Comparative Analysis of mmWave Radar-based Object Detection in Autonomous Vehicles
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Millimeter-wave radar technology is gaining popularity as a perception sensor in autonomous vehicles. This is due to its ability to detect nearby objects in adverse weather conditions, such as rain, snow, or fog, as well as its cost-effectiveness. In this paper, we explore the impact of different backbones and object detector heads on the performance of radar-based object detection algorithms. More specifically, we employ the RADDet dataset and its object detection algorithm which provides the entire Range-Azimuth-Doppler spectrum and incorporates an automatic annotation approach. We examine different backbones and object detector heads to identify optimal model combinations for autonomous driving applications. Our results show that using a YOLOv4 head integrated with a modified ResNet backbone leads to the highest mean average precision, reaching 66.3% with an intersection over union (IoU) of 0.1, and 43.6% with an IoU of 0.3. This observation will help to advance radar-based object detection, thereby enhancing safety and reliability in diverse environmental conditions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 it