobustness (evolution)Computer visionRemote sensingData pre-processingPattern recognition (psychology)GeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated vehicles require an accurate perception of their surroundings for safe and efficient driving. Lidar-based object detection is a widely used method for environment perception, but its performance is significantly affected by adverse weather conditions such as rain and fog. In this work, we investi-gate various strategies for enhancing the robustness of lidar-based object detection by processing sequential data samples generated by lidar sensors. Our approaches leverage temporal information to improve a lidar object detection model, without the need for additional filtering or preprocessing steps. We compare 10 different neural network architectures that process point cloud sequences including a novel augmentation strategy introducing a temporal offset between frames of a sequence during training and evaluate the effectiveness of all strategies on lidar point clouds under adverse weather conditions through experiments. Our research provides a comprehensive study of effective methods for mitigating the effects of adverse weather on the reliability of lidar-based object detection using sequential data that are evaluated using public datasets such as nuScenes, Dense, and the Canadian Adverse Driving Conditions Dataset. Our findings demonstrate that our novel method, involving temporal offset augmentation through randomized frame skipping in sequences, enhances object detection accuracy compared to both the baseline model (Pillar-based Object Detection) and no augmentation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207