2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) 2021
DOI: 10.1109/iros51168.2021.9636162
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Dataset for Provident Vehicle Detection at Night

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For vehicle detection at night, it is difficult to judge which method is superior to another as the domain has not agreed on a benchmark dataset like the KITTI benchmark for daylight (Geiger et al, 2012), which is also criticized by other authors (Sun et al, 2006, Juric & Loncaric, 2014-authors reported results with around 90 % accuracy and small error rates for both rule-based and NN-based classifiers on their private datasets (e. g., compare the evaluations of Mo et al, 2019 andSatzoda &Trivedi, 2019). Nevertheless, it has to be expected that rule-based methods are superior if computational complexity constraints apply (e. g., see the number of parameters and the number of GFLOPs in Table 2 of Saralajew et al, 2021) and if somebody wants to use the detections for high-stakes decisions (Rudin, 2019). Therefore, as the scope of this work is to apply the detection algorithm in a test vehicle for a driver assistance system, we focus on a rule-based proposal generation algorithm with a shallow NN on top to classify the proposals (whereas the NN is not specific to our approach and can be replaced by any other classification method).…”
Section: Vehicle Detectionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…For vehicle detection at night, it is difficult to judge which method is superior to another as the domain has not agreed on a benchmark dataset like the KITTI benchmark for daylight (Geiger et al, 2012), which is also criticized by other authors (Sun et al, 2006, Juric & Loncaric, 2014-authors reported results with around 90 % accuracy and small error rates for both rule-based and NN-based classifiers on their private datasets (e. g., compare the evaluations of Mo et al, 2019 andSatzoda &Trivedi, 2019). Nevertheless, it has to be expected that rule-based methods are superior if computational complexity constraints apply (e. g., see the number of parameters and the number of GFLOPs in Table 2 of Saralajew et al, 2021) and if somebody wants to use the detections for high-stakes decisions (Rudin, 2019). Therefore, as the scope of this work is to apply the detection algorithm in a test vehicle for a driver assistance system, we focus on a rule-based proposal generation algorithm with a shallow NN on top to classify the proposals (whereas the NN is not specific to our approach and can be replaced by any other classification method).…”
Section: Vehicle Detectionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Whether this result is partly due to the simplicity of their bounding box generation, perhaps causing unexpected biases, is unclear. Saralajew et al, 2021 extended the work of Oldenziel et al, 2020 and published the PVDN dataset, the first containing approximately 60 K driver assistance camera images (grayscale) annotated by keypoints for the task to providently detect oncoming vehicles at nighttime. Together with the dataset published by Bell et al, 2021, these two datasets are the only large-scale datasets publicly available for the detection of vehicles at nighttime and annotated by keypoints-other available datasets for this task use bounding boxes (e. g., Rezaei & Klette, 2017, Duan et al, 2018 or masks (Rapson et al, 2018).…”
Section: Provident Vehicle Detectionmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 3 more Smart Citations