Optimisation of highway vehicle occlusion recognition based on attention and multitasking approach
Mar 17, 2025
About this article
Published Online: Mar 17, 2025
Received: Oct 18, 2024
Accepted: Feb 12, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0180
Keywords
© 2025 Shifeng Feng, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Comparison of different methods for detecting occluded vehicles
Data set | Model | P/% | R/% | F1/% | MSE | MAE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COCO | Mask R-CNN | 79.33 | 82.29 | 80.81 | 0.04 | 0.06 |
Faster R-CNN | 84.69 | 84.17 | 84.43 | 0.02 | 0.04 | |
YOLOv7 | 89.75 | 88.74 | 89.32 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |
Our method | 93.28 | 92.47 | 92.82 | 0.01 | 0.02 | |
ApolloScape | Mask R-CNN | 84.25 | 86.54 | 85.41 | 0.03 | 0.06 |
Faster R-CNN | 86.69 | 88.15 | 87.36 | 0.03 | 0.05 | |
YOLOv7 | 89.51 | 90.33 | 89.51 | 0.03 | 0.04 | |
Our method | 92.23 | 93.82 | 92.62 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
Comparison of model detection results under different occlusion conditions
Occlusion rate | Method | Color precision/% | Vehicle type precision/% | Detection time/s |
---|---|---|---|---|
20% | Mask R-CNN | 79.08 | 87.22 | 1.04 |
Faster R-CNN | 76.33 | 72.23 | 1.46 | |
YOLOv7 | 82.81 | 73.52 | 1.22 | |
Our method | 91.74 | 93.49 | 0.29 | |
40% | Mask R-CNN | 80.13 | 79.45 | 0.93 |
Faster R-CNN | 75.62 | 86.51 | 0.77 | |
YOLOv7 | 82.77 | 89.52 | 0.61 | |
Our method | 90.06 | 89.06 | 0.44 | |
60% | Mask R-CNN | 80.45 | 80.94 | 0.55 |
Faster R-CNN | 83.92 | 78.25 | 1.94 | |
YOLOv7 | 76.76 | 83.49 | 0.74 | |
Our method | 94.56 | 88.67 | 0.21 | |
80% | Mask R-CNN | 78.77 | 81.47 | 1.28 |
Faster R-CNN | 82.36 | 84.22 | 1.18 | |
YOLOv7 | 84.58 | 87.11 | 1.92 | |
Our method | 92.52 | 88.16 | 0.53 |