Cited by 20Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyHuman Pose and Action Recognition

A Comparative Analysis of Decision-Level Fusion for Multimodal Driver Behaviour Understanding

Open access
Roitberg, Alina, Peng, Kunyu, Marinov, Zdravko, Seibold, Constantin, Schneider, David, Stiefelhagen, Rainer·2022·2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV)

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1109/iv51971.2022.9827426

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”

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)
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
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