MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415158464 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0333928

Improving object detection in challenging weather for autonomous driving via adversarial image translation

2025· article· en· W4415158464 on OpenAlexaff
Kunyi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject detectionRobustness (evolution)Adversarial systemAdverse weatherReliability (semiconductor)Object (grammar)Image translationSAFERPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vision-based environmental perception is fundamental to autonomous driving, as it enables reliable detection and recognition of diverse objects in complex traffic environments. However, adverse weather conditions (such as rain, fog, and low-light conditions) significantly degrade image quality, thereby undermining the reliability of object detection algorithms. To address this challenge, we propose a two-stage framework designed to enhance object detection under adverse conditions. In the first stage, we design a lightweight Pix2Pix-based generative adversarial network (LP-GAN) that translates adverse-weather images into clear-weather counterparts, thereby alleviating visual degradation. In the second stage, the translated images are processed by a state-of-the-art object detector (YOLOv8) to enhance robustness and accuracy. Extensive experiments on the CARLA simulator demonstrate that the proposed framework substantially improves detection performance across diverse adverse conditions. Furthermore, the generated clear-weather images provide faithful and interpretable visual representations, which can facilitate human understanding and decision-making in autonomous driving. Overall, the proposed framework offers a practical and effective solution for weather-robust object detection, thereby contributing to safer and more reliable autonomous driving.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicImage Enhancement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207