Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36146362›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Comparison of Pedestrian Detectors for LiDAR Sensor Trained on Custom Synthetic, Real and Mixed Datasets.

Paweł Jabłoński, Joanna Iwaniec, Wojciech Zabierowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Paweł JabłońskiDepartment of Robotics and Mechatronics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics, AGH University of Science and Technology, Mickiewicz Alley 30, 30-059 Cracow, Poland.
Joanna IwaniecDepartment of Robotics and Mechatronics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics, AGH University of Science and Technology, Mickiewicz Alley 30, 30-059 Cracow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-2320-1417
Wojciech ZabierowskiDepartment of Microelectronics and Computer Science, Lodz University of Technology, ul. Wólczańska 221, 93-005 Łódź, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6289-6637

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning algorithms for object detection used in autonomous vehicles require a huge amount of labeled data. Data collecting and labeling is time consuming and, most importantly, in most cases useful only for a single specific sensor application. Therefore, in the course of the research which is presented in this paper, the LiDAR pedestrian detection algorithm was trained on synthetically generated data and mixed (real and synthetic) datasets. The road environment was simulated with the application of the 3D rendering Carla engine, while the data for analysis were obtained from the LiDAR sensor model. In the proposed approach, the data generated by the simulator are automatically labeled, reshaped into range images and used as training data for a deep learning algorithm. Real data from Waymo open dataset are used to validate the performance of detectors trained on synthetic, real and mixed datasets. YOLOv4 neural network architecture is used for pedestrian detection from the LiDAR data. The goal of this paper is to verify if the synthetically generated data can improve the detector's performance. Presented results prove that the YOLOv4 model trained on a custom mixed dataset achieved an increase in precision and recall of a few percent, giving an

Indexed as

PedestriansAlgorithmsHumansNeural Networks, ComputerADASartificial dataCarla simulatordeep learningLiDARobject detectionWaymo open datasetYOLOv4

Identifiers

PMID36146362
PMCPMC9504167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.