Cited by 72Autonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Vision-Based Driver Assistance Systems: Survey, Taxonomy and Advances

Open access
Horgan, Jonathan, Hughes, Ciaran, McDonald, John, Yogamani, Senthil·2015·2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems

Abstract

Vision-based driver assistance systems is one of the rapidly growing research areas of ITS, due to various factors such as the increased level of safety requirements in automotive, computational power in embedded systems, and desire to get closer to autonomous driving. It is a cross disciplinary area encompassing specialised fields like computer vision, machine learning, robotic navigation, embedded systems, automotive electronics and safety critical software. In this paper, we survey the list of vision based advanced driver assistance systems with a consistent terminology and propose a taxonomy. We also propose an abstract model in an attempt to formalize a top-down view of application development to scale towards autonomous driving system.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/itsc.2015.329

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Soiling Detection with ResNet10 achieves a Category (%) of 84.5 on the WoodScape dataset.

    “| Soiling Detection | ResNet10 [20] | Category (%) | 84.5 |”

    From WoodScape: A Multi-Task, Multi-Camera Fisheye Dataset for Autonomous Driving (2019) · cites this paper as [20]

    The paper’s discussion of classification methods (III. Vision Algorithm Building Blocks, p. 4) and its table of established applications (p. 5) do not report a soiling-detection result. Searches for WoodScape, ResNet10, and 84.5 found no passage supporting the attributed dataset, model, or score. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Visual Odometry with ResNet50 achieves a Rotation (<0.1°) score of 71 on the WoodScape dataset.

    “| Visual Odometry | ResNet50 [20] | Translation (<5mm) Rotation (<0.1°) | 51 71 |”

    From WoodScape: A Multi-Task, Multi-Camera Fisheye Dataset for Autonomous Driving (2019) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Motion Estimation section (p. 3) describes tracking and matching image pixels, but reports no visual-odometry benchmark score. Searches for WoodScape, ResNet50, and the stated rotation and translation thresholds found no passage supporting the score of 71. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Visual Odometry with ResNet50 achieves a Translation (<5mm) score of 51 on the WoodScape dataset.

    “| Visual Odometry | ResNet50 [20] | Translation (<5mm) Rotation (<0.1°) | 51 71 |”

    From WoodScape: A Multi-Task, Multi-Camera Fisheye Dataset for Autonomous Driving (2019) · cites this paper as [20]

    The discussion of odometry in 'Towards a generic scalable algorithm framework' (p. 6) concerns its use in segmenting moving objects, not a performance evaluation. Searches for WoodScape, ResNet50, and the claimed translation threshold and score found no passage in our copy reporting that result. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [3][3] A. Chavan and S. K. Yogamani, "Electr. &amp; Comput. Eng, Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX, USA." ITS Telecommunications (ITST), 2012 12th International Conference on. IEEE, 2012. -
  2. [20][20] A. B. Hillel, R. Lerner, D. Levi, G. Raz, 'Recent progress in road and lane detection: a survey', Machine Vision and Applications 25(3):727745, 2014. -
  3. [27][27] P. Del Moral, "Non Linear Filtering: Interacting Particle Solution.". Markov Processes and Related Fields 2 (4):555-580, 1996. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Horgan, J., Hughes, C., McDonald, J., & Yogamani, S.
Affiliations
Valeo (Ireland) (IE)
Venue
2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2015-09
Pages
2032-2039
OpenAlex
W1904301353
Cited by
72
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4
FWCI
5.17
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
driver assistance systems, taxonomy (general classification scheme), autonomous driving, safety-critical software, embedded systems, robot navigation, intelligent transportation systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review