Driving in the Rain: Evaluating How Surface Material Properties Affect LiDAR Perception in Autonomous Driving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) is a promising type of sensor for autonomous driving that utilizes laser technology to provide perceptions and accurate distance measurements of obstacles in the vehicle path. In recent years, there has also been a rise in the implementation of LiDARs in modern and autonomous vehicles to aid self-driving features. However, navigating adverse weather remains one of the biggest challenges in achieving Level 5 full autonomy due to sensor soiling, leading to performance degradation that can pose safety hazards. When driving in rain, raindrops impact the LiDAR sensor assembly and cause attenuation of signals when the light beams undergo reflections and refractions. Consequently, signal detectability, accuracy, and intensity are significantly affected. To date, limited studies have been able to perform objective evaluations of LiDAR performance, most of which faced limitations that hindered realistic, controllable, and repeatable testing. Therefore, this paper reports a fundamental study that employs a previously developed novel wind tunnel testing methodology to investigate and quantify the effects of stress factors affecting LiDAR perception. It was found that soiling characteristics, such as raindrop size distribution and droplet impact kinematics, and material properties, such as surface roughness and wettability, all play critical roles in influencing LiDAR performance to different extents. The results suggest that although LiDAR is an optical type of sensor, its perception does not necessarily align with camera vision, which is closer to human perception. Specifically, hydrophilic surfaces show better advantages over hydrophobic surfaces for LiDAR sensor applications when driving in rain. The overall relationships between material properties, adherent raindrop dynamics, and LiDAR perceptions are summarized.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".