Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 29 references

Multi-Agent Visual-Language Reasoning for Comprehensive Highway Scene Understanding

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a large VLM (GPT-4o) writing task-specific chain-of-thought prompts for a smaller video-language model (Qwen2.5-VL-7B) yields zero-shot multi-task highway scene understanding—weather, pavement wetness, and congestion—

desk verdict A plausible prompt-engineering recipe for turning CCTV into road sensors, but the evaluation is too thin and the CoT gains are not robust enough to support the paper's headline claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17205 v1 pith:H4P2SGPK submitted 2025-08-24 cs.CV cs.AIcs.CLeess.IV

Yunxiang Yang , Ningning Xu , Jidong J. Yang This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.CLeess.IV
keywords vision-languagemodelschain-of-thoughtpromptingmulti-agentreasoningpavementwetnessassessmenttrafficcongestiondetectionroadweatherclassificationmultimodalzero-shot
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that comprehensive highway scene understanding—road weather, pavement wetness, and traffic congestion—can be done zero-shot by a two-agent vision-language framework. A large model (GPT-4o), given domain knowledge and optional road-sensor data, writes fine-grained chain-of-thought prompts; a small model (Qwen2.5-VL-7B) executes those prompts on 4-7 second traffic videos. The claim is that this prompt-writing division of labor lifts accuracy well above single-pass simple prompts without any task-specific fine-tuning, offering a cheap, scalable way to monitor existing traffic cameras, including at rural high-risk sites. The largest gains are on flooded pavement (0 to 57.89 percent), snowy partially wet pavement (20 to 100 percent), congested traffic (40 to 100 percent inbound), and snowy/icy multimodal classes (both to 100 percent). Two video-only snowy categories regress under the CoT prompt (fully wet 55.56 to 0 percent, icy warning 76.19 to 14.29 percent), a tension the paper attributes to ambiguous visual cues and over-reliance on them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-agent prompt pipeline plus hand-coded decision rules. Agent 1 (GPT-4o), given domain definitions and, where applicable, sensor data, emits a detailed chain-of-thought prompt per task. Agent 2 (Qwen2.5-VL-7B) executes that prompt over short video clips. Embedded in the prompts are explicit rules: an 80-percent-of-vehicles-with-spray threshold to separate fully wet from partially wet; a safety directive that when uncertain between fully wet and flooded the model must always choose flooded; and for congestion a two-variable gating logic (visual_pressure in strong/moderate/weak combined with a Boolean flow_slow flag) that prevents over-reliance on flow-speed es

What would settle it

Run the published CoT prompts unchanged on a new set of traffic videos collected from cameras, seasons, and weather stations not seen during prompt design; if accuracy on snowy, flooded, and congested classes falls to or below the simple-prompt baseline, the central claim of robust zero-shot generalization fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that task-specific CoT prompts generated by a domain-contextualized large VLM, rather than fixed generic prompts, unlock the reasoning of a small video-language model across three perception tasks. The prompt generation uses definitions of visual cues for each class and, for snow-related wetness, station data (temperature, humidity, dew point). The strongest evidence is the accuracy jumps: rainy flooded from 0 to 57.89 percent, snowy partially wet from 20 to 100 percent, inbound congested from 40 to 100 percent, and both snowy multimodal classes from roughly 10-14 percent to 100 percent. The paper also documents two failures of the CoT approach on v

Load-bearing premise

The framework's gains depend on the hand-written rules and generated prompts transferring from the specific curated videos that inspired them to unseen cameras, weather, and sensor configurations; the paper does not report a held-out temporal or geographic split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the method is zero-shot and needs no task-specific fine-tuning, it can be pointed at existing traffic-camera feeds and begin classifying weather, wetness, and congestion immediately.
  • Running inference on the small 7B model while GPT-4o only generates prompts keeps per-video compute low enough for resource-constrained and rural deployments.
  • Multimodal fusion with nearby road-weather station data is what lifts snowy fully wet and icy-warning classes to 100 percent, so the practical benefit depends on station coverage being available near the cameras.
  • The built-in safety bias toward flooded scenes makes the system conservative when hazards are ambiguous, at the cost of potential false alarms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The hand-set thresholds and rules—80 percent spray, always-choose-flooded, and the visual_pressure/flow_slow logic—are anchored to the curated video population; a natural stress test is whether they calibrate across cameras with different resolution, angle, and scene depth, where spray visibility and congested cues change.
  • The video-only regressions on snowy fully wet and icy-warning classes suggest the CoT prompts are effectively tuned for multimodal inputs; a testable extension is adaptive prompts that fall back to coarser visual reasoning when sensor data is absent.
  • Because all evaluations come from the same video population that inspired the prompt rules, the claimed zero-shot transfer to new locations, seasons, and sensor configurations remains an untested extrapolation; a held-out temporal or geographic split would settle it.
  • The two-agent setup could in principle be collapsed into one small model by distilling the generated CoT rules into weights, removing the runtime dependency on GPT-4o; the paper mentions distillation as future work, so this is an inference about its likely trajectory.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-agent framework for highway scene understanding. Agent 1 (GPT-4o) is given domain-knowledge prompts and generates task-specific chain-of-thought (CoT) prompts; Agent 2 (Qwen2.5-VL-7B) performs inference on short video clips, optionally with road weather sensor data, to classify weather, pavement wetness, and congestion. The authors curate three datasets from public traffic cameras in Georgia, Virginia, and California, including a multimodal pavement-wetness set, and report accuracy comparisons between simple prompts and their CoT prompts. The stated contribution is a zero-shot, multi-task, deployable system that improves accuracy and reasoning over a small VLM without fine-tuning.

Significance. If the reported gains generalize, the framework would be a practical contribution: it leverages a large proprietary VLM only for offline prompt generation, keeps runtime inference on a small open VLM, and addresses multiple tasks relevant to highway safety. The multimodal pavement-wetness dataset and the emphasis on domain-grounded prompt design are useful assets. However, the paper's own results undercut the headline claim of 'consistently strong performance' and 'substantial gains.' The evaluation is on small per-class samples with no confidence intervals, no held-out temporal/geographic split, and no comparison to existing task-specific methods. The central claim therefore requires substantial additional evidence before the framework can be considered a reliable zero-shot solution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 8, Section 4.4] The results contradict the paper's central claim of consistent gains. For video-only input, the CoT prompt reduces accuracy on 'Snowy fully wet' from 55.56% to 0.00% and on 'Snowy wet with icy warning' from 76.19% to 14.29%, with per-class n=9 and n=21 (Table 4). These are shifts of 5 and 13 videos, not statistically meaningful without error bars. Moreover, Table 8 lists 'Multimodal Snowy fully wet' with n=10 but Table 4 reports only 9 videos in that class; the mismatch needs reconciliation. The conclusion in Section 5 ('significantly improved reasoning performance and substantial gains') is not supported by the full table.
  2. [Section 3.1, Section 2] The CoT prompts and decision rules are hand-crafted and refined on the same curated datasets used for evaluation. The 80% vehicle-spray threshold, the 'If uncertain between fully wet and flooded, always choose flooded' directive, and the visual_pressure/flow_slow gating logic are manually designed with domain knowledge and are not evaluated for sensitivity. Since no held-out temporal or geographic split is reported, the gains may reflect prompt overfitting to the specific cameras and clips in Tables 3-5. A deployment-ready zero-shot system requires evaluation on unseen cameras, periods, or sensor configurations, or at least a sensitivity analysis of these hand-set parameters.
  3. [Section 3, Figures 6-8] The framework's core mechanism is Agent 1 (GPT-4o) generating task-specific CoT prompts, but the manuscript does not report the reproducibility of this generation: no temperature settings, number of runs, variance across API calls, or raw outputs are provided. It is therefore unclear whether the observed improvements come from Agent 1's generated reasoning chains or from the manually inserted rules and thresholds described in Section 3.1. An ablation distinguishing automatically generated prompt components from hand-set heuristics, plus a stability analysis over repeated Agent 1 calls, is needed to substantiate the 'multi-agent' contribution.
  4. [Tables 6-8, Section 4] All accuracy comparisons are point estimates without confidence intervals or significance tests. Per-class samples range from 5 to 73 videos (Tables 3-5); for example, 'Snowy partially wet' has n=5, so 20% vs. 100% is a difference of four videos. A binomial confidence interval would show these results are consistent with chance. Additionally, the paper compares only simple vs. CoT prompts within one VLM; it does not compare against existing task-specific methods (e.g., CNNs for weather/wetness, CNN-LSTM for congestion) or other VLMs. The claim of 'comprehensive highway scene understanding' would be better supported by such baselines.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Grammar: 'domain knowledge to generates' should be 'to generate'.
  2. [Section 3] Model name is inconsistently capitalized: 'QWEN 2.5-VL-7B' in Section 3 vs. 'Qwen2.5-VL' elsewhere. Please standardize.
  3. [Table 6] The delta symbols (e.g., '�3.03') appear garbled; use proper plus/minus notation.
  4. [Section 4.4] The paper states 'prompt tuning [5] is also applied' but does not describe the tuning procedure; the cited reference is about a different prompt-tuning paradigm. Clarify whether this is manual prompt engineering.
  5. [Section 2] Dataset sources are described only as 'publicly accessible traffic video data.' Please provide exact camera locations, collection dates, and frame-extraction parameters to support reproducibility.
  6. [Section 5] The claim of 'balancing accuracy and computational efficiency' is not quantified: no inference time, API cost, or throughput measurements are reported for either agent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline CoT gains are partly built into the prompt: an 80% spray threshold and an 'always choose flooded' directive are hand-set to improve accuracy on the same curated videos later used for evaluation, so reported gains reduce in part to in-sample prompt fitting.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (CoT prompts) and Table 8]
    "To improve classification accuracy for pavement wetness levels, We introduce a threshold for identifying "fully wet" surface condition, which is defined as over 80% of vehicles per frame consistently have water sprays, mist or strong reflections... We prioritize the "flooded" condition whenever clear visual cues are present (see Figure 7) and explicitly instruct the model: "If uncertain between fully wet and flooded, always choose flooded to reflect the potential real-world hazard.""

    The 80% spray threshold and 'always choose flooded' directive are hand-set rules inserted into the prompt specifically 'to improve classification accuracy'. The same curated videos are then used as the evaluation set (Table 8: Rainy flooded 0%->57.89%; Snowy fully wet multimodal 10%->100%). Because the prompt encodes the operational definition of the target classes and forces a default choice on uncertainty, the reported gains are partly guaranteed by construction: accuracy measures adherence to a rule fitted to the test population, not independent zero-shot prediction. No held-out temporal/geographic split is reported, so the central claim is not validated independently of the prompt-fitting.

full rationale

This paper contains no mathematical derivation chain; its claims are empirical. The only self-citation (Ref. [14], by a co-author) appears in related work and is not load-bearing, so the circularity score is driven by evaluation fit rather than citation chains. The strongest circular step is the hand-set 80% 'fully wet' threshold and the 'always choose flooded' safety directive in Section 3.1. These rules were explicitly introduced to improve accuracy, and the same curated videos used to motivate them are later used in Table 8 as evidence of 'significantly improved reasoning performance.' The CoT prompt thereby recapitulates the labeling rubric, making part of the reported improvement an artifact of prompt design rather than an independent test of generalization. The congestion gating logic (visual_pressure/flow_slow) is a similar hand-crafted rule, though the paper does not explicitly say it was tuned to accuracy. Because no held-out split or significance testing is reported, and several per-class sample sizes are tiny (Snowy partially wet n=5, Snowy fully wet n=9, Rainy flooded n=18), the headline zero-shot claim is not independently established. This is partial, not total, circularity: the framework could still work on new cameras, but the current evaluation does not demonstrate that.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central mechanism rests on hand-set prompt thresholds and on assumptions that the curated videos, station data, and labels are representative; these are the entries the framework draws on beyond standard machine learning practice.

free parameters (4)
  • fully_wet_threshold = >80% of vehicles per frame
    Hand-set in Section 3.1 to separate partially wet from fully wet pavement.
  • visual_pressure_levels = strong, moderate, weak
    Ad hoc congestion pressure categories defined in Section 3.1; no data-driven calibration.
  • flow_slow_flag = true/false
    Boolean evidence of flow disruption in Section 3.1; threshold for 'evidence' is unspecified.
  • flood_safety_bias = always choose flooded if uncertain
    In Section 3.1, instructed the model to prefer the flooded class, inflating flooded recall.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Short 4-7 second videos contain enough visual information to classify weather, wetness, and congestion
    Section 2 and 4.4 note the short clips and low resolution as challenges, yet the method relies on this sufficiency.
  • domain assumption The nearest road-weather station data is spatially and temporally aligned with the video scene
    Section 2 pairs videos with 'nearest' stations, but no distance threshold or timestamp check is given.
  • domain assumption Manual labels in the curated datasets are accurate and consistent
    Table 1 and 2 define categories with visual cues, but no annotation protocol, inter-rater agreement, or validation against ground truth sensors is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper The GPT-4o generated CoT prompts are stable across runs and suitable for the small VLM
    GPT-4o is used as the prompt generator, but no sampling temperature, repeatability, or failure analysis is described.
invented entities (2)
  • visual_pressure
    purpose: A latent variable in the congestion CoT prompt that rates scene occupancy on a three-level scale
    No operational definition of the levels or evidence that they correspond to measurable traffic parameters.
  • flow_slow
    purpose: A boolean latent flag for flow disruption in the congestion CoT prompt
    The paper does not specify what evidence sets this flag, so it acts as an invented decision rule.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Agent Visual-Language Reasoning for Comprehensive Highway Scene Understanding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H4P2SGPK

@misc{pith2026250817205,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Agent Visual-Language Reasoning for Comprehensive Highway Scene Understanding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H4P2SGPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17205}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a multi-agent framework for comprehensive highway scene understanding, designed around a mixture-of-experts strategy. In this framework, a large generic vision-language model (VLM), such as GPT-4o, is contextualized with domain knowledge to generates task-specific chain-of-thought (CoT) prompts. These fine-grained prompts are then used to guide a smaller, efficient VLM (e.g., Qwen2.5-VL-7B) in reasoning over short videos, along with complementary modalities as applicable. The framework simultaneously addresses multiple critical perception tasks, including weather classification, pavement wetness assessment, and traffic congestion detection, achieving robust multi-task reasoning while balancing accuracy and computational efficiency. To support empirical validation, we curated three specialized datasets aligned with these tasks. Notably, the pavement wetness dataset is multimodal, combining video streams with road weather sensor data, highlighting the benefits of multimodal reasoning. Experimental results demonstrate consistently strong performance across diverse traffic and environmental conditions. From a deployment perspective, the framework can be readily integrated with existing traffic camera systems and strategically applied to high-risk rural locations, such as sharp curves, flood-prone lowlands, or icy bridges. By continuously monitoring the targeted sites, the system enhances situational awareness and delivers timely alerts, even in resource-constrained environments.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Evaluating multimodal vision-language model prompting strategies for visual question answering in road scene understanding

    Aryan Keskar, Srinivasa Perisetla, and Ross Greer. Evaluating multimodal vision-language model prompting strategies for visual question answering in road scene understanding. In 2025 WACV Large Language Vision Models Challenge for Autonomous Driving (LLVM-AD). Computer Vision Foundation, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Nuplanqa: A large-scale dataset and benchmark for multi-view driving scene understanding in multi-modal large language models

    Sung-Yeon Park, Can Cui, Yunsheng Ma, Ahmadreza Moradipari, Rohit Gupta, Kyungtae Han, and Ziran Wang. Nuplanqa: A large-scale dataset and benchmark for multi-view driving scene understanding in multi-modal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12772, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Delving into multi-modal multi-task foundation models for road scene understanding: From learning paradigm perspectives

    Sheng Luo, Wei Chen, Wanxin Tian, Rui Liu, Luanxuan Hou, Xiubao Zhang, Haifeng Shen, Ruiqi Wu, Shuyi Geng, Yi Zhou, Ling Shao, Yi Yang, Bojun Gao, Qun Li, and Guobin Wu. Delving into multi-modal multi-task foundation models for road scene understanding: From learning paradigm perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2024. Accepted, pre-pub...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Chain-of- thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of- thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 35, pages 24824–24837, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Prompt tuning for generative multimodal pretrained models, 2022

    Huxin Yang, Ji Lin, Aojun Yang, Peihao Wang, Chong Zhou, and Huacheng Yang. Prompt tuning for generative multimodal pretrained models, 2022. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02532

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Application of vision-language model to pedestrians behavior and scene understanding in autonomous driving

    Haoxiang Gao and Yu Zhao. Application of vision-language model to pedestrians behavior and scene understanding in autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06680, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    When language and vision meet road safety: leveraging multimodal large language models for video-based traffic accident analysis

    Ruixuan Zhang, Beichen Wang, Juexiao Zhang, Zilin Bian, Chen Feng, and Kaan Ozbay. When language and vision meet road safety: Leveraging multimodal large language models for video-based traffic accident analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10604, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    The origins of computer weather prediction and climate modeling

    Peter Lynch. The origins of computer weather prediction and climate modeling. Journal of computational physics, 227(7):3431–3444, 2008

    work page 2008

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Coupling ensemble kalman filter with four-dimensional variational data assimilation

    Fuqing Zhang, Meng Zhang, and James A Hansen. Coupling ensemble kalman filter with four-dimensional variational data assimilation. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 26:1–8, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    Representing equilibrium and nonequilibrium convection in large-scale models

    Peter Bechtold, Noureddine Semane, Philippe Lopez, Jean-Pierre Chaboureau, Anton Beljaars, and Niels Bormann. Representing equilibrium and nonequilibrium convection in large-scale models. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 71(2):734–753, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    The growing impact of satellite observations sensitive to humidity, cloud and precipitation

    AJ Geer, F Baordo, N Bormann, P Chambon, SJ English, M Kazumori, H Lawrence, P Lean, K Lonitz, and C Lupu. The growing impact of satellite observations sensitive to humidity, cloud and precipitation. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 143(709):3189–3206, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction

    Peter Bauer, Alan Thorpe, and Gilbert Brunet. The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction. Nature, 525(7567):47–55, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Weather recognition based on edge deterioration and convolutional neural networks

    Yuzhou Shi, Yuanxiang Li, Jiawei Liu, Xingang Liu, and Yi Lu Murphey. Weather recognition based on edge deterioration and convolutional neural networks. In 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 2438–2443. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    H. Zhen, Y . Shi, J. Yang, and J. M. Vehni. Co-supervised learning paradigm with conditional generative adversarial networks for sample-efficient classification. Applied Computing and Intelligence, 3(1):13–26, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Hourly day-ahead solar irradiance prediction using weather forecasts by lstm

    Xiangyun Qing and Yugang Niu. Hourly day-ahead solar irradiance prediction using weather forecasts by lstm. Energy, 148:461–468, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Modeling cloud reflectance fields using conditional generative adversarial networks

    Victor Schmidt, Mustafa Alghali, Kris Sankaran, Tianle Yuan, and Yoshua Bengio. Modeling cloud reflectance fields using conditional generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07579, 2020

    2002 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Climatebert: A pretrained language model for climate-related text

    Nicolas Webersinke, Mathias Kraus, Julia Anna Bingler, and Markus Leippold. Climatebert: A pretrained language model for climate-related text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.12010, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Climategpt: Towards ai synthesizing interdisciplinary research on climate change

    David Thulke, Yingbo Gao, Petrus Pelser, Rein Brune, Rricha Jalota, Floris Fok, Michael Ramos, Ian van Wyk, Abdallah Nasir, Hayden Goldstein, et al. Climategpt: Towards ai synthesizing interdisciplinary research on climate change. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09646, 2024. 15 Mult...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Weather and surface condition detection based on road-side webcams: Application of pre-trained convolutional neural network

    Md Nasim Khan and Mohamed M Ahmed. Weather and surface condition detection based on road-side webcams: Application of pre-trained convolutional neural network. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 11:468–483, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Deep learning based infrared thermal image analysis of complex pavement defect conditions considering seasonal effect

    Sindhu Chandra, Khaled AlMansoor, Cheng Chen, Yunfan Shi, and Hyungjoon Seo. Deep learning based infrared thermal image analysis of complex pavement defect conditions considering seasonal effect. Sensors, 22(23):9365, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Road surface state recognition based on semantic segmentation

    Yu Yuan, Zhihong Wang, Shaobo Wang, and Lirong Yan. Road surface state recognition based on semantic segmentation. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development, 15(2):88–94, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Machine learning algorithms for wet road surface detection using acoustic measurements

    M Kalliris, Olivier Haas, Stratis Kanarachos, Mike Blundell, and R Kotsakis. Machine learning algorithms for wet road surface detection using acoustic measurements. In 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), pages 265–270. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    A deep learning technique to improve road maintenance systems based on climate change

    Haitham Elwahsh, Alaa Allakany, Maazen Alsabaan, Mohamed I Ibrahem, and Engy El-Shafeiy. A deep learning technique to improve road maintenance systems based on climate change. Applied Sciences, 13(8):8899, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Traffic congestion anomaly detection and prediction using deep learning

    Adriana-Simona Mihaita, Haowen Li, and Marian-Andrei Rizoiu. Traffic congestion anomaly detection and prediction using deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.13215, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Highway traffic congestion detection and evaluation based on deep learning techniques

    Yuanyuan Liu, Zhen Cai, and Huili Dou. Highway traffic congestion detection and evaluation based on deep learning techniques. Soft Computing, 27:12249–12265, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Traffic congestion detection from camera images using deep convolution neural networks

    Pranamesh Chakraborty, Yaw Okyere Adu-Gyamfi, Subhadipto Poddar, Vesal Ahsani, Anuj Sharma, and Soumik Sarkar. Traffic congestion detection from camera images using deep convolution neural networks. Transportation Research Record, 2672(45):222–231, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Cheu, Yisheng Lv, and Ruimin Ke

    Talha Azfar, Jinlong Li, Hongkai Yu, Ruey L. Cheu, Yisheng Lv, and Ruimin Ke. Deep learning-based computer vision methods for complex traffic environments perception: A review. Data Science for Transportation, 6:1–27, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Aleman, Bob McGrew, et al

    Joshua Achiam, Samuel Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Liane Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Francisco L. Aleman, Bob McGrew, et al. Gpt-4 technical report, 2023. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Qwen2.5-vl technical report, 2025

    Shoujin Bai, Kewen Chen, Xiaodong Liu, Jie Wang, Weiming Ge, Shikun Song, Ji Lin, et al. Qwen2.5-vl technical report, 2025. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923. 16

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.