How to deal with glare for improved perception of Autonomous Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".