EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 680 (2025) E3S Web Conf., 680 (2025) 00096 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 680, 2025
The 4th International Conference on Energy and Green Computing (ICEGC’2025)
Article Number 00096
Number of page(s) 13
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202568000096
Published online 19 December 2025
  1. Csaba Benedek et al, Positioning and perception in LIDAR point clouds, Digital Signal Processing,Volume 119, 2021, 103193,ISSN 1051-2004. [Google Scholar]
  2. Haider, A. et al. A Methodology to Model the Rain and Fog Effect on the Performance of Automotive LiDAR Sensors. Sensors 2023, 23, 6891. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hui Liu, Chapter 5 - Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART) systems, Elsevier, 2020, Pages 189-234, ISBN9780128229682 [Google Scholar]
  4. Abdelmoneem, Eslam. et al. (2023). INVESTIGATING THE COMPLEMENTARY USE OF RADAR AND LIDAR FOR POSITIONING APPLICATIONS. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. XLVIII-1/W2-2023. 909-914. 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-1-W2-2023-909-2023. [Google Scholar]
  5. Tan, Z., Zhang, Y., Yang, Y. et al. Numerical semi-empirical modeling of lidar attenuation characteristics in atmosphere. J. Korean Phys. Soc. 81, 1231–1239 (2022). [Google Scholar]
  6. Zhang, Yuxiao. et al. (2023). Perception and sensing for autonomous vehicles under adverse weather conditions: A survey. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 196. 146-177. 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2022.12.021. [Google Scholar]
  7. H. Su et al., “Object Detection in Adverse Weather for Autonomous Vehicles Based on Sensor Fusion and Incremental Learning,” in IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 73, pp. 1-10, 2024, Art no. 253 5510, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2024.3472860. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fritsche, P.,et al. (2018). Fusing LiDAR and Radar Data to Perform SLAM in Harsh Environments. In: Madani, K., Peaucelle, D., Gusikhin, O. (eds) Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 430. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hazar Chaabani, et al, Estimating meteorological visibility range under foggy weather conditions: A deep learning approach, Procedia Computer Science, Volume 141, 2018, Pages 478-483 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bijelic, Marioet. al. (2020). Seeing Through Fog Without Seeing Fog: Deep Multimodal Sensor Fusion in Unseen Adverse Weather. 11679-11689. [Google Scholar]
  11. Tan Zhou, Sorin C. Popescu, Bayesian decomposition of full waveform LiDAR data with uncertainty analysis, Remote Sensing of Environment, Volume 200, 2017,Pages 43- 62,ISSN 0034 [Google Scholar]
  12. W. Xiong, J. Liu, Y. Xia, T. Huang, B. Zhu, and W. Xiang,”Contrastive learning for automotive mmWave radar detectionpoints based instance segmentation,” in Proceedings of theIEEE International Conference on Intelligent TransportationSystems (ITSC), 2022, pp.1255-1261 [Google Scholar]
  13. Noebauer, Ulrich. et al. (2019). Monte Carlo radiative transfer. Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics. 5. 10.1007/s41115-019-0004-9. [Google Scholar]
  14. C. Yuen et al, “UWB Radar SLAM: An Anchorless Approach in Vision Denied Indoor Environments,” in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 5299-5306, Sept. 2023, doi: 10.1109/LRA.2023.3293354. [Google Scholar]
  15. X. Yan, J. Yang, Y. Liang, Y. Ma, Y. Li and H. Huang, “AdverseNet: A LiDAR Point Cloud Denoising Network for Autonomous Driving in Rainy, Snowy, and Foggy Weather,” in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 8950-8961, 1 March1, 2025, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2024.3505234 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fritsche, Paul. et al. (2016). Radar and LiDAR Sensorfusion in Low Visibility Environments. 30-36. 10.5220/0005960200300036. [Google Scholar]
  17. Yang, Yanlong. et al. (2022). RaLiBEV: Radar and LiDAR BEV Fusion Learning for Anchor Box Free Object Detection Systems. 10.48550/arXiv.2211.06108. [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu, Q.; et al. Fog Droplet Size Distribution and the Interaction between Fog Droplets and Fine Particles during Dense Fog in Tianjin, China. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 258. [Google Scholar]
  19. Binzoni, Tiziano. et al (2006). The use of the Henyey-Greenstein phase function in Monte Carlo simulations in biomedical optics. Physics in medicine and biology. 51. N313-22. 10.1088/0031-9155/51/17/N04. [Google Scholar]
  20. Achour, Maha.. (2002). Simulating Atmospheric Free-Space Optical Propagation; Part II: Haze, Fog, and Low Clouds Attenuations. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering. 4873. 10.1117/12.458571. [Google Scholar]
  21. J. Dai, X. Hao, P. Li, Z. Li and X. Yan, “Antijamming Design and Analysis of a Novel Pulse Compression Radar Signal Based on Radar Identity and Chaotic Encryption,” in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 5873-5884, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2963481. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mojtaba Shahrab, Hossein Soleimani, Secure hybrid pulse compression as a technique against jamming in radar systems, Physical Communication, Volume 43, 2020, 101216,ISSN 1874-4907, [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.