Acceso abierto

A Review of Lane Detection Based on Semantic Segmentation

 y    | 22 feb 2021

Cite

Figure 1.

SCNN_D module
SCNN_D module

Figure 2.

LaneNet network framework
LaneNet network framework

Figure 3.

DCNN+DRNN network framework
DCNN+DRNN network framework

Comparison of image semantic segmentation networks

Mothods Features Advantages Disadvantages
FCN[14] Proposes novel end-to-end networkarchitecture ; Encoder-decoderarchitec-ture ; Fully connected output classification. Images of any size can be split. The large number of parameters and the pooling opera-tion caused a loss of spatial information in the images and a low accuracy rate.
SegNet[15] Symmetrical Encoder-Decoder architecture ; up-sampling to recover im-age size at the decoding stage using unpool-ing; full convolutional layer output classification. The small number of parameters compared to FCN maintains the integrity of the HF information. The computational effort is too large to meet the real-time requirements of lane detection. The up-sampling operation also loses adjacent informa-tion.
Unet[16] Symmetrical structure; co-nnects each stage to the encoder feature map with the upsampled feature map of the decoder. Can be trained end-to-end from very small data sets; fast. More suitable for segmentation of medical images
ENet[17] Consisting of Bottleneck mod-ules; with a large encoder-small decoder st-ructure. Greatly reduces the nu-mber of parameters and floating point operations, takes up less memory and has high real time performance. Increases the number of calls to the kernel function; not very precise and unstable results.
PSPNet[18] Improving ResNet structures using null conv-olution ; A pyramid pooling module has been ad-ded. The segmentation acc-uracy exceeds that of models such as FCN, DPN and CRF-RNN. Obscured situations between targets are not handled well and the edges are not seg-mented accurately enough.
ERFNet[19] ENet network improve-ments; the adoption of factorized convolutions; Non-bottleneck is more accurate to bottleneck. High calculation volume compared to Enet.
DeepLab V3+[20] Uses a modified version of Xception as the base network; uses atrous[19] convolutional kernels. More accurate segmentation of target edges; considers global information, eliminates noise interference and imp-roves segmentation accuracy. The model does not run at a high speed and has a high storage space requi-rement.
FPN[21] Combining FCN and Mask R-CNN[13] using rich multi-scale features. Semantic segmentation and instance segmentation tasks can be solved simultaneously. Increased inference time; larger memory footprint; use of image pyramids only in the testing phase.

Comparison of detection speed of various network models

Methods Time(ms) fps
SCNN 42 23.8
LaneNet 19 52.6
DCNN+DRNN 58 17.2

Accuracy comparison of lane line detection in different scenes of CULane

Methods Normal Crowded Night NoLine Shadow Arrow DazzleLight Curve Crossroad Total
SCNN 0.906 0.696 0.661 0.434 0.669 0.841 0.585 0.644 0.532 0.716
LaneNet 0.921 0.708 0.714 0.563 0.697 0.850 0.635 0.746 0.591 0.742
DCNN+DRNN 0.984 0.652 0.797 0.724 0.840 0.852 0.774 0.731 0.787 0.782
eISSN:
2470-8038
Idioma:
Inglés
Calendario de la edición:
4 veces al año
Temas de la revista:
Computer Sciences, other