Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

TopoPoint: Enhance Topology Reasoning via Endpoint Detection in Autonomous Driving

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TopoPoint hits 48.8 OLS by detecting lane endpoints explicitly.

desk verdict Solid incremental step in OpenLane-V2 topology reasoning: explicit endpoint detection plus point-lane interaction gives believable SOTA on an external benchmark, despite a self-defined metric and a minor order-dependence issue in the inference refinement. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17771 v1 pith:US7R6BI4 submitted 2025-05-23 cs.CV

Yanping Fu , Xinyuan Liu , Tianyu Li , Yike Ma , Yucheng Zhang , Feng Dai This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords topologyreasoninglaneendpointdetectionautonomousdrivingbird's-eyeviewpoint-laneinteractiongraphconvolutionalnetworkOpenLane-V2deviation
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

Topology reasoning for autonomous driving requires knowing which lane centerlines connect and which traffic elements govern them, and the paper claims that the main blocker is endpoint deviation: lanes that share an endpoint are predicted independently, so their endpoints do not coincide. TopoPoint is an attempt to fix this directly by detecting lane endpoints as explicit 3D points, letting point queries and lane queries exchange features during training, and then geometrically merging points with nearby lane endpoints at inference. On OpenLane-V2, the combined pipeline reaches an OLS of 48.8 on subset A and 49.2 on subset B, and its endpoint metric DETp reaches 52.6 versus 45.2 for TopoLogic. If the claim holds, explicit endpoint detection and geometry-based fusion are a practical and general fix for topology reasoning in driving scenes.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the point-lane pair: point queries represent candidate shared endpoints in BEV space, and lane queries represent centerlines. Point-Lane Merge Self-Attention (PLMSA) concatenates the two query sets and adds a geometry-derived bias to the attention weights, letting endpoints and lanes share global context; Point-Lane Graph Convolutional Network (PLGCN) builds an adjacency matrix from geometric distance and reasoned topology, so features flow both ways between points and lanes. At inference, Point-Lane Geometry Matching (PLGM) identifies lanes whose endpoints lie within a 1.5-meter threshold of a detected point and replaces those endpoints with the average of the point and all matched endpoints. The paper also introduces DETp, an endpoint detection metric computed as mAP under point-wise Fréchet distance thresholds, so endpoint quality is measured separately from lane and topology scores.

What would settle it

Test the inference-time matching on a scene with two distinct lane endpoints closer than 1.5 meters apart: if applying Point-Lane Geometry Matching lowers DETp or OLS compared to skipping it in those scenes, the claimed mechanism is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that endpoint deviation in lane detection is a resolvable geometric problem rather than one that must be worked around. The proposed TopoPoint says that by independently initializing point queries and lane queries, supervising them separately, and forcing information exchange through a geometric-attention mask and a point-lane graph convolution, the detector learns endpoints that are jointly consistent with lanes. At inference, Point-Lane Geometry Matching averages each high-confidence predicted endpoint with all lane endpoints within 1.5 meters, so connected lanes meet at a common point. This raises lane detection, lane-lane topology, lane-traffic topology, and a newly proposed endpoint detection score DETp at the same time, which the paper treats as evidence that the endpoint modeling is doing the work.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a detected point within 1.5 meters of a lane endpoint in bird's-eye view is the correct shared endpoint, and averaging that point with all nearby lane endpoints makes every matched lane better; in dense traffic or with imperfect calibration, the same rule can fuse endpoints that should stay separate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Endpoint detection becomes a first-class output of driving-scene perception, so future systems can be judged on endpoint quality before topology is even computed.
  • The inference-time geometry matching is a plug-in step, so it can be applied to other query-based lane detectors to align shared endpoints.
  • The reported ablations show the gains travel together: endpoint score, lane score, lane-lane topology, and lane-traffic topology all improve as the point-lane modules are added.
  • Because no external map or navigation data is required, the method fits the online HD-map learning setting used by OpenLane-V2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not isolate where the 1.5 m threshold comes from; a natural extension is to make the matching radius adaptive to local endpoint density, since dense intersections should use a tighter threshold to avoid merging distinct endpoints.
  • Because the DETp metric is new, unrelated methods could adopt it retroactively, making endpoint deviation comparable across all topology-reasoning models rather than only those that report it.
  • The endpoint refinement is only applied at inference; a direct corollary worth testing is whether a differentiable version of the averaging step during training would stabilize endpoints earlier and reduce the reliance on post-hoc matching.
  • The method's success on OpenLane-V2 suggests endpoint deviation may also hurt other graph-structured perception tasks, such as lane graph extraction or HD map vectorization, where shared vertices are predicted independently.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TopoPoint, a framework for lane and topology reasoning in autonomous driving that explicitly detects lane endpoints as point queries and combines them with lane queries via two new modules: Point-Lane Merge Self-Attention (PLMSA), which adds geometric distance as an attention bias, and Point-Lane Graph Convolutional Network (PLGCN), which exchanges features between points and lanes. At inference, a Point-Lane Geometry Matching (PLGM) algorithm refines lane endpoints by averaging predicted points with nearby lane endpoints. The method is evaluated on OpenLane-V2 subset A and B, reporting state-of-the-art OLS (48.8 and 49.2, respectively), and a new endpoint-detection metric DETp is proposed, on which the method scores 52.6 versus 45.2 for TopoLogic.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution by introducing explicit endpoint detection and geometric fusion to improve lane endpoint alignment and topology reasoning. The evaluation is largely external (OpenLane-V2 with published baselines), and the controlled ablations in Table 2 show monotonic improvements, which is a strength. The release of code and the proposal of DETp as a new evaluation axis are also positive. However, the load-bearing inference-time refinement (PLGM) is under-specified and potentially order-dependent, and the new metric DETp is not defined with a precise matching protocol. These issues mean the paper's claims about the source of the improvement and about the new metric are not yet fully verifiable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.7, Algorithm 1] The PLGM refinement is order-dependent: the sequential loop over points updates lane endpoints with a running average, so if a lane endpoint lies within the threshold δ of multiple predicted points, its final value depends on the iteration order. The algorithm does not specify the order of P_select or a convergence condition. The paper should either (a) define a deterministic order and show the result is insensitive to it, or (b) replace the sequential update with a batch update (compute all match sets first, then average each point with all matched endpoints). It would also be informative to report a sensitivity analysis of δ (currently fixed at 1.5 m), since in dense intersections distinct lane ends can be within 1.5 m without being topologically connected, as the limitation statement in Section 5 admits. A concrete test: evaluate PLGM with several δ values (e.g., 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0) and with random point orders, and report the resulting OLS and DETp.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (23)] The definition of DETp is incomplete. It states the metric is an average of AP over thresholds T={1.0,2.0,3.0} 'based on the point-wise Fréchet distance,' but it does not specify the matching protocol (e.g., one-to-one assignment, handling of duplicate or merged endpoints), nor how true positives and false positives are counted. The paper also does not describe how endpoints were extracted from the official codebases of TopoNet, TopoMLP, and TopoLogic for the DETp comparison in Table 1, beyond a one-line footnote. Without this specification, the DETp contribution and the reported advantage of 52.6 versus 45.2 cannot be verified.
  3. [Table 2] The ablation study reports single runs without error bars or significance tests. The final increments from PLGCN and PLGM are small (+0.5 OLS each), so it is unclear whether these gains are stable. Additionally, the 'Baseline' row (OLS 43.4) does not match the TopoLogic result cited in Table 1 (OLS 44.1), although the text says the baseline is reproduced using TopoLogic code. Please clarify why the numbers differ (e.g., training schedule, hyperparameters, or different evaluation protocol) and report means and standard deviations over at least three seeds for the key configurations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eq. (4)] The index ranges in Eq. (4) are incorrect: D_ll should be indexed by i,j = 1,...,N_l, not i = 1,...,N_p with j = 1,...,N_l, since D_ll is N_l×N_l.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. (8)] The second output in Eq. (8) should be LN(Q_l), not LN(Q_p), to match the intended split of the self-attention output.
  3. [Section 3.4, Eq. (7)] The attention bias matrix uses a zero matrix Z∈R^{N_p×N_p} for the point-point block, meaning no geometric bias is applied between point queries; the paper should state whether this is intentional.
  4. [Section 3.3] The sentence following Eq. (2) says the size of F_bev denotes (H_fv, W_fv); this should be F_fv, not F_bev.
  5. [Section 1] In the first contribution, 'endpoint eviation' is a typo and should be 'endpoint deviation.'
  6. [Section 3.1] The point set is defined with indices starting at 0 (P={p_i ∈ R^3 | i=0,1,...,np}), but all later equations use i=1,...,N_p; please make the indexing consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: OLS is externally benchmarked, and PLGM/DETp are empirical post-processing/evaluation choices, not definitional reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the OpenLane-V2 OLS score (48.8 on subset A, 49.2 on subset B), evaluated against published baselines on an external benchmark. The OLS formula (Eq. 22) is the benchmark's own metric and is not defined in terms of TopoPoint's parameters or outputs in any self-referential way. The Point-Lane Geometry Matching algorithm (Algorithm 1, Section 3.7) is an inference-time heuristic; its order dependence and hand-set threshold delta = 1.5 m are robustness/correctness concerns, not circularity, because the reported gains are empirical ablations and the algorithm is not equivalent to the evaluation metric by construction. The custom DETp metric (Eq. 23) is new, but it is computed on the model's final endpoint outputs and is not used as a training loss, so the improvement reported under it is an independent measurement rather than a fitted prediction; the DETp values for prior methods are computed from their official codebases. The only self-referential element is the attention-bias mapping fmap taken from the authors' own TopoLogic (Section 3.4, Eq. 6), but it is an architectural component, not a load-bearing derivation: the central OLS result does not reduce to this choice, and no equation in the paper defines the target result in terms of fmap. No circular step satisfying the required quote-and-reduction standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or ontological entities are introduced. Point queries, lane queries, attention masks, and graph adjacency matrices are internal architectural constructs rather than independently evidenced entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Geometric distance threshold delta = 1.5 meters
    Hand-set threshold in Algorithm 1 that decides which detected points and lane endpoints are matched and averaged.
  • Classification thresholds tau_p and tau_l = 0.3
    Hand-set thresholds used to filter high-confidence points and lanes before matching in Algorithm 1.
  • fmap learnable parameters lambda and alpha = learned; initialized to 0.2 and 2.0
    Parameters of the exponential distance-to-bias mapping in Eq. 6, borrowed from TopoLogic and fitted during training.
  • PLGCN mixing weights lambda_1 and lambda_2 = learned; initialized to 1.0
    Weights that blend the topology matrix and geometric distance matrix in Eq. 11, affecting point-lane message passing.
  • Number of point and lane queries = Np = 200, Nl = 300
    Capacity choices tuned through the ablation in Table 5, affecting endpoint and lane detection performance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Lane endpoints in OpenLane-V2 can be de-duplicated into a point set P that covers all lane-lane connection points.
    Section 3.1 constructs P by de-duplicating all lane centerline endpoints; if connected lanes do not share exact endpoints in the annotations, this representation is invalid.
  • domain assumption BEV geometric L1 distance is a sufficient proxy for point-lane correspondence.
    Equations 4 and 5 and Algorithm 1 use L1 distances for attention bias and endpoint matching, with no appearance or semantic verification.
  • ad hoc to paper The exponential distance-to-bias mapping fmap taken from TopoLogic is an appropriate attention bias.
    Eq. 6 adopts fmap from TopoLogic with learnable lambda and alpha and no independent justification in this paper.
  • domain assumption Point and lane queries can be concatenated and processed in one self-attention without losing task separation.
    Eq. 3 concatenates Qp and Ql into Qpl and Eq. 7 applies joint self-attention; the paper assumes both query types benefit without one dominating the other.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TopoPoint: Enhance Topology Reasoning via Endpoint Detection in Autonomous Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/US7R6BI4

@misc{pith2026250517771,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TopoPoint: Enhance Topology Reasoning via Endpoint Detection in Autonomous Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/US7R6BI4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17771}
}
abstract

Topology reasoning, which unifies perception and structured reasoning, plays a vital role in understanding intersections for autonomous driving. However, its performance heavily relies on the accuracy of lane detection, particularly at connected lane endpoints. Existing methods often suffer from lane endpoints deviation, leading to incorrect topology construction. To address this issue, we propose TopoPoint, a novel framework that explicitly detects lane endpoints and jointly reasons over endpoints and lanes for robust topology reasoning. During training, we independently initialize point and lane query, and proposed Point-Lane Merge Self-Attention to enhance global context sharing through incorporating geometric distances between points and lanes as an attention mask . We further design Point-Lane Graph Convolutional Network to enable mutual feature aggregation between point and lane query. During inference, we introduce Point-Lane Geometry Matching algorithm that computes distances between detected points and lanes to refine lane endpoints, effectively mitigating endpoint deviation. Extensive experiments on the OpenLane-V2 benchmark demonstrate that TopoPoint achieves state-of-the-art performance in topology reasoning (48.8 on OLS). Additionally, we propose DET$_p$ to evaluate endpoint detection, under which our method significantly outperforms existing approaches (52.6 v.s. 45.2 on DET$_p$). The code is released at https://github.com/Franpin/TopoPoint.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17771 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pipeline Comparison. (a) In the previous pipeline, lanes are predicted independently, which leads to obvious endpoint deviation. (b) In our proposed pipeline, lane endpoints are explicitly modeled, and lanes with overlapping endpoints are obtained through point-lane geometry matching. lane paths by merging connected lane pieces. However, due to the suboptimal performance of lane detection, these methods have been re… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. TopoPoint framework. (a) In addition to the traffic elements and lanes, lane endpoints are also explicitly perceived in the detector. (b) The geometric attention bias is also incorporated into the point-lane merge self attention module to exchange information. (c) On this basis, the queries are used for topology reasoning, and the topology is also used for query enhancement in scene graph network. (d) During inferen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Module details. (a) Based on geometric attention bias and reasoned topology, lane & point queries are enhanced from the associated traffic elements & lanes & points by the unified scene graph network, (b) where the PLGCN is designed for better interaction between lanes and points. geometric distances based on the predicted points Pˆ l−1 = {pˆi ∈ R 3 |i = 1, 2, . . . , Np} and lanes Lˆ l−1 = { ˆli ∈ R k×3 |i = 1, 2, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of TopoLogic and our TopoPoint. The first row denotes multi￾view inputs, and the second row denotes lane detection result with lane topology result. In the graph form of lane topology, node indicates lane while edge indicates lane topology, where…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Additional qualitative comparison of TopoLogic and TopoPoint. The first row denotes multi-view inputs, the second row denotes the endpoint detection and lane detection results, where the lane endpoints are indicated by red dots. The third row denotes the lane-lane topo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: More qualitative comparison of TopoLogic and TopoPoint. The first row denotes multi-view inputs, the second row denotes the endpoint detection and lane detection results, where the lane endpoints are indicated by red dots. The third row denotes the lane-lane topology r…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multipath: Multiple probabilistic anchor trajectory hypotheses for behavior prediction

    Yuning Chai, Benjamin Sapp, Mayank Bansal, and Dragomir Anguelov. Multipath: Multiple probabilistic anchor trajectory hypotheses for behavior prediction. InCoRL, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Mp3: A unified model to map, perceive, predict and plan

    Sergio Casas, Abbas Sadat, and Raquel Urtasun. Mp3: A unified model to map, perceive, predict and plan. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 14403–14412, June 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Planning-oriented autonomous driving

    Yihan Hu, Jiazhi Yang, Li Chen, Keyu Li, Chonghao Sima, Xizhou Zhu, Siqi Chai, Senyao Du, Tianwei Lin, Wenhai Wang, et al. Planning-oriented autonomous driving. InCVPR, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Sat2graph: Road graph extraction through graph-tensor encoding

    Songtao He, Favyen Bastani, Satvat Jagwani, Mohammad Alizadeh, Hari Balakrishnan, Sanjay Chawla, Mohamed M Elshrif, Samuel Madden, and Mohammad Amin Sadeghi. Sat2graph: Road graph extraction through graph-tensor encoding. InComputer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXIV 16, pages 51–67. Springer, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Lane graph estimation for scene understand- ing in urban driving.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(4):8615–8622, 2021

    Jannik Zürn, Johan Vertens, and Wolfram Burgard. Lane graph estimation for scene understand- ing in urban driving.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(4):8615–8622, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Lane-level street map extraction from aerial imagery

    Songtao He and Hari Balakrishnan. Lane-level street map extraction from aerial imagery. In2022 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 1496–1505, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Spin road mapper: Extracting roads from aerial images via spatial and interaction space graph reasoning for autonomous driving

    Wele Gedara Chaminda Bandara, Jeya Maria Jose Valanarasu, and Vishal M Patel. Spin road mapper: Extracting roads from aerial images via spatial and interaction space graph reasoning for autonomous driving. In2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 343–350. IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Dagmapper: Learning to map by discovering lane topology

    Namdar Homayounfar, Wei-Chiu Ma, Justin Liang, Xinyu Wu, Jack Fan, and Raquel Urtasun. Dagmapper: Learning to map by discovering lane topology. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2911–2920, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Hdmapnet: An online hd map construction and evaluation framework

    Qi Li, Yue Wang, Yilun Wang, and Hang Zhao. Hdmapnet: An online hd map construction and evaluation framework. InICRA, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Vectormapnet: End-to- end vectorized hd map learning

    Yicheng Liu, Tianyuan Yuan, Yue Wang, Yilun Wang, and Hang Zhao. Vectormapnet: End-to- end vectorized hd map learning. InICML, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    End-to-end vectorized hd-map construction with piecewise bezier curve

    Limeng Qiao, Wenjie Ding, Xi Qiu, and Chi Zhang. End-to-end vectorized hd-map construction with piecewise bezier curve. InCVPR, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Pivotnet: Vectorized pivot learning for end-to-end hd map construction

    Wenjie Ding, Limeng Qiao, Xi Qiu, and Chi Zhang. Pivotnet: Vectorized pivot learning for end-to-end hd map construction. InICCV, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Topology preserving local road network estimation from single onboard camera image

    Yigit Baran Can, Alexander Liniger, Danda Pani Paudel, and Luc Van Gool. Topology preserving local road network estimation from single onboard camera image. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17263–17272, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Lane graph as path: Continuity-preserving path-wise modeling for online lane graph construction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08815, 2023

    Bencheng Liao, Shaoyu Chen, Bo Jiang, Tianheng Cheng, Qian Zhang, Wenyu Liu, Chang Huang, and Xinggang Wang. Lane graph as path: Continuity-preserving path-wise modeling for online lane graph construction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08815, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Topologic: An interpretable pipeline for lane topology reasoning on driving scenes

    Yanping Fu, Wenbin Liao, Xinyuan Liu, Hang Xu, Yike Ma, Yucheng Zhang, and Feng Dai. Topologic: An interpretable pipeline for lane topology reasoning on driving scenes. In A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, editors, Advances in N...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks, 2017. 13

    2017

  9. [17]

    Openlane-v2: A topology reasoning benchmark for unified 3d hd mapping

    Huijie Wang, Tianyu Li, Yang Li, Li Chen, Chonghao Sima, Zhenbo Liu, Bangjun Wang, Peijin Jia, Yuting Wang, Shengyin Jiang, Feng Wen, Hang Xu, Ping Luo, Junchi Yan, Wei Zhang, and Hongyang Li. Openlane-v2: A topology reasoning benchmark for unified 3d hd mapping. In NeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Yue Wang, Vitor Guizilini, Tianyuan Zhang, Yilun Wang, Hang Zhao, , and Justin M. Solomon. Detr3d: 3d object detection from multi-view images via 3d-to-2d queries. InThe Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Petr: Position embedding transfor- mation for multi-view 3d object detection

    Yingfei Liu, Tiancai Wang, Xiangyu Zhang, and Jian Sun. Petr: Position embedding transfor- mation for multi-view 3d object detection. InECCV, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Curveformer: 3d lane detection by curve propagation with curve queries and attention, 2023

    Yifeng Bai, Zhirong Chen, Zhangjie Fu, Lang Peng, Pengpeng Liang, and Erkang Cheng. Curveformer: 3d lane detection by curve propagation with curve queries and attention, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Anchor3dlane: Learning to regress 3d anchors for monocular 3d lane detection

    Shaofei Huang, Zhenwei Shen, Zehao Huang, Zi-han Ding, Jiao Dai, Jizhong Han, Naiyan Wang, and Si Liu. Anchor3dlane: Learning to regress 3d anchors for monocular 3d lane detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Paix ao, Claudine Badue, Alberto Ferreira De Souza, and Thiago Oliveira-Santos

    Lucas Tabelini, Rodrigo Berriel, Thiago M. Paix ao, Claudine Badue, Alberto Ferreira De Souza, and Thiago Oliveira-Santos. Keep your Eyes on the Lane: Real-time Attention-guided Lane Detection. InConference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Persformer: 3d lane detection via perspective transformer and the openlane benchmark

    Li Chen, Chonghao Sima, Yang Li, Zehan Zheng, Jiajie Xu, Xiangwei Geng, Hongyang Li, Conghui He, Jianping Shi, Yu Qiao, et al. Persformer: 3d lane detection via perspective transformer and the openlane benchmark. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 550–567. Springer, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Latr: 3d lane detection from monocular images with transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04583, 2023

    Yueru Luo, Chaoda Zheng, Xu Yan, Tang Kun, Chao Zheng, Shuguang Cui, and Zhen Li. Latr: 3d lane detection from monocular images with transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04583, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    End-to-end object detection with transformers, 2020

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End-to-end object detection with transformers, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Graph-based topology reasoning for driving scenes, 2023

    Tianyu Li, Li Chen, Huijie Wang, Yang Li, Jiazhi Yang, Xiangwei Geng, Shengyin Jiang, Yuting Wang, Hang Xu, Chunjing Xu, Junchi Yan, Ping Luo, and Hongyang Li. Graph-based topology reasoning for driving scenes, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection

    Xizhou Zhu, Weijie Su, Lewei Lu, Bin Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection. InICLR, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    The graph neural network model.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 20(1):61–80, 2009

    Franco Scarselli, Marco Gori, Ah Chung Tsoi, Markus Hagenbuchner, and Gabriele Monfardini. The graph neural network model.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 20(1):61–80, 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    Topomlp: An simple yet strong pipeline for driving topology reasoning.ICLR, 2024

    Dongming Wu, Jiahao Chang, Fan Jia, Yingfei Liu, Tiancai Wang, and Jianbing Shen. Topomlp: An simple yet strong pipeline for driving topology reasoning.ICLR, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    The 1st-place solution for cvpr 2023 openlane topology in autonomous driving challenge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09590, 2023

    Dongming Wu, Fan Jia, Jiahao Chang, Zhuoling Li, Jianjian Sun, Chunrui Han, Shuailin Li, Yingfei Liu, Zheng Ge, and Tiancai Wang. The 1st-place solution for cvpr 2023 openlane topology in autonomous driving challenge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09590, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    T2sg: Traffic topology scene graph for topology reasoning in autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18894, 2024

    Changsheng Lv, Mengshi Qi, Liang Liu, and Huadong Ma. T2sg: Traffic topology scene graph for topology reasoning in autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18894, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Augmenting lane perception and topology understanding with standard definition navigation maps.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04079, 2023

    Katie Z Luo, Xinshuo Weng, Yan Wang, Shuang Wu, Jie Li, Kilian Q Weinberger, Yue Wang, and Marco Pavone. Augmenting lane perception and topology understanding with standard definition navigation maps.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04079, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Lanesegnet: Map learning with lane segment perception for autonomous driving

    Tianyu Li, Peijin Jia, Bangjun Wang, Li Chen, Kun Jiang, Junchi Yan, and Hongyang Li. Lanesegnet: Map learning with lane segment perception for autonomous driving. InICLR, 2024. 14

    2024

  26. [34]

    Centerlinedet: Centerline graph detection for road lanes with vehicle-mounted sensors by transformer for hd map gen- eration

    Zhenhua Xu, Yuxuan Liu, Yuxiang Sun, Ming Liu, and Lujia Wang. Centerlinedet: Centerline graph detection for road lanes with vehicle-mounted sensors by transformer for hd map gen- eration. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 3553–3559....

    2023

  27. [35]

    Gen-lanenet: A generalized and scalable approach for 3d lane detection

    Yuliang Guo, Guang Chen, Peitao Zhao, Weide Zhang, Jinghao Miao, Jingao Wang, and Tae Eun Choe. Gen-lanenet: A generalized and scalable approach for 3d lane detection. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XX...

    2020

  28. [36]

    Once-3dlanes: Building monocular 3d lane detection

    Fan Yan, Ming Nie, Xinyue Cai, Jianhua Han, Hang Xu, Zhen Yang, Chaoqiang Ye, Yanwei Fu, Michael Bi Mi, and Li Zhang. Once-3dlanes: Building monocular 3d lane detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17143–17152, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    End-to-end object detection with transformers

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End-to-end object detection with transformers. page 213–229, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2020. Springer-Verlag

    2020

  30. [38]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InCVPR, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Berg, and Li Fei-Fei

    Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, Alexander C. Berg, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. 1409.0575, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Yangyan Li, Sören Pirk, Hao Su, Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, and Leonidas J. Guibas. FPNN: field probing neural networks for 3d data. 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    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. InECCV, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network function approximation in reinforcement learning, 2017

    Stefan Elfwing, Eiji Uchibe, and Kenji Doya. Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network function approximation in reinforcement learning, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Focal loss for dense object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollár. Focal loss for dense object detection. InICCV, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Jonathan T. Barron. A general and adaptive robust loss function, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Generalized intersection over union: A metric and a loss for bounding box regression, 2019

    Hamid Rezatofighi, Nathan Tsoi, JunYoung Gwak, Amir Sadeghian, Ian Reid, and Silvio Savarese. Generalized intersection over union: A metric and a loss for bounding box regression, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

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

    Benjamin Wilson, William Qi, Tanmay Agarwal, John Lambert, Jagjeet Singh, Siddhesh Khandelwal, Bowen Pan, Ratnesh Kumar, Andrew Hartnett, Jhony Kaesemodel Pontes, et al. Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self-driving perception and forecasting. InNeurIPS, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    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. InCVPR, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Maptr: Structured modeling and learning for online vectorized hd map construction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.14437, 2022

    Bencheng Liao, Shaoyu Chen, Xinggang Wang, Tianheng Cheng, Qian Zhang, Wenyu Liu, and Chang Huang. Maptr: Structured modeling and learning for online vectorized hd map construction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.14437, 2022. 15

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.