A Comparative Analysis of Decision-Level Fusion for Multimodal Driver Behaviour Understanding
Open accessAbstract
Visual recognition inside the vehicle cabin leads to safer driving and more intuitive human-vehicle interaction but such systems face substantial obstacles as they need to capture different granularities of driver behaviour while dealing with highly limited body visibility and changing illumination. Multimodal recognition mitigates a number of such issues: prediction outcomes of different sensors complement each other due to different modality-specific strengths and weaknesses. While several late fusion methods have been considered in previously published frameworks, they constantly feature different architecture backbones and building blocks making it very hard to isolate the role of the chosen late fusion strategy itself.This paper presents an empirical evaluation of different paradigms for decision-level late fusion in video-based driver observation. We compare seven different mechanisms for joining the results of single-modal classifiers which have been both popular, (e.g. score averaging) and not yet considered (e.g. rank-level fusion) in the context of driver observation evaluating them based on different criteria and benchmark settings. This is the first systematic study of strategies for fusing outcomes of multimodal predictors inside the vehicles, conducted with the goal to provide guidance for fusion scheme selection.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Attention-based fusion aligns key features and dynamically assigns weights between modalities for deeper semantic capture.
“Attention-based fusion [49,50,51] aligns key features and dynamically assigns weights between modalities for deeper semantic capture.”
From Multimodal fusion and vision–language models: A survey for robot vision (2026) · cites this paper as [50]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 20
- Authors
- Roitberg, A., Peng, K., Marinov, Z., Seibold, C., Schneider, D., & Stiefelhagen, R.
- Affiliations
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
- ORCID
- Venue
- 2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2022-06-05
- Pages
- 1438-1444
- ISSN
- 1931-0587 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4285813080
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 7.23
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Ministry of Economic Affairs
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Human Pose and Action Recognition
- Keywords
- decision fusion, in-vehicle video, rank-level fusion, human-vehicle interaction
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