Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

WHALES: A Multi-Agent Scheduling Dataset for Enhanced Cooperation in Autonomous Driving

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read WHALES is the first V2X dataset built for communication-aware agent scheduling, and its history-based scheduler improves detection over prior baselines.

desk verdict WHALES is a genuinely useful dataset contribution; the scheduling experiments are real but the CAHS comparison needs clarification before its claims are taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13340 v3 pith:DQG34L3G submitted 2024-11-20 cs.CV

Yinsong Wang , Siwei Chen , Ziyi Song , Sheng Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords cooperativeperceptionV2Xagentschedulingautonomousdriving3DobjectdetectiondatasetcommunicationconstraintsCARLAsimulation
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 tries to establish that the bottleneck in cooperative driving research is not fusion architectures but datasets too sparse to make agent scheduling matter. WHALES, a simulated V2X dataset with an average of 8.4 agents per scene and 2.01 million annotated 3D objects, is offered as the first resource that makes communication-aware scheduling a real benchmark task, complete with communication metadata and a bandwidth cap. Alongside it, the paper proposes CAHS, a scheduler that chooses collaborators by historical viewpoint overlap, and reports that it improves detection accuracy over existing schedulers such as MASS. A sympathetic reader would care because, if the claim holds, the field gains a standard testbed for deciding which agents to talk to under bandwidth limits, a problem every real V2X system must solve.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dataset's agent density plus the CAHS handshake rule. In every frame each of the N agents is cyclically treated as the ego, yielding N ego-centric samples per frame, so scheduling decisions can be evaluated from every viewpoint. CAHS works in four steps: the ego broadcasts its location, each candidate computes its historical coverage reward $R_{t-1}^i = \sum_{b \in B_{t-1}^i} \mathbb{I}(b \cap R_{t-1}^E \neq \emptyset)$ — the number of its detections at time $t-1$ that intersect the ego's past perception range — and returns it, and the ego picks the argmax. This makes scheduling a parameter-free, one-step lookup rather than a learned policy, which is precisely what lets the paper isolate the value of dense-agent benchmarking.

What would settle it

Inspect the released code to see whether the set $B_{t-1}^i$ in Eq. (4) holds the detector's own outputs or ground-truth annotations, then rerun the single-agent scheduling experiments from Table VI using only the detector's outputs from the previous frame. If CAHS no longer beats the Closest Agent baseline, the reported improvement came from privileged information.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that cooperative perception has been held back by datasets with only two to four agents per scene, because with so few collaborators agent selection is trivial and communication constraints cannot be studied. WHALES is presented as the first large-scale V2X dataset explicitly designed for communication-aware agent scheduling and scalable cooperative perception: it averages 8.4 cooperative agents per scene, contains 70K RGB images, 17K LiDAR frames, and 2.01 million annotated 3D objects, and includes communication metadata with a 2MB-per-frame budget. To go with it, the paper proposes CAHS, a scheduling baseline in which each candidate agent reports how many of its previous-frame detections overlapped the ego's past perception range, and the ego selects the agent with the largest overlap count. The paper reports that CAHS outperforms the learning-based MASS scheduler and often matches or beats full communication while transmitting far less data.

Load-bearing premise

The CAHS scheduler's advantage depends on the unstated assumption that the detections it uses to score agents at time t-1 are the model's own outputs; if the implementation instead uses ground-truth annotations, the reported scheduling gains would not transfer to real driving.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Agent scheduling becomes a first-class benchmark task: with 8.4 agents per scene, the number of possible cooperation sets is large enough that the selection strategy visibly changes mAP.
  • CAHS shows that a purely historical, communication-free heuristic can beat a learned scheduler such as MASS, so lightweight scheduling is viable under tight bandwidth budgets.
  • The four-agent peak in the ablation implies that indiscriminate full communication wastes bandwidth and can hurt accuracy; a scheduler should stop adding agents once marginal coverage gain turns negative.
  • The 50m and 100m detection benchmarks give future cooperative perception methods a common protocol to report against, including the 2MB-per-frame communication cap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the scheduling reward can be computed from model outputs rather than ground truth, the historical-overlap idea extends naturally to online settings where agents move and detections arrive asynchronously, and to camera-only agents that share the same ego-centric overlap criterion.
  • The cyclic ego assignment multiplies the effective sample count by N, so WHALES could also serve as a pretraining source for cooperative encoders before fine-tuning on real V2X data; the paper does not test this transfer.
  • The nonlinear peak at four agents suggests an information-theoretic framing: each added agent contributes marginal coverage but also noise and bandwidth cost, so an obvious next benchmark is a learned scheduler that predicts marginal gain per candidate rather than ranking by a fixed heuristic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 manuscript introduces WHALES, a simulated V2X cooperative-perception dataset with an average of 8.4 cooperative agents per scene, 2.01 million 3D annotations, and explicit communication metadata. It benchmarks stand-alone and cooperative 3D detection, and evaluates several agent-scheduling policies under a 2 MB/frame communication cap. The authors also propose the Coverage-Aware Historical Scheduler (CAHS), which selects a collaborator based on the number of previous-frame detections intersecting the ego's past perception range. The empirical claim is that CAHS improves perception performance over existing schedulers such as MASS, and that the dataset enables scheduling research not possible with prior 2- to 4-agent benchmarks.

Significance. If the central claims hold, WHALES is a useful community resource: it is the first V2X dataset explicitly designed for communication-aware scheduling at non-trivial agent density, and it ships publicly with code, benchmarks, and metadata for scheduling studies. The paper's strengths include the dataset scale and density, the communication-budget framing, the coverage of both V2V and V2I agents, and the inclusion of scheduling baselines. The proposed CAHS is simple and interpretable. However, the empirical support for CAHS is currently undermined by an ambiguity about whether its scheduling signal is available at inference time, and by an inconsistency between the formal definition of Full Communication and what Table VI actually measures. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main claim that CAHS improves over state-of-the-art scheduling methods.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-D, Eq. (4)] The reward R_{t-1}^i in Eq. (4) is computed from B^{t-1}_i, the 'bounding boxes detected by agent i,' but the paper never states whether these boxes are the output of the trained detection model or ground-truth annotations. Section III-D says all labels are generated from ground-truth outputs, and the scheduling protocol in Fig. 4 does not specify which detector (if any) candidates use when computing their benchmark. If B^{t-1}_i is ground truth, CAHS uses privileged information at inference and the gains over MASS in Table VI (e.g., 62.5 vs. 58.8 mAP at 50 m under Closest-Agent training) are not achievable in deployment. If B^{t-1}_i is model output, the method is legitimate but depends on detector failure modes and should be analyzed; the paper must also report variance across seeds. This point must be resolved before the scheduling claim can be accepted.
  2. [§IV-D, Eq. (1) and Table VI] Eq. (1) defines Full Communication as the union P^t_full = ∪_i B^t_i of per-agent detected bounding boxes, which is a detection-set operation, not a fusion method with confidence scores and a detection head. However, the Full Communication rows and columns in Table VI report mAP numbers that clearly come from the VoxelNeXt cooperative detector with feature-level fusion of all agents. These are two different objects: a union of detections is an upper bound on recall, not an mAP estimate, and feature-level fusion is not the union operation. The manuscript should either replace Eq. (1) with a definition matching the experiments or explain why the union operation is the appropriate formalization; as written, the claimed 'upper bound' interpretation of the Full Communication baseline is unsupported.
  3. [§IV-D, first paragraph] The text says agent scheduling involves 'unicast communication for raw-level fusion,' but the scheduling experiments use VoxelNeXt as the backbone, which performs feature-level fusion. This is a contradiction that also affects the communication-budget claim: the 2 MB/frame cap is stated in §IV-A, but no analysis is given of whether raw point clouds, intermediate features, or object detections are what is transmitted, and whether the cap is respected under any of the compared methods. The authors should state which transmission modality is assumed for each baseline and for CAHS, and should justify the 2 MB cap relative to that modality.
  4. [Table VI and §IV-D] The experimental protocol for training and inference under different scheduling policies is not fully specified. It is not clear what 'training under Full Communication' means when the inference policy is, say, Single Random, or how many agents are used during training when the row is 'Multiple Random.' The mAP numbers in Table VI also lack standard deviations or any significance test, which matters because several differences are small (e.g., 65.3 vs. 65.1 vs. 65.2 in the multi-agent rows). The authors should define the training-time data distribution for each row and report multiple seeds for the main CAHS-versus-MASS comparisons.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section I] The acronym expansion is inconsistent: the abstract gives 'Wireless enhanced Autonomous vehicles with Large number of Engaged agents,' while the introduction gives 'Wireless enHanced Autonomous vehicles with Large number of Engaged agentS.' Please standardize.
  2. [Section III-A] The abbreviation 'CAV' is used without a definition; it should be spelled out at first use (e.g., connected/cooperative autonomous vehicle).
  3. [Section III-C and Fig. 4] Fig. 4 is described as visualizing four scheduling stages, but the printed figure only contains a flow diagram; the captions for the four stages should be self-contained, and the figure should indicate what information is transmitted at each stage (location, reward, or raw data).
  4. [Section I and Conclusions] The statement that WHALES 'bridges the gap between simulated and real-world V2X challenges' is stronger than the evidence: the paper does not include real-world validation or cross-dataset transfer experiments. I recommend softening this claim or adding a short discussion of the limitations of simulated data for this purpose.
  5. [Table I] WHALES is listed as having only 3 object categories, whereas several prior datasets have 8-23 categories. The paper should comment on whether the three-class taxonomy limits the scheduling benchmark's usefulness for tasks such as pedestrian- or cyclist-focused cooperation, especially because Table IV shows large performance drops for these classes at 100 m.
  6. [References] The reference for MMDetection3D (ref. [35]) is incomplete (it has only 'M. Contributors' and an arXiv-style URL), and the VoxelNeXt reference (ref. [34]) lacks the proceedings or page numbers. Please complete these entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: WHALES is a dataset paper; CAHS is an empirical scheduling baseline evaluated on the dataset, with no parametric fit or self-citation chain forcing the result.

full rationale

The paper's central contributions are dataset construction and an empirical scheduling heuristic (CAHS). CAHS's selection rule (Eq. 4) uses the number of previous detections intersecting the ego's past perception range, and its reported gains (Table VI) are measured, not derived from the definition of the rule or from fitted parameters. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs: Full Communication (Eq. 1), No Fusion (Eq. 2), Closest Agent (Eq. 3), and CAHS (Eqs. 4-5) are all operationally defined baselines evaluated by mAP. The comparisons to MASS [27] are external baselines; citing the same research group's prior work is not load-bearing because the MASS numbers are measured in this paper, not imported as a justification. The only notable ambiguity is whether B^{t-1}_i in Eq. (4) is model output or ground truth; if ground truth, that is an oracle-information correctness concern, not circularity, since CAHS's definition and evaluation would still be distinct. The 'bridges the gap between simulated and real-world' phrasing is an unvalidated overclaim but not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The dataset's utility depends on several uncontrolled design choices: the communication cap, the valid detection range, the temporal gap for history-based scheduling, and the reliance on CARLA's realism. None of these are validated against external data, and the scheduling reward's input source is unspecified.

free parameters (3)
  • Communication budget cap = 2 MB per frame
    Chosen by hand as a fixed bandwidth constraint for all scheduling experiments; no sensitivity analysis is provided, and it directly determines when scheduling matters.
  • Valid detection range = 50 m
    Objects are annotated and considered valid only within 50 m of an agent's viewpoint; this choice shapes the difficulty of long-range perception and the reward computations in Eq. (4).
  • Frame interval for history = 0.5 s (full frames) with 0.1 s sampling
    The CAHS scheduler uses detections from the previous full frame (t-1); the temporal gap is a design choice that affects how predictive historical coverage is.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CARLA simulator, together with the RL coach policies, generates traffic scenarios representative of real-world urban driving
    The entire dataset is synthetic; the paper assumes behavioral and sensor realism sufficient for cooperative perception research.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth 3D bounding boxes from CARLA are complete and accurate, including occluded objects
    Annotations are generated directly from simulator state with no noise model; real-world label noise is absent.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2MB/frame communication cap emulates real-world bandwidth bottlenecks
    No communication channel model (latency, packet loss, signal strength) is used in experiments; the cap is a simple scalar constraint.
  • ad hoc to paper Scheduling decisions based on the immediately previous frame's detections are a valid proxy for current-frame utility
    CAHS assumes temporal continuity between t-1 and t; this is not validated against alternatives (e.g., motion prediction).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WHALES: A Multi-Agent Scheduling Dataset for Enhanced Cooperation in Autonomous Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DQG34L3G

@misc{pith2026241113340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WHALES: A Multi-Agent Scheduling Dataset for Enhanced Cooperation in Autonomous Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DQG34L3G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13340}
}
read the original abstract

Cooperative perception research is hindered by the limited availability of datasets that capture the complexity of real-world Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) interactions, particularly under dynamic communication constraints. To address this gap, we introduce WHALES (Wireless enhanced Autonomous vehicles with Large number of Engaged agents), the first large-scale V2X dataset explicitly designed to benchmark communication-aware agent scheduling and scalable cooperative perception. WHALES introduces a new benchmark that enables state-of-the-art (SOTA) research in communication-aware cooperative perception, featuring an average of 8.4 cooperative agents per scene and 2.01 million annotated 3D objects across diverse traffic scenarios. It incorporates detailed communication metadata to emulate real-world communication bottlenecks, enabling rigorous evaluation of scheduling strategies. To further advance the field, we propose the Coverage-Aware Historical Scheduler (CAHS), a novel scheduling baseline that selects agents based on historical viewpoint coverage, improving perception performance over existing SOTA methods. WHALES bridges the gap between simulated and real-world V2X challenges, providing a robust framework for exploring perception-scheduling co-design, cross-data generalization, and scalability limits. The WHALES dataset and code are available at https://github.com/chensiweiTHU/WHALES.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13340 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative road scenarios from the WHALES [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the WHALES dataset. (a) Bird’s-eye view (BEV) visualization of a representative frame, highlighting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatial distribution characteristics in the WHALES dataset. (a) Orientation and position density of annotated 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the four stages of agent scheduling: (1) Request Broadcast: The ego agent broadcasts cooperation requests to all candidate. (2) Benchmark Calculation: Each candidate calculates scheduling benchmark relative to the ego’s perception range. (3) Benchmark …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Progressive Bird's Eye View Perception for Safety-Critical Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Survey

    cs.RO 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A safety-critical survey that organizes BEV perception into single-modality, multimodal, and collaborative stages and consolidates robustness evidence that multimodal fusion degrades far less than single-modality perc...

  2. Collaborative Perception Datasets for Autonomous Driving: A Review

    cs.CV 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A structured survey that catalogs and compares collaborative perception datasets for autonomous driving across cooperation paradigms, sensors, scenarios, and tasks, with a living online repository.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A survey of autonomous driving: Common practices and emerging technologies,

    E. Yurtsever, J. Lambert, A. Carballo, and K. Takeda, “A survey of autonomous driving: Common practices and emerging technologies,” IEEE access, vol. 8, pp. 58443–58469, Jan. 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view representation,

    Z. Liu, H. Tang, A. Amini, X. Yang, H. Mao, D. L. Rus, and S. Han, “Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view representation,” in 2023 IEEE International Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 2774–2781, IEEE, London, UK, May- Jun. 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Occ3d: A large-scale 3d occupancy prediction benchmark for autonomous driving,

    X. Tian, T. Jiang, L. Yun, Y . Mao, H. Yang, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, and H. Zhao, “Occ3d: A large-scale 3d occupancy prediction benchmark for autonomous driving,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Track- former: Multi-object tracking with transformers,

    T. Meinhardt, A. Kirillov, L. Leal-Taixe, and C. Feichtenhofer, “Track- former: Multi-object tracking with transformers,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 8844– 8854, New Orleans, LA, Jun. 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Planning-oriented autonomous driving,

    Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wang, et al. , “Planning-oriented autonomous driving,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 17853–17862, Vancouver, Canada, Jun. 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    V2x- vit: Vehicle-to-everything cooperative perception with vision trans- former,

    R. Xu, H. Xiang, Z. Tu, X. Xia, M.-H. Yang, and J. Ma, “V2x- vit: Vehicle-to-everything cooperative perception with vision trans- former,” in European Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV), pp. 107–124, Springer, Tel Aviv, Israel, Oct. 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Where2comm: Communication-efficient collaborative perception via spatial confi- dence maps,

    Y . Hu, S. Fang, Z. Lei, Y . Zhong, and S. Chen, “Where2comm: Communication-efficient collaborative perception via spatial confi- dence maps,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 4874–4886, New Orleans, LA, Sep. 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Latency-aware collaborative perception,

    Z. Lei, S. Ren, Y . Hu, W. Zhang, and S. Chen, “Latency-aware collaborative perception,” in European conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV), pp. 316–332, Springer, Tel Aviv, Israel, Oct. 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Learning for vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative perception under lossy communication,

    J. Li, R. Xu, X. Liu, J. Ma, Z. Chi, J. Ma, and H. Yu, “Learning for vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative perception under lossy communication,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2650– 2660, Apr. 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Collaboration helps camera overtake lidar in 3d detection,

    Y . Hu, Y . Lu, R. Xu, W. Xie, S. Chen, and Y . Wang, “Collaboration helps camera overtake lidar in 3d detection,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 9243–9252, Vancouver, Canada, Jun. 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Dair-v2x: A large-scale dataset for vehicle- infrastructure cooperative 3d object detection,

    H. Yu, Y . Luo, M. Shu, Y . Huo, Z. Yang, Y . Shi, Z. Guo, H. Li, X. Hu, J. Yuan, et al. , “Dair-v2x: A large-scale dataset for vehicle- infrastructure cooperative 3d object detection,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 21361– 21370...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Dolphins: Dataset for collaborative perception enabled harmonious and interconnected self-driving,

    R. Mao, J. Guo, Y . Jia, Y . Sun, S. Zhou, and Z. Niu, “Dolphins: Dataset for collaborative perception enabled harmonious and interconnected self-driving,” in Proc. Asian conf. on Computer Vision (ACCV) , pp. 4361–4377, Macau SAR, China, Dec. 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Opv2v: An open benchmark dataset and fusion pipeline for perception with vehicle-to- vehicle communication,

    R. Xu, H. Xiang, X. Xia, X. Han, J. Li, and J. Ma, “Opv2v: An open benchmark dataset and fusion pipeline for perception with vehicle-to- vehicle communication,” in 2022 International conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 2583–2589, IEEE, Philadelphia, PA, USA, May 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Robust collaborative 3d object detection in presence of pose errors,

    Y . Lu, Q. Li, B. Liu, M. Dianati, C. Feng, S. Chen, and Y . Wang, “Robust collaborative 3d object detection in presence of pose errors,” in 2023 IEEE International conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 4812–4818, IEEE, London, England, May-Jun. 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, C. Stiller, and R. Urtasun, “Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1231–1237, Sep. 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,

    H. Caesar, V . Bankiti, A. H. Lang, S. V ora, V . E. Liong, Q. Xu, A. Krishnan, Y . Pan, G. Baldan, and O. Beijbom, “nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 11621– 11631, Seattle, U...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,

    P. Sun, H. Kretzschmar, X. Dotiwalla, A. Chouard, V . Patnaik, P. Tsui, J. Guo, Y . Zhou, Y . Chai, B. Caine,et al., “Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 2446–2454...

    2020

  10. [18]

    Argoverse: 3d tracking and forecasting with rich maps,

    M.-F. Chang, J. Lambert, P. Sangkloy, J. Singh, S. Bak, A. Hartnett, D. Wang, P. Carr, S. Lucey, D. Ramanan, et al. , “Argoverse: 3d tracking and forecasting with rich maps,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 8748–8757, Long Beach, ...

    2019

  11. [19]

    Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self-driving perception and forecasting,

    B. Wilson, W. Qi, T. Agarwal, J. Lambert, J. Singh, S. Khandelwal, B. Pan, R. Kumar, A. Hartnett, J. K. Pontes, et al., “Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self-driving perception and forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00493, Jun. 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Nuplan: A closed-loop ml- based planning benchmark for autonomous vehicles,

    H. Caesar, J. Kabzan, K. S. Tan, W. K. Fong, E. Wolff, A. Lang, L. Fletcher, O. Beijbom, and S. Omari, “Nuplan: A closed-loop ml- based planning benchmark for autonomous vehicles,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11810, Jun. 2021

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    V2v4real: A real-world large-scale dataset for vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative perception,

    R. Xu, X. Xia, J. Li, H. Li, S. Zhang, Z. Tu, Z. Meng, H. Xiang, X. Dong, R. Song, et al., “V2v4real: A real-world large-scale dataset for vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative perception,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 13712– 13722, V...

    2023

  14. [22]

    V2x-seq: A large-scale sequential dataset for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception and forecasting,

    H. Yu, W. Yang, H. Ruan, Z. Yang, Y . Tang, X. Gao, X. Hao, Y . Shi, Y . Pan, N. Sun, et al., “V2x-seq: A large-scale sequential dataset for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception and forecasting,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Tumtraf v2x cooperative perception dataset,

    W. Zimmer, G. A. Wardana, S. Sritharan, X. Zhou, R. Song, and A. C. Knoll, “Tumtraf v2x cooperative perception dataset,” in 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    V2x-real: a large-scale dataset for vehicle-to- everything cooperative perception,

    H. Xiang, Z. Zheng, X. Xia, R. Xu, L. Gao, Z. Zhou, X. Han, X. Ji, M. Li, Z. Meng, et al., “V2x-real: a large-scale dataset for vehicle-to- everything cooperative perception,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16034 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Carla: An open urban driving simulator,

    A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Koltun, “Carla: An open urban driving simulator,” in Proc. Ann. conf. on Robot Learning, pp. 1–16, PMLR, Mountain View, USA, Nov. 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    V2x- sim: Multi-agent collaborative perception dataset and benchmark for autonomous driving,

    Y . Li, D. Ma, Z. An, Z. Wang, Y . Zhong, S. Chen, and C. Feng, “V2x- sim: Multi-agent collaborative perception dataset and benchmark for autonomous driving,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 10914–10921, Oct. 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Mass: Mobility-aware sensor scheduling of cooperative perception for connected automated driving,

    Y . Jia, R. Mao, Y . Sun, S. Zhou, and Z. Niu, “Mass: Mobility-aware sensor scheduling of cooperative perception for connected automated driving,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , pp. 14962– 14977, Nov. 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Online v2x schedul- ing for raw-level cooperative perception,

    Y . Jia, R. Mao, Y . Sun, S. Zhou, and Z. Niu, “Online v2x schedul- ing for raw-level cooperative perception,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), pp. 309–314, IEEE, Seoul, South Korea, May. 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    End-to- end urban driving by imitating a reinforcement learning coach,

    Z. Zhang, A. Liniger, D. Dai, F. Yu, and L. Van Gool, “End-to- end urban driving by imitating a reinforcement learning coach,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF International Conf. on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pp. 15222–15232, Montreal, Canada, Oct. 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Opencda: An open cooperative driving automation framework integrated with co-simulation,

    R. Xu, Y . Guo, X. Han, X. Xia, H. Xiang, and J. Ma, “Opencda: An open cooperative driving automation framework integrated with co-simulation,” in 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC) , pp. 1155–1162, IEEE, Indianapolis, IN, Sep. 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds,

    A. H. Lang, S. V ora, H. Caesar, L. Zhou, J. Yang, and O. Beijbom, “Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 12697–12705, Long Beach, CA, Jun. 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection,

    Y . Yan, Y . Mao, and B. Li, “Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 10, p. 3337, Oct. 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Designing network design spaces,

    I. Radosavovic, R. P. Kosaraju, R. Girshick, K. He, and P. Doll ´ar, “Designing network design spaces,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 10428–10436, Seattle, W A, USA, Jun. 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    V oxelnext: Fully sparse voxelnet for 3d object detection and tracking,

    Y . Chen, J. Liu, X. Zhang, X. Qi, and J. Jia, “V oxelnext: Fully sparse voxelnet for 3d object detection and tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Mmdetection3d: Openmmlab next-generation plat- form for general 3d object detection,

    M. Contributors, “Mmdetection3d: Openmmlab next-generation plat- form for general 3d object detection,” 2020. https://github. com/open-mmlab/mmdetection3d

    2020

  28. [36]

    F-cooper: Feature based cooperative perception for autonomous vehicle edge computing system using 3d point clouds,

    Q. Chen, X. Ma, S. Tang, J. Guo, Q. Yang, and S. Fu, “F-cooper: Feature based cooperative perception for autonomous vehicle edge computing system using 3d point clouds,” in Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE Symposium on Edge Computing , pp. 88–100, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.