MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How to deal with glare for improved perception of Autonomous Vehicles

2024· preprint· en· W4396665516 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Zeshan Alam, Zeeshan Kaleem, Sousso Kélouwani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGLAREPerceptionComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceTransport engineeringBusinessPsychologyEngineeringNeuroscienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vision sensors are versatile and can capture a wide range of visual cues, such as color, texture, shape, and depth. This versatility, along with the relatively inexpensive availability of machine vision cameras, played an important role in adopting vision-based environment perception systems in autonomous vehicles (AVs). However, vision-based perception systems can be easily affected by glare in the presence of a bright source of light, such as the sun or the headlights of the oncoming vehicle at night or simply by light reflecting off snow or ice-covered surfaces; scenarios encountered frequently during driving. In this paper, we investigate various glare reduction techniques, including the proposed saturated pixel-aware glare reduction technique for improved performance of the computer vision (CV) tasks employed by the perception layer of AVs. We evaluate these glare reduction methods based on various performance metrics of the CV algorithms used by the perception layer. Specifically, we considered object detection, object recognition, object tracking, depth estimation, and lane detection which are crucial for autonomous driving. The experimental findings validate the efficacy of the proposed glare reduction approach, showcasing enhanced performance across diverse perception tasks and remarkable resilience against varying levels of glare.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207