Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Enhancing LiDAR Point Features with Foundation Model Priors for 3D Object Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that appending a DepthAnything V2 depth value to each LiDAR point improves 3D detection for pedestrians and cyclists on KITTI, at a small cost for cars.

desk verdict A plausible but under-specified depth-prior augmentation for LiDAR detection; Table 3 supports the core claim, but missing depth details and an inconsistent Table 4 row need fixing before I'd trust the gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13899 v1 pith:JARVOTVZ submitted 2025-07-18 cs.CV

Yujian Mo , Yan Wu , Junqiao Zhao , Jijun Wang , Yinghao Hu , Jun Yan This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DobjectdetectionLiDARpointclouddepthpriorfoundationmodelmonocularestimationfeaturefusionKITTIbenchmark
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

The paper claims that raw LiDAR point features—$(x,y,z)$ coordinates plus reflectance $r$—are not expressive enough for reliable 3D object detection, and that this can be fixed by appending a depth value $d_{\mathrm{DA}}$ predicted by the monocular foundation model DepthAnything V2 at the image projection of each LiDAR point. The resulting five-dimensional feature $(x,y,z,r,d_{\mathrm{DA}})$ is fed through a point-wise feature extractor, a dual-path RoI extraction with voxel and point branches, and a bidirectional gated fusion module. On the KITTI validation set this yields +3.33 AP for Pedestrian and +1.12 AP for Cyclist, while Car drops by 1.05 AP, a trade-off the authors attribute to misalignment between image-predicted depth and LiDAR geometry on large objects. If the claim is right, pre-trained monocular depth models can serve as a drop-in geometric prior for LiDAR perception, avoiding dataset-specific depth completion.

What carries the argument

The central object is the enriched LiDAR point $(x,y,z,r,d_{\mathrm{DA}})$, where $d_{\mathrm{DA}}$ is the depth value sampled from the DepthAnything V2 depth map at the pixel where a LiDAR point projects via known camera-LiDAR calibration. Around it the paper builds three mechanisms: PointGFE, a point-wise extractor that combines point features with ball-query relative positions; a dual-path RoI branch pairing RoI Grid Pooling (global voxel context) with RoI Aware Pooling (fine-grained point structure); and a bidirectional gated RoI fusion module (BGRF) that uses learned attention gates across three cascaded stages. The mechanism's job is to let the depth-enriched point branch compensate for information lost in voxelization while the gating keeps global and local features balanced.

What would settle it

Run the identical depth-prior augmentation on a second LiDAR-camera dataset with different sensor and calibration characteristics, and compare pedestrian and cyclist AP with and without the prior; if the gains vanish or reverse, the central claim that foundation depth priors reliably improve LiDAR detection fails. A complementary check is to measure, per class, the correlation between $d_{\mathrm{DA}}$ and LiDAR ray distance: if the correlation differs sharply by class rather than by range, the network is exploiting a class artifact, not geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a foundation-model depth prior adds discriminative geometry to LiDAR points precisely where reflectance fails: the reflectance distributions of Pedestrian and Cyclist overlap heavily, while DepthAnything V2 separates objects by distance. Concatenating the sampled depth value with the raw attributes gives the detector a cue that is independent of surface material and incidence angle, and the proposed architecture is built to keep that cue alive through both voxel and point branches. The full method reaches 93.12/86.13/83.65 AP for Car on the KITTI validation set and 64.96 mean AP on the official test set, with the multi-class validation comparison showing the pedestrian and cyclist gains. Table 3 is the evidence for the core claim: with versus without depth priors, mAP rises from 56.34 to 59.67 for Pedestrian and from 72.28 to 73.40 for Cyclist, and falls from 88.59 to 87.54 for Car.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the depth value sampled from DepthAnything V2 at each projected LiDAR point is a useful, properly scaled geometric cue; the paper neither identifies which DepthAnything V2 variant it uses nor states how $d_{\mathrm{DA}}$ is normalized, so if the input is uncalibrated relative depth, the gains may be a KITTI-specific correlation with object class rather than transferable geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Depth priors from foundation models can be inserted into LiDAR detectors without dataset-specific depth completion or fine-tuning of the depth model.
  • Categories with weakly discriminative reflectance, notably pedestrians and cyclists, are where the prior helps most; cars, where LiDAR geometry is already strong, do not benefit.
  • The added modules are cheap in runtime—PointGFE costs 0.021 s, RoI Aware Pooling 0.006 s, and BGRF 0.013 s per frame—so the prior pipeline stays close to real time at 9.8 FPS.
  • RoI Grid Pooling, inherited from Voxel R-CNN, remains the computational bottleneck at 0.044 s, pointing to a natural target for future speedups.
  • The Car AP drop indicates uniform fusion of predicted depth is not always beneficial; adaptive or scale-aware prior integration is the stated direction for future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the pedestrian/cyclist gains may come less from geometric accuracy of $d_{\mathrm{DA}}$ than from class-correlated cues—DepthAnything's monocular depth encodes object scale, silhouette, and distance patterns that correlate with class—so the method's transfer to new sensors or city distributions is not guaranteed by the KITTI numbers alone.
  • My inference: a selective gating rule based on LiDAR-depth consistency (e.g., disable the prior where $d_{\mathrm{DA}}$ disagrees with the ray distance) could plausibly recover the Car loss while retaining the pedestrian gain; this is testable with the authors' own ablation setup.
  • My inference: because the enrichment is just an extra input channel, the same recipe could be dropped into other point- or voxel-based detectors, making the paper's contribution a reusable depth-channel prior rather than a detector-specific fix.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper argues that augmenting LiDAR point clouds with depth values predicted by DepthAnything V2 improves 3D object detection. The proposed pipeline concatenates the sampled monocular depth dDA with (x,y,z,r), feeds the resulting five-dimensional points through a PointGFE module and a dual-path RoI extraction framework (voxel-based RoI Grid Pooling and point-based RoI Aware Pooling), and merges the RoI features with a bidirectional gated fusion module (BGRF). On KITTI, the authors report gains over their no-depth-prior baseline for Pedestrian (+3.33 AP) and Cyclist (+1.12 AP) and a drop for Car (-1.05 AP), with a Car-focused ablation showing that DPL+BGRF improves over the baseline. The paper acknowledges the Car drop in Section 4.3 and the conclusion, but the abstract and contribution list claim consistent improvements across categories.

Significance. If the depth-prior benefit is real and attributable to the DepthAnything feature itself, this is a practical and low-cost way to inject foundation-model geometry into LiDAR detectors, with clear value for small or partially occluded objects. The paper reports a complete multi-class KITTI evaluation, a reasonable runtime analysis, and an ablation that at least shows the combined system helps on Car. The contribution is, however, conditional on resolving three concerns: the depth channel is under-specified, no ablation isolates the monocular depth value from a trivial LiDAR-derived range channel, and an ablation row needed to separate DPL from BGRF is missing. These issues are fixable within the scope of the paper, but until they are addressed the central attribution claim is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 3] The manuscript does not state which DepthAnything V2 model is used (metric or relative depth), what preprocessing/normalization is applied to dDA before concatenation with (x,y,z,r), or how the value is sampled at projected LiDAR coordinates (nearest neighbor, bilinear, occlusion handling). Because the entire reported gain is attributed to this fifth channel, the experiment is not reproducible and the effect cannot be interpreted without this information. Please specify the variant/checkpoint, the normalization scheme, and the sampling procedure, and include a sensitivity check on normalization.
  2. [Section 3.1, Table 3] The paper does not test whether a trivial, LiDAR-native depth channel would produce the same gains. Since dDA is sampled at the projection of each LiDAR point, it is largely a re-estimate of the same surface depth; the incremental information is mostly the monocular estimator's error pattern, which on KITTI is correlated with object scale and category. The observed pattern (+3.33 Pedestrian, +1.12 Cyclist, -1.05 Car) is consistent with the network learning a class-correlated residual rather than a geometric prior. Please add ablations that replace dDA with (i) a LiDAR-derived range or camera-frame depth coordinate and (ii) the same coordinate with calibration-like noise or arbitrary scaling, to determine whether the gains come from the extra dimension or from the specific DepthAnything output.
  3. [Section 4.4, Table 4] The ablation text states that "When only BGRF is introduced, a more notable gain is observed (85.05 vs. 86.13)," but Table 4 contains no BGRF-only row; the 86.13 result corresponds to DPL+BGRF. This makes it impossible to separate the contribution of BGRF from that of DPL and does not support the claimed evaluation of individual and combined effects. Add the missing BGRF-only row or rewrite the paragraph so it describes the actual table entries.
  4. [Abstract, Section 1 contributions, Section 4.3] The abstract and the contribution bullet claim "consistent performance improvements across Car, Pedestrian, and Cyclist categories" (and the abstract says the method "consistently improves detection accuracy"), but Table 3 reports a 1.05 AP drop for Car. Although Section 4.3 and the conclusion acknowledge this drop, the summary claims are contradictory and should be revised to state the mixed outcome (gains on Pedestrian/Cyclist, slight loss on Car).
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 3] Report multiple runs or error bars for the w/ and w/o depth-prior conditions; the +1.12 Cyclist gain is small enough that single-run AP values could be within run-to-run variation.
  2. [Figure 1] The caption contains garbled text ("Laplacemub Car 0 0.13198 ...") that appears to be fit parameters; please clarify the notation and what distribution is being fitted.
  3. [Section 3.1] The phrase "independent of the original LiDAR measurements" is misleading because the depth map is derived from an image of the same scene; rephrase as "derived from a different sensor modality" or similar.
  4. [Section 4.2] The implementation details omit the training schedule (epochs, batch size, learning rate, and any changes relative to the Voxel R-CNN baseline); adding these is necessary for reproducibility.
  5. [Section 4.5] State the hardware and settings for the 9.8 FPS runtime and clarify that the component timings include the cost of all three cascade stages, as the text appears to already intend.
  6. [Sections 3.1 and 4.4] The module called "Depth Prior Learning (DPL)" in the ablation is called "depth prior augmentation" in the method; use consistent terminology.
  7. [Table 1] The column heading "MAP" should be "mAP" for consistency with the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the depth prior is an externally pretrained input and the KITTI result is an independent empirical comparison; no prediction reduces to a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison, not a derivation: Section 3.1 samples a depth value dDA from the externally pretrained DepthAnything V2 at projected LiDAR coordinates and concatenates it as a fifth point feature, and Table 3 then reports KITTI validation AP differences with and without this depth prior. No equation in the paper defines the reported AP gains in terms of dDA, and no parameter is fitted to reproduce those gains; the 'prediction' is a measured detector output on an independent benchmark. The fact that dDA is largely a re-estimate of LiDAR range is a redundancy concern about informational content, not a circularity of reasoning, because the paper never claims the fifth channel is informationally independent of range—it claims it is a complementary geometric cue, and the ablation directly tests the effect of adding it. The only self-citation is reference [4], a semantic-segmentation survey by two of the present authors; it is cited in the introduction as general context about foundation-model priors and is not load-bearing for the method or the results. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or known result is imported from the authors' prior work to force the design. Two genuine limitations are present but are not circularity: Section 3.1 does not specify which DepthAnything V2 variant (metric or relative) is used or how dDA is normalized before concatenation, and Section 4.4's text says 'When only BGRF is introduced' while Table 4 omits the BGRF-only row. These are reproducibility and ablation-isolation gaps that bear on correctness and attribution of the gain, not on whether any claimed result reduces to its own inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: an external pretrained model provides a fixed feature, a standard detector is trained, and an independent benchmark evaluates the difference.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are architecture hyperparameters, standard for point-voxel detectors. The key unstated assumption is the validity of the DepthAnything depth value after projection.

free parameters (5)
  • ball query radius r = 0.8
    Section 4.2 sets r=0.8 for local neighbor search; chosen by hand, affects PointGFE.
  • number of neighbors = 9
    Section 4.2 selects 9 neighbors per query point.
  • RoI Aware Pooling grid size m = 12
    Section 4.2 uses 12^3 sub-voxels per RoI.
  • RoI feature grid resolution = 6x6x6
    Section 3.2.2 downsamples point RoI features to match voxel branch 6^3 grid.
  • fusion stages = 3
    Section 3.3 stacks three bidirectional gated fusion stages; each stage followed by a RoI head.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LiDAR-camera calibration on KITTI is accurate enough for point-to-pixel projection
    Section 3.1 projects each LiDAR point to the image plane using known intrinsics/extrinsics; if calibration is poor, sampled depth values are wrong.
  • domain assumption DepthAnything V2 provides depth estimates that are informative for outdoor driving scenes
    Section 3.1 uses dDA as a geometric prior; the paper does not validate DepthAnything V2 on KITTI or specify whether metric or relative depth is used.
  • standard math The KITTI training/validation split and AP R40 evaluation follow standard practice
    Sections 4.1 and 4.3 rely on standard KITTI split and AP R40; this is standard practice in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing LiDAR Point Features with Foundation Model Priors for 3D Object Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JARVOTVZ

@misc{pith2026250713899,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing LiDAR Point Features with Foundation Model Priors for 3D Object Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JARVOTVZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13899}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in foundation models have opened up new possibilities for enhancing 3D perception. In particular, DepthAnything offers dense and reliable geometric priors from monocular RGB images, which can complement sparse LiDAR data in autonomous driving scenarios. However, such priors remain underutilized in LiDAR-based 3D object detection. In this paper, we address the limited expressiveness of raw LiDAR point features, especially the weak discriminative capability of the reflectance attribute, by introducing depth priors predicted by DepthAnything. These priors are fused with the original LiDAR attributes to enrich each point's representation. To leverage the enhanced point features, we propose a point-wise feature extraction module. Then, a Dual-Path RoI feature extraction framework is employed, comprising a voxel-based branch for global semantic context and a point-based branch for fine-grained structural details. To effectively integrate the complementary RoI features, we introduce a bidirectional gated RoI feature fusion module that balances global and local cues. Extensive experiments on the KITTI benchmark show that our method consistently improves detection accuracy, demonstrating the value of incorporating visual foundation model priors into LiDAR-based 3D object detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13899 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Distribution of reflectance values for Car, Pedes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed 3D object detection frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Overview of the bidirectional gated fusion module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of 3D detection results on the KITTI validation set. Two representative scenes (Sample 1 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. LDRFusion: A LiDAR-Dominant multimodal refinement framework for 3D object detection

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LDRFusion reports a LiDAR-dominant two-stage fusion architecture that improves 3D detection on KITTI and nuScenes by refining LiDAR proposals with pseudo point clouds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139, pages 8748–8763...

    work page 2021

  2. [3]

    Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. Segment anything. In 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3992– 4003, 2023. doi: 10.1109 /ICCV51070.2023.00371

    arXiv 2023

  3. [4]

    Review the state-of-the-art technologies of semantic segmentation based on deep learning

    Yujian Mo, Yan Wu, Xinneng Yang, Feilin Liu, and Yujun Liao. Review the state-of-the-art technologies of semantic segmentation based on deep learning. Neurocomputing, 493:626 – 646, 2022. doi: 10.1016 /j.neucom.2022.01.005

    work page 2022

  4. [6]

    Lihe Yang, Bingyi Kang, Zilong Huang, Zhen Zhao, Xi- aogang Xu, Jiashi Feng, and Hengshuang Zhao. Depth Preprint – Enhancing LiDAR Point Features with Foundation Model Priors for 3D Object Detection 7 GT Baseline Ours Sample 1 Sample 2 GT Baseline Ours Sample 1 Sample 2 Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of 3D detection results on the KITTI validation set. ...

    work page 2024

  5. [7]

    On the opportunities and risks of foundation models

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bern- stein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [8]

    Collaborative perception datasets for autonomous driving: A review

    Naibang Wang, Deyong Shang, Yan Gong, Xiaoxi Hu, Ziying Song, Lei Yang, Yuhan Huang, Xiaoyu Wang, and Jianli Lu. Collaborative perception datasets for autonomous driving: A review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12696, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [10]

    Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection

    Yan Yan, Yuxing Mao, and Bo Li. Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection. Sensors, 18(10), 2018. doi: 10.3390/s18103337

    doi:10.3390/s18103337 2018

  8. [11]

    V oxel mamba: Group-free state space models for point cloud based 3d object detection

    Guowen Zhang, Lue Fan, Chenhang He, Zhen Lei, Zhaoxi- ang Zhang, and Lei Zhang. V oxel mamba: Group-free state space models for point cloud based 3d object detection. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 37, pages 81489–81509. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 28 references
  1. [12]

    Mul- timodal virtual point 3d detection

    Tianwei Yin, Xingyi Zhou, and Philipp Krähenbühl. Mul- timodal virtual point 3d detection. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 16494– 16507. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021

    2021

  2. [16]

    V oxel r-cnn: To- wards high performance voxel-based 3d object detec- tion

    Jiajun Deng, Shaoshuai Shi, Peiwei Li, Wengang Zhou, Yanyong Zhang, and Houqiang Li. V oxel r-cnn: To- wards high performance voxel-based 3d object detec- tion. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence, volume 35, page 1201–1209, 2021. doi: 10.1609/aa...

    2021 doi

  3. [17]

    From points to parts: 3d object detection from point cloud with part-aware and part- aggregation network

    Shaoshuai Shi, Zhe Wang, Jianping Shi, Xiaogang Wang, and Hongsheng Li. From points to parts: 3d object detection from point cloud with part-aware and part- aggregation network. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analy- sis and Machine Intelligence, 43(8):2647–2664, 2021. doi: 10.11...

    2021

  4. [18]

    V oxelnet: End-to-end learn- ing for point cloud based 3d object detection

    Yin Zhou and Oncel Tuzel. V oxelnet: End-to-end learn- ing for point cloud based 3d object detection. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4490–4499, 2018. doi: 10.1109/CVPR. 2018.00472

    2018

  5. [19]

    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 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11789–11798, 2021. doi: 10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.01162

    2021

  6. [20]

    Lang, Bassam Helou, and Oscar Beijbom

    Sourabh V ora, Alex H. Lang, Bassam Helou, and Oscar Beijbom. Pointpainting: Sequential fusion for 3d object detection. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4603–4611, 2020. doi: 10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.00466

    2020

  7. [21]

    BLIP: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for uni- fied vision-language understanding and generation

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. BLIP: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for uni- fied vision-language understanding and generation. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Ma- chine Learning, volume 162, pages 12888–12900. PMLR, 17–2...

    2022

  8. [22]

    Grounded language-image pre-training

    Liunian Harold Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Haotian Zhang, Jianwei Yang, Chunyuan Li, Yiwu Zhong, Lijuan Wang, Lu Yuan, Lei Zhang, Jenq-Neng Hwang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Jianfeng Gao. Grounded language-image pre-training. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni...

    2022

  9. [23]

    Hcpvf: Hierarchical cascaded point-voxel fusion for 3d object detection

    Baojie Fan, Kexin Zhang, and Jiandong Tian. Hcpvf: Hierarchical cascaded point-voxel fusion for 3d object detection. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 34(10):8997–9009, 2024. doi: 10.1109 / TCSVT.2023.3268849

    2024

  10. [24]

    Csa-rcnn: Cas- caded self-attention networks for high-quality 3-d object detection from lidar point clouds

    Ajian Liu, Liang Yuan, and Juan Chen. Csa-rcnn: Cas- caded self-attention networks for high-quality 3-d object detection from lidar point clouds. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 73:1–13, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TIM.2024.3476690

    2024

  11. [25]

    Casa: A cascade attention network for 3-d object detection from lidar point clouds.IEEE Transac- tions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–11, 2022

    Hai Wu, Jinhao Deng, Chenglu Wen, Xin Li, Cheng Wang, and Jonathan Li. Casa: A cascade attention network for 3-d object detection from lidar point clouds.IEEE Transac- tions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–11, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2022.3203163

    2022

  12. [26]

    Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite

    Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, and Raquel Urtasun. Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. In 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3354–3361, 2012. doi: 10. 1109/CVPR.2012.6248074

    2012

  13. [27]

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

    OpenPCDet Development Team. Openpcdet: An open-source toolbox for 3d object detection from point clouds. https://github.com/open-mmlab/ OpenPCDet, 2020

    2020

  14. [28]

    Pg-rcnn: Semantic surface point generation for 3d object detection

    Inyong Koo, Inyoung Lee, Se-Ho Kim, Hee-Seon Kim, Woo-Jin Jeon, and Changick Kim. Pg-rcnn: Semantic surface point generation for 3d object detection. In 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 18096–18105, 2023. doi: 10.1109 /ICCV51070. 2023.01663

    2023

  15. [29]

    Dfaf3d:a dual-feature-aware anchor-free single-stage 3d detector for point clouds

    Qingsong Tang, Xinyu Bai, Jinting Guo, Bolin Pan, and Wuming Jiang. Dfaf3d:a dual-feature-aware anchor-free single-stage 3d detector for point clouds. Image and Vision Computing, 129:104594, 2023. ISSN 0262-8856. doi: 10.1016/j.imavis.2022.104594

    2023

  16. [30]

    Gd- mae: Generative decoder for mae pre-training on lidar point clouds

    Honghui Yang, Tong He, Jiaheng Liu, Hua Chen, Boxi Wu, Binbin Lin, Xiaofei He, and Wanli Ouyang. Gd- mae: Generative decoder for mae pre-training on lidar point clouds. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9403–9414, 2023. doi: 10.1109/...

    2023

  17. [31]

    E fficient online transfer learning for road par- ticipants detection in autonomous driving

    Rui Yang, Zhi Yan, Tao Yang, Yaonan Wang, and Yassine Ruichek. E fficient online transfer learning for road par- ticipants detection in autonomous driving. IEEE Sensors Journal, 23(19):23522–23535, 2023. doi: 10.1109 /JSEN. 2023.3305592

    2023

  18. [32]

    Hayeon, Chanuk Yang, and Kunsoo Huh

    O. Hayeon, Chanuk Yang, and Kunsoo Huh. Sesame: Simple, easy 3d object detection with point-wise semantics. In 2024 Asian Conference on Computer Vision, pages 211– 227, 2025

    2024

  19. [33]

    Hinted: Hard instance enhanced detector with mixed-density feature fusion for sparsely-supervised 3d object detection

    Qiming Xia, Wei Ye, Hai Wu, Shijia Zhao, Leyuan Xing, Xun Huang, Jinhao Deng, Xin Li, Chenglu Wen, and Cheng Wang. Hinted: Hard instance enhanced detector with mixed-density feature fusion for sparsely-supervised 3d object detection. In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vis...

    2024

  20. [34]

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

    Ziying Song, Haiyue Wei, Lin Bai, Lei Yang, and Caiyan Jia. Graphalign: Enhancing accurate feature alignment by graph matching for multi-modal 3d object detection. In 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3335–3346, 2023. doi: 10.1109 /ICCV51070. 2023.00311

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.