2015 SAI Intelligent Systems Conference (IntelliSys) 2015
DOI: 10.1109/intellisys.2015.7361224
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A vision based system for traffic lights recognition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the recognition phase, most work employs machine learning algorithms such as Neural Networks or Support Vector Machines (SVM). [21], [14], [29], [30], [15], [8], [13], [31], [32], [33] employ SVMs as the main technique to recognize the semaphore. A non machine learning approach to recognition can be seen in the works of [11] and [34], where Fuzzy Logic has been successfully applied.…”
Section: Current Approaches For Smart Tlr Devicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the recognition phase, most work employs machine learning algorithms such as Neural Networks or Support Vector Machines (SVM). [21], [14], [29], [30], [15], [8], [13], [31], [32], [33] employ SVMs as the main technique to recognize the semaphore. A non machine learning approach to recognition can be seen in the works of [11] and [34], where Fuzzy Logic has been successfully applied.…”
Section: Current Approaches For Smart Tlr Devicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [27], the authors used a CNN whereas in [3,14] the authors used a PCAnetwork, an NN that simulates a CNN using less layers. SVMs were used by [2,7,[12][13][14][28][29][30][31][32] to recognize traffic lights, sometimes along with a NN. Fuzzy systems were also used in [10,33].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The lowest precision rate was achieved by Template Matching, while all the other approaches have obtained above an 80% precision rate, including Template Matching in other tests in the same paper where the worst result was accounted. Color or Shape Segmentation/HOG/SVM --89.90 [30] Color or Shape Segmentation/SVM 86.20 95.50 - [21] Gaussian Distribution --80.00-85.00 [16] Geometric Transforms --56.00-93.00 [34] Color or Shape Segmentation/Histograms --97.50 [7] PCAnet/SVM --97.50 [6] CNN/Saliency Map --96.25 [24] Color or Shape Segmentation --92.00-96.00 [19] Geometric Transforms 87.32 84.93 - [17] Geometric Transforms --70.00 [25] Color or Shape Segmentation/Threshold --88.00-96.00 [35] Color or Shape Segmentation/Histograms --50.00-83.33 [32] Color or Shape Segmentation/SVM 98.96 99.18 - [20] Template Matching 98.00 97.00 - [43] Hidden Markov Models --90.55 [38] Template Matching --90.50 [22] Top Hat --97.00 [39] Template Matching --69.23 [36] Histograms --91.00 [41] Probability Histograms --94.00 [18] Geometric Transforms/Histograms --89.00 [40] Template Matching 98.41 95.38 - [44] Template Matching 44.00-63.00 75.00-94.00 -Data used in the related works are not always made available by the authors, and, when available, only a few are complete, i.e., contains separate traffic light images and whole traffic scene images. In Table 2, the Type column refers to what kind of traffic light the dataset contains, the Traffic light samples column shows how many images containing only a traffic light exists, these images are very useful to train Machine Learning algorithms and are obtained from whole frames containing traffic scenes.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%