Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Timealign: A multi-modal object detection method for time misalignment fusing in autonomous driving

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TimeAlign, built on GraphBEV, predicts delayed LiDAR BEV features from three historical sweeps and uses camera features to fuse prediction with observation, improving one-frame-lag car AP from 0.595 to 0.656.

desk verdict TimeAlign's reported gain over GraphBEV under LiDAR lag is likely just temporal aggregation; the paper needs matched baselines and ablations before the claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10033 v1 pith:JGXI5IQT submitted 2024-12-13 cs.CV

Zhihang Song , Lihui Peng , Jianming Hu , Danya Yao , Yi Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords timemisalignmentmulti-modal3DobjectdetectionLiDAR-camerafusionbird'seyeviewtemporalfeaturepredictionautonomousdrivingrobustness
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 argues that temporal misalignment between LiDAR and camera frames, specifically one-frame LiDAR lag, is a distinct failure mode that spatial calibration methods cannot fix, and that it can be mitigated by predicting the delayed LiDAR feature from history. The authors build TimeAlign on the GraphBEV detector: a Swin-LSTM recurrent module forecasts the current LiDAR BEV feature from the previous three frames, and a camera-guided dual-transformer combines that prediction with the actual observed feature. On nuScenes, TimeAlign raises car average precision under one-frame LiDAR lag from 0.595 (GraphBEV baseline) to 0.656, while accepting a smaller drop on perfectly synchronized data (0.789 vs 0.823 for cars). The result matters because real autonomous-driving systems experience LiDAR transfer delays, and perception modules trained on synchronized benchmarks do not currently handle them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-part TimeAlign module inserted into GraphBEV's feature fusion. First, a Swin-LSTM recurrent network, an LSTM whose state updates use SwinTransformer-style local-window attention, consumes the LiDAR BEV features of frames T-3 to T-1 and predicts the feature at T, trained with an MSE prediction loss against the true T feature. Second, a camera-guided combination layer concatenates the camera BEV feature with both the predicted and observed LiDAR features, computes learnable offset parameters, and uses deformable convolution to re-align each candidate before fusing them, so the network can weight the stale observation against the forecast depending on how trustworthy the current LiDAR input is.

What would settle it

Test TimeAlign on real LiDAR delay traces or on a fixed two-frame lag, and compare against the reported one-frame synthetic lag: if the improvement over GraphBEV vanishes or reverses, the conclusion that the module solves time misalignment rather than overfitting the random-drop training distribution is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LiDAR data lag, simulated by randomly replacing the current LiDAR frame with a previous frame during training, degrades multi-modal detection in a way that space-alignment modules like GraphBEV's cannot absorb, because object and ego motion during the lag is not an affine transformation. TimeAlign's prediction-and-combination design uses three historical LiDAR sweeps to generate a predicted current BEV feature, then lets the camera BEV feature arbitrate between prediction and observation through learnable offsets and deformable convolution. On a one-frame lag the method improves GraphBEV's car AP from 0.595 to 0.656, truck AP from 0.477 to 0.513, bus AP from 0.306 to 0.769, and pedestrian AP from 0.613 to 0.759, at the cost of slightly lower AP on synchronized inputs.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on treating random frame-drop replacements during training as a faithful stand-in for real LiDAR transfer delays; if actual delays follow a different pattern, the learned corrections may not help on the road.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under a one-frame LiDAR lag, TimeAlign improves car, truck, bus, and pedestrian AP over GraphBEV on the nuScenes mini test, with car AP rising from 0.595 to 0.656.
  • On synchronized inputs, TimeAlign retains most of the baseline performance (car AP 0.789 vs 0.823), indicating that the extra prediction branch does not catastrophically interfere with normal operation.
  • Because the training procedure injects random frame replacements, the architecture is designed to handle variable lag rather than only the fixed one-frame offset used in evaluation.
  • The comparison supports the paper's claim that temporal misalignment is structurally different from spatial misalignment and cannot be repaired by affine-style feature re-alignment alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The random frame-drop training can be read as a temporal augmentation, so a natural untested extension is camera-side delays or lags of more than one frame.
  • Real recorded delay traces would be the decisive test of whether the learned behavior transfers beyond the synthetic corruption model.
  • The camera-guided combination is conceptually a learned Kalman gain; a lighter alternative would estimate per-location observation confidence directly instead of running a recurrent predictor.
  • On the mini test, bus AP swings from 0.306 to 0.769; whether that holds on the full validation set is a check the paper does not report.
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 TimeAlign, a modification of the GraphBEV multi-modal 3D object detector to handle temporal misalignment, specifically LiDAR frame lag relative to the camera stream. The method consumes three historical LiDAR sweeps (T-3 to T-1) plus the currently observed sweep, uses a Swin-LSTM predictor to forecast the current LiDAR BEV feature from the historical frames, and combines the predicted and observed features under the guidance of camera BEV features via a dual-transformer combination module. During training, the current LiDAR input is randomly replaced by a previous frame using a random variable α to simulate LiDAR lag. Experiments on the nuScenes dataset report AP for four object classes with and without one-frame LiDAR lag, comparing against GraphBEV. Under lag, TimeAlign improves car AP from 0.595 to 0.656, but on synchronized data car AP degrades from 0.823 to 0.789. The paper also claims to prove that temporal misalignment is distinct from spatial misalignment, based on a single experiment with GraphBEV.

Significance. If the claimed gains are robust, the work addresses a relevant and under-studied failure mode of multi-modal perception in autonomous driving: asynchronous LiDAR and camera streams. The proposed architecture is a plausible extension of GraphBEV, and the idea of using recurrent prediction and camera-guided combination to recover temporally misaligned LiDAR features is interesting. The training-time frame-drop corruption is a practical contribution that may help models become robust to LiDAR lag. However, the current evidence is not convincing: the main comparison in Table 2 is confounded by unequal sensor input (extra historical sweeps for TimeAlign), the test set is small and unspecified, no error bars or ablations are provided, and the normal-case performance drops noticeably. The central claim is thus defensible but not yet demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Table 2; Sections 3.1, 3.2] The main comparison between TimeAlign and GraphBEV under one-frame LiDAR lag is confounded by the number of LiDAR sweeps available to each model. GraphBEV is evaluated with sweeps=1 (Section 4), so under a one-frame lag it sees only the delayed sweep at T-1. TimeAlign, by design, receives three historical sweeps plus the current observed frame (Sections 3.1 and 3.2). Since temporal aggregation alone is known to improve detection (as the paper itself notes in Section 2.2, citing BEVDet4D and BEVFusion4D), the 0.061 AP-Car improvement in Table 2 cannot be attributed solely to the proposed prediction and combination modules. A baseline GraphBEV variant that consumes the same three historical sweeps without the Swin-LSTM prediction or dual-transformer combination is necessary to isolate the method's contribution.
  2. [Section 4, Table 2] The evaluation is performed on an unspecified 'mini test set' with no sample size, no error bars, and no repeated runs. The nuScenes mini split, if used, typically comprises only a few hundred frames, so the reported differences (e.g., car AP 0.595 vs. 0.656) may be within noise. The authors should report the number of test samples, confidence intervals or multiple-seed variance, and ideally results on the full nuScenes validation set to establish statistical reliability.
  3. [Section 1, contribution (b); Table 1] The statement that 'we proved that temporal misalignment is not consistent with space one' is an overstatement. Table 1 only shows GraphBEV's degradation under temporal lag; it does not include a controlled comparison with spatial misalignment on the same data and settings. The claimed robustness of GraphBEV to spatial misalignment is taken from other work, not demonstrated in this paper. A single experiment on a small test set cannot support a strong 'proof' of structural difference; a controlled experiment or a systematic comparison is needed.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Section 4] The relationship between the training-time corruption and the test-time misalignment is underspecified. The random variable α is said to replace the current LiDAR frame with a previous frame, but its distribution, the range of lag steps it can sample (e.g., one-frame vs. multi-frame lag), and its value in the reported experiments are never given. Evaluation only tests a fixed one-frame lag. If α rarely samples a one-frame lag or if training uses variable lag lengths, the model's success on the fixed one-frame test could be coincidental. The authors should specify α, perform sensitivity analysis over lag durations, and demonstrate that the learned prediction generalizes across lags.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4] The paper states that mAP is the primary evaluation metric but reports only AP for four object classes. Please also report the overall mAP and NDS on the nuScenes validation set to enable direct comparison with other methods.
  2. [Section 3.3] The notation Fp, Fo, Fc, and Ff is introduced without fully explaining the feature dimensions (e.g., 336 = 256 + 80) and the computation of the 'deform weights' in the offset convolution module. Please clarify the exact shapes and operations.
  3. [Throughout] The method name is written inconsistently as 'Timealign', 'TimeAlign', and in the conclusion as 'Timelign'. Please standardize the spelling.
  4. [References] Reference [29] (Goodnough et al., 'Transfusion medicine—blood transfusion') appears to be unrelated to the topic of 3D object detection and is likely an incorrect citation. Please correct or remove it.
  5. [Figures] Figures 1, 2, and 3 are referenced in the text but are not embedded in the manuscript; the architecture and modules are difficult to understand without them. Please ensure all figures are included and clearly labeled.
  6. [Section 4] The paper says the pre-trained GraphBEV checkpoint is loaded, but it does not specify which checkpoint (e.g., trained with K=8 and sweeps=1) or how the newly initialized modules are trained on top of it. Please provide these details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains are empirical end-to-end training results, not quantities that reduce to the method's inputs by construction.

full rationale

TimeAlign is an end-to-end trained detector on nuScenes; the paper reports test-set AP for GraphBEV and TimeAlign with and without a one-frame LiDAR lag. The claimed improvement (0.656 vs 0.595 car AP under lag) is an empirical measurement obtained by training the Swin-LSTM prediction module and dual-transformer combination with detection loss and a feature-prediction MSE loss, then evaluating on a mini test set. There is no fitted constant that is later renamed as a prediction, and no equation in Sections 3.2-3.3 that defines the output in terms of the target metric. The random frame-drop corruption (random α in Section 3.1) is a training-time data augmentation, not a parameter fitted to the test condition; the fixed one-frame lag evaluation is a held-out condition. The paper's citations to GraphBEV, BEVFusion4D, BEVDet4D, and OpenSTL are context or baselines, and none is a self-citation by the present authors that carries the load of the central claim. The skeptic's concern that GraphBEV receives one sweep while TimeAlign receives three additional historical sweeps is a legitimate experimental-confound / ablation issue and belongs under correctness risk or experimental design, not circularity: confounding inputs with a method does not make the method's reported output equal to its inputs by definition. No circular step can be exhibited with a specific reduction, so the score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on the suitability of the simulated lag corruption, the quality of Swin-LSTM prediction, and the choice of camera time as reference. The main free parameters are training hyperparameters chosen by hand.

free parameters (4)
  • prediction loss weight (first stage) = 10
    Chosen by hand to balance MSE feature prediction loss and detection loss; exact schedule not specified.
  • prediction loss weight (second stage) = 0.001
    Chosen by hand after the first training stage; no tuning procedure described.
  • input history length = 3
    Number of past LiDAR frames used; limited by GPU memory and not swept.
  • random lag probability alpha = not specified
    Controls how often the current LiDAR frame is replaced by a previous frame during training; distribution not reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Camera timestamps are the correct temporal reference and LiDAR lags are the only relevant time misalignment.
    Stated in Section 1 and 3: image time is taken as reference, and LiDAR-stuck is the target failure mode.
  • domain assumption A one-frame LiDAR lag is representative of real LiDAR data transfer delays.
    Experiments only test 1-frame lag (T-1); real delays may be variable or longer.
  • domain assumption Swin-LSTM can predict LiDAR BEV features well enough from three previous frames to aid detection.
    The method relies on the quality of Swin-LSTM feature prediction; no prediction accuracy numbers are reported.
  • domain assumption The random frame-drop training corruption matches the test-time fixed lag distribution.
    Section 3.1 introduces random alpha for training; evaluation uses fixed T-1 lag, so generalization is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Timealign: A multi-modal object detection method for time misalignment fusing in autonomous driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JGXI5IQT

@misc{pith2026241210033,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Timealign: A multi-modal object detection method for time misalignment fusing in autonomous driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JGXI5IQT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10033}
}
read the original abstract

The multi-modal perception methods are thriving in the autonomous driving field due to their better usage of complementary data from different sensors. Such methods depend on calibration and synchronization between sensors to get accurate environmental information. There have already been studies about space-alignment robustness in autonomous driving object detection process, however, the research for time-alignment is relatively few. As in reality experiments, LiDAR point clouds are more challenging for real-time data transfer, our study used historical frames of LiDAR to better align features when the LiDAR data lags exist. We designed a Timealign module to predict and combine LiDAR features with observation to tackle such time misalignment based on SOTA GraphBEV framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10033 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The whole structure of TimeAlign model. 3.1 Data Preparation We chose the nuScenes Dataset[42] as our experiment dataset for its rich information in consistent data series. We pre-processed the dataset by using tokens in nuScenes Dataset to extract three consistent historical point clouds as well as their transform matrices information and organized them for each input. For those whose timestamp is at the beginning … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structure of Swin-LSTM LiDAR feature prediction module in TimeAlign. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Structure of combination layers of predicted LiDAR feature and observed ones in TimeAlign. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Monocular 3d object detection leveraging accurate proposals and shape reconstruction

    Jason Ku, Alex D Pon, and Steven L Waslander. Monocular 3d object detection leveraging accurate proposals and shape reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11867–11876, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Autoshape: Real-time shape-aware monocular 3d object detection

    Zongdai Liu, Dingfu Zhou, Feixiang Lu, Jin Fang, and Liangjun Zhang. Autoshape: Real-time shape-aware monocular 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15641–15650, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Pointrcnn: 3d object proposal generation and detection from point cloud

    Shaoshuai Shi, Xiaogang Wang, and Hongsheng Li. Pointrcnn: 3d object proposal generation and detection from point cloud. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 770–779, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds

    Alex H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Holger Caesar, Lubing Zhou, Jiong Yang, and Oscar Beijbom. Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 12697–12705, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Center-based 3d object detection and tracking

    Tianwei Yin, Xingyi Zhou, and Philipp Krahenbuhl. Center-based 3d object detection and tracking. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11784–11793, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Pointfusion: Deep sensor fusion for 3d bounding box estimation

    Danfei Xu, Dragomir Anguelov, and Ashesh Jain. Pointfusion: Deep sensor fusion for 3d bounding box estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 244–253, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Pointpainting: Sequential fusion for 3d object detection

    Sourabh V ora, Alex H Lang, Bassam Helou, and Oscar Beijbom. Pointpainting: Sequential fusion for 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4604–4612, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Pointaugmenting: Cross-modal augmentation for 3d object detection

    Chunwei Wang, Chao Ma, Ming Zhu, and Xiaokang Yang. Pointaugmenting: Cross-modal augmentation for 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11794–11803, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

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

    Zhijian Liu, Haotian Tang, Alexander Amini, Xinyu Yang, Huizi Mao, Daniela L Rus, and Song Han. Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view representation. In 2023 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 2774–2781. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Epnet: Enhancing point features with image semantics for 3d object detection

    Tengteng Huang, Zhe Liu, Xiwu Chen, and Xiang Bai. Epnet: Enhancing point features with image semantics for 3d object detection. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XV 16, pages 35–52. Springer, 2020. 6

    2020

  3. [11]

    Epnet++: Cascade bi-directional fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection

    Zhe Liu, Tengteng Huang, Bingling Li, Xiwu Chen, Xi Wang, and Xiang Bai. Epnet++: Cascade bi-directional fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Deepfusion: Lidar-camera deep fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection

    Yingwei Li, Adams Wei Yu, Tianjian Meng, Ben Caine, Jiquan Ngiam, Daiyi Peng, Junyang Shen, Yifeng Lu, Denny Zhou, Quoc V Le, et al. Deepfusion: Lidar-camera deep fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patte...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Multi-modal 3d object detection in autonomous driving: A survey and taxonomy

    Li Wang, Xinyu Zhang, Ziying Song, Jiangfeng Bi, Guoxin Zhang, Haiyue Wei, Liyao Tang, Lei Yang, Jun Li, Caiyan Jia, et al. Multi-modal 3d object detection in autonomous driving: A survey and taxonomy. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 8(7):3781–3798, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Calib-anything: Zero-training lidar-camera extrinsic calibration method using segment anything

    Zhaotong Luo, Guohang Yan, and Yikang Li. Calib-anything: Zero-training lidar-camera extrinsic calibration method using segment anything. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02656, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Calibformer: A transformer-based automatic lidar-camera calibration network

    Yuxuan Xiao, Yao Li, Chengzhen Meng, Xingchen Li, and Yanyong Zhang. Calibformer: A transformer-based automatic lidar-camera calibration network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15241, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Benchmarking robustness of 3d object detection to common corruptions

    Yinpeng Dong, Caixin Kang, Jinlai Zhang, Zijian Zhu, Yikai Wang, Xiao Yang, Hang Su, Xingxing Wei, and Jun Zhu. Benchmarking robustness of 3d object detection to common corruptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 102...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Graphalign++: An accurate feature alignment by graph matching for multi-modal 3d object detection

    Ziying Song, Caiyan Jia, Lei Yang, Haiyue Wei, and Lin Liu. Graphalign++: An accurate feature alignment by graph matching for multi-modal 3d object detection. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 34(4):2619–2632, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Benchmarking the robustness of lidar-camera fusion for 3d object detection

    Kaicheng Yu, Tang Tao, Hongwei Xie, Zhiwei Lin, Tingting Liang, Bing Wang, Peng Chen, Dayang Hao, Yongtao Wang, and Xiaodan Liang. Benchmarking the robustness of lidar-camera fusion for 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patte...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Bevfusion4d: Learning lidar-camera fusion under bird’s-eye-view via cross-modality guidance and temporal aggregation

    Hongxiang Cai, Zeyuan Zhang, Zhenyu Zhou, Ziyin Li, Wenbo Ding, and Jiuhua Zhao. Bevfusion4d: Learning lidar-camera fusion under bird’s-eye-view via cross-modality guidance and temporal aggregation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17099, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Graphbev: Towards robust bev feature alignment for multi-modal 3d object detection

    Ziying Song, Lei Yang, Shaoqing Xu, Lin Liu, Dongyang Xu, Caiyan Jia, Feiyang Jia, and Li Wang. Graphbev: Towards robust bev feature alignment for multi-modal 3d object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11848, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    3d object detection using scale invariant and feature reweighting networks

    Xin Zhao, Zhe Liu, Ruolan Hu, and Kaiqi Huang. 3d object detection using scale invariant and feature reweighting networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 9267–9274, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Bevdet4d: Exploit temporal cues in multi-camera 3d object detection

    Junjie Huang and Guan Huang. Bevdet4d: Exploit temporal cues in multi-camera 3d object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.17054, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Communication challenges in infrastructure-vehicle cooperative autonomous driving: A field deployment perspective

    Shaoshan Liu, Bo Yu, Jie Tang, Yuhao Zhu, and Xue Liu. Communication challenges in infrastructure-vehicle cooperative autonomous driving: A field deployment perspective. IEEE Wireless Communications, 29(4):126–131, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Computing systems for autonomous driving: State of the art and challenges

    Liangkai Liu, Sidi Lu, Ren Zhong, Baofu Wu, Yongtao Yao, Qingyang Zhang, and Weisong Shi. Computing systems for autonomous driving: State of the art and challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(8):6469–6486, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Sensing and communication integrated system for autonomous driving vehicles

    Qixun Zhang, Huan Sun, Zhiqing Wei, and Zhiyong Feng. Sensing and communication integrated system for autonomous driving vehicles. In IEEE INFOCOM 2020-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), pages 1278–1279. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Image data compression: A review

    Anil K Jain. Image data compression: A review. Proceedings of the IEEE, 69(3):349–389, 1981

    1981

  19. [27]

    Swinlstm: Improving spatiotemporal prediction accuracy using swin transformer and lstm

    Song Tang, Chuang Li, Pu Zhang, and RongNian Tang. Swinlstm: Improving spatiotemporal prediction accuracy using swin transformer and lstm. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 13470–13479, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Fusionpainting: Multimodal fusion with adaptive attention for 3d object detection

    Shaoqing Xu, Dingfu Zhou, Jin Fang, Junbo Yin, Zhou Bin, and Liangjun Zhang. Fusionpainting: Multimodal fusion with adaptive attention for 3d object detection. In 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), pages 3047–3054. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Transfusion medicine—blood transfusion

    Lawrence T Goodnough, Mark E Brecher, Michael H Kanter, and James P AuBuchon. Transfusion medicine—blood transfusion. New England journal of medicine, 340(6):438–447, 1999

    1999

  22. [30]

    Bevfusion: A simple and robust lidar-camera fusion framework

    Tingting Liang, Hongwei Xie, Kaicheng Yu, Zhongyu Xia, Zhiwei Lin, Yongtao Wang, Tao Tang, Bing Wang, and Zhi Tang. Bevfusion: A simple and robust lidar-camera fusion framework. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:10421–10434, 2022. 7

    2022

  23. [31]

    Objectfusion: Multi-modal 3d object detection with object-centric fusion

    Qi Cai, Yingwei Pan, Ting Yao, Chong-Wah Ngo, and Tao Mei. Objectfusion: Multi-modal 3d object detection with object-centric fusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 18067–18076, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Metabev: Solving sensor failures for bev detection and map segmentation

    Chongjian Ge, Junsong Chen, Enze Xie, Zhongdao Wang, Lanqing Hong, Huchuan Lu, Zhenguo Li, and Ping Luo. Metabev: Solving sensor failures for bev detection and map segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09801, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Unibev: Multi-modal 3d object detection with uniform bev encoders for robustness against missing sensor modalities

    Shiming Wang, Holger Caesar, Liangliang Nan, and Julian FP Kooij. Unibev: Multi-modal 3d object detection with uniform bev encoders for robustness against missing sensor modalities. In 2024 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pages 2776–2783. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Contrastalign: Toward robust bev feature alignment via contrastive learning for multi-modal 3d object detection

    Ziying Song, Feiyang Jia, Hongyu Pan, Yadan Luo, Caiyan Jia, Guoxin Zhang, Lin Liu, Yang Ji, Lei Yang, and Li Wang. Contrastalign: Toward robust bev feature alignment via contrastive learning for multi-modal 3d object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16873, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mv2dfusion: Leveraging modality-specific object semantics for multi-modal 3d detection

    Zitian Wang, Zehao Huang, Yulu Gao, Naiyan Wang, and Si Liu. Mv2dfusion: Leveraging modality-specific object semantics for multi-modal 3d detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05945, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    4d-net for learned multi-modal alignment

    AJ Piergiovanni, Vincent Casser, Michael S Ryoo, and Anelia Angelova. 4d-net for learned multi-modal alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15435–15445, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    An lstm approach to temporal 3d object detection in lidar point clouds

    Rui Huang, Wanyue Zhang, Abhijit Kundu, Caroline Pantofaru, David A Ross, Thomas Funkhouser, and Alireza Fathi. An lstm approach to temporal 3d object detection in lidar point clouds. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proc...

    2020

  30. [38]

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset

    Pei Sun, Henrik Kretzschmar, Xerxes Dotiwalla, Aurelien Chouard, Vijaysai Patnaik, Paul Tsui, James Guo, Yin Zhou, Yuning Chai, Benjamin Caine, et al. Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi...

    2020

  31. [39]

    Bevformer: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotemporal transformers

    Zhiqi Li, Wenhai Wang, Hongyang Li, Enze Xie, Chonghao Sima, Tong Lu, Yu Qiao, and Jifeng Dai. Bevformer: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotemporal transformers. In European conference on computer vision, pages 1–18. Springer, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Lift: Learning 4d lidar image fusion transformer for 3d object detection

    Yihan Zeng, Da Zhang, Chunwei Wang, Zhenwei Miao, Ting Liu, Xin Zhan, Dayang Hao, and Chao Ma. Lift: Learning 4d lidar image fusion transformer for 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17172–17181, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Petrv2: A unified framework for 3d perception from multi-camera images

    Yingfei Liu, Junjie Yan, Fan Jia, Shuailin Li, Aqi Gao, Tiancai Wang, and Xiangyu Zhang. Petrv2: A unified framework for 3d perception from multi-camera images. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 3262–3272, October 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving

    Holger Caesar, Varun Bankiti, Alex H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, Giancarlo Baldan, and Oscar Beijbom. nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern r...

    2020

  35. [43]

    Openpcdet: An open-source toolbox for 3d object detection from point clouds, 2020

    OD Team et al. Openpcdet: An open-source toolbox for 3d object detection from point clouds, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Openstl: A comprehensive benchmark of spatio-temporal predictive learning

    Cheng Tan, Siyuan Li, Zhangyang Gao, Wenfei Guan, Zedong Wang, Zicheng Liu, Lirong Wu, and Stan Z Li. Openstl: A comprehensive benchmark of spatio-temporal predictive learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:69819–69831, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection.Sensors, 18(10):3337, 2018

    Yan Yan, Yuxing Mao, and Bo Li. Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection.Sensors, 18(10):3337, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Lift, splat, shoot: Encoding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly unprojecting to 3d

    Jonah Philion and Sanja Fidler. Lift, splat, shoot: Encoding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly unprojecting to 3d. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XIV 16, pages 194–210. Springer, 2020. 8

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.