3D Roadway Scene Object Detection with LiDARs in Snowfall Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because 3D structure of a roadway environment can be characterized directly by a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensors, they can be used to obtain exceptional situational awareness for assitive and autonomous driving systems. Although LiDARs demonstrate good performance in clean and clear weather conditions, their performance significantly deteriorates in adverse weather conditions such as those involving atmospheric precipitation. This may render perception capabilities of autonomous systems that use LiDAR data in learning based models to perform object detection and ranging ineffective. While efforts have been made to enhance the accuracy of these models, the extent of signal degradation under various weather conditions remains largely not quantified. In this study, we focus on the performance of an automotive grade LiDAR in snowy conditions in order to develop a physics-based model that examines failure modes of a LiDAR sensor. Specifically, we investigated how the LiDAR signal attenuates with different snowfall rates and how snow particles near the source serve as small but efficient reflectors. Utilizing our model, we transform data from clear conditions to simulate snowy scenarios, enabling a comparison of our synthetic data with actual snowy conditions. Furthermore, we employ this synthetic data, representative of different snowfall rates, to explore the impact on a pretrained object detection model, assessing its performance under varying levels of snowfall.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".