Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 61 references

Towards Collaborative Joint Perception and Prediction: Framework, Baseline Evaluation, and Deployment Perspectives

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 Collaborative fusion should happen before motion prediction, not after.

desk verdict Useful, honest baseline on fusion timing for collaborative perception, but the headline design rule leans on a weak late-fusion baseline and the abstract overclaims forecasting gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09541 v1 pith:TNNJ7RLX submitted 2026-08-10 cs.CV

Lei Wan , Hannan Ejaz Keen , Alexey Vinel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords collaborativeperceptionmotionpredictionjointandV2XcommunicationfusionstrategypointcloudcompressionocclusionrecoveryDAIR-V2X-Seq
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish where in a connected-vehicle perception pipeline collaborative information should be fused, and whether an end-to-end collaborative perception-and-prediction system can work under realistic communication limits. On the DAIR-V2X-Seq vehicle-to-infrastructure dataset, it compares fusing at detection, tracking, and prediction stages using the same detection, tracking, and prediction models. It finds that fusing predicted trajectories underperforms detection-level and tracking-level fusion and barely matches the stronger single-agent baseline, while costing roughly an order of magnitude more bandwidth. It then builds a minimal end-to-end prototype in which a collaborating vehicle's LiDAR sweep is compressed by the RENO neural codec and fed into the FutureDet detection-forecasting model; collaboration improves forecasting accuracy, and the strongest compression preserves that gain at about 34x lower bandwidth. If correct, the paper gives system designers a concrete rule: fuse before motion prediction, and share compressed scene geometry rather than final forecasts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a controlled fusion-stage ablation. One modular pipeline—PointPillars for 3D object detection, AB3DMOT for multi-object tracking, MTR for motion prediction—is trained once, and only the point of V2X fusion changes: detection-level fusion merges per-agent 3D boxes by non-maximum suppression; tracking-level fusion associates tracks by Hungarian matching and combines them with covariance-weighted track-to-track fusion; prediction-level fusion averages per-agent trajectories by confidence. Relative pose optimization, an iterative closest-point registration, corrects residual misalignment between the two agents' coordinate frames before any fusion. The end-to-end prototype replaces the cascade with one trainable model: the RENO neural codec compresses the collaborating agent's LiDAR sweep, the ego side decodes and merges it, and FutureDet outputs current detections together with future trajectories in a single forward pass. These two mechanisms let the paper separate the question of when to fuse from the question of what to share.

What would settle it

Run the same fusion-stage comparison on DAIR-V2X-Seq with a late-fusion method that learns to combine full trajectory distributions instead of confidence-weighted averaging; if prediction-level fusion then matches or exceeds detection-level fusion in forecast accuracy, the paper's central ordering fails. Alternatively, repeat the three-stage comparison on another cooperative dataset with the same pipeline; a reversal of the ordering there would show the result is dataset-specific.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that prediction-level fusion—merging the final predicted trajectories of two agents by confidence-weighted averaging—degrades overall system performance relative to detection-level or tracking-level fusion, and that the reason is cascade error accumulation. In the modular pipeline (PointPillars detection, AB3DMOT tracking, MTR prediction), detection and tracking fusion lift recall on occluded objects and improve forecast accuracy, while prediction fusion does not and requires 4003.9 bytes per message versus 346.3 for detection fusion and 406.3 for tracking fusion. The authors attribute this to tracker fragmentation: identity switches and broken trajectories cannot be repaired once the forecast has been computed. The end-to-end prototype supports the same story: a jointly trained FutureDet model on shared, RENO-compressed point clouds reaches minADE around 3.5 and minFDE around 6.2, far below the modular pipeline's 14–19 and 26–38 on the same data, isolating inter-stage error accumulation rather than the dataset or forecaster as the dominant cause of weak modular forecasting.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that prediction-level fusion is worse rests on a single late-fusion baseline: confidence-weighted averaging of predicted trajectories; a stronger method for merging trajectory distributions could change the ordering, so the paper's design rule is calibrated to its own baseline family.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For practical deployment, collaborative information should be fused at the detection or tracking stage rather than after motion prediction.
  • Prediction-level fusion is dominated on both axes: it fails to improve accuracy and consumes roughly 40 KB/s at 10 Hz, about ten times the bandwidth of detection-level fusion.
  • A jointly trained detection-forecasting model avoids the inter-stage error accumulation that cripples modular forecasting, so end-to-end Co-P&P is the more promising route to accurate predictions.
  • Neural point-cloud compression at quantization level q=256 cuts the transmitted payload from 682,712 to 19,898 bytes per frame while slightly improving forecast accuracy over raw transmission, showing that aggressive compression preserves task-relevant geometry.
  • Visibility-stratified recall should be part of collaborative perception evaluation because it directly measures the occlusion-recovery benefit that collaboration provides.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a learned late-fusion method that merges full trajectory distributions rather than confidence-weighted point estimates could in principle overturn the ranking; the design rule is established only against the paper's baseline family.
  • Beyond the paper: if cascade error accumulation is the dominant bottleneck, then end-to-end collaborative models should show a larger accuracy gain from collaboration than modular pipelines do, which is a direct testable prediction of the paper's interpretation.
  • Beyond the paper: the 34x compression result suggests the transmitted representation is highly redundant for forecasting; task-aware feature compression or learned scene completion may preserve the same forecasting benefit at even lower bitrates.
  • Beyond the paper: the visibility-stratified recall metric could be extended to a precision-aware visibility mAP by attributing false positives to visibility groups through nearest-neighbor association, an open problem the paper explicitly leaves.
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. Building on the authors' earlier conceptual Co-P&P paper, this manuscript contributes a modular baseline evaluation on DAIR-V2X-Seq that compares V2X fusion at the detection, tracking, and prediction stages, together with a minimal end-to-end prototype coupling RENO point-cloud compression with FutureDet. The central empirical claims are that prediction-level fusion (implemented as confidence-weighted averaging of per-agent trajectories) is less accurate and more bandwidth-hungry than detection- or tracking-level fusion, and that collaborative point-cloud sharing improves FutureDet forecasting over ego-only operation while neural compression preserves the benefit at about 34x lower bandwidth. The paper also argues for visibility-stratified recall as an evaluation methodology and surveys deployment challenges.

Significance. If the fusion-timing result holds as a general design rule, it would be a useful systems-level guideline for V2X perception-prediction pipelines. The RENO+FutureDet prototype is a concrete first instantiation of collaborative P&P with a quantified bandwidth-accuracy trade-off, and the visibility-stratified recall analysis is a principled step beyond plain mAP. The authors are honest about cases where gains are small or negative (Table 9 minFDE/MR, and the infrastructure-only comparisons in Table 8). However, the strength of the deployment rule currently exceeds what the evidence can support: the prediction-level fusion conclusion rests on a single untrained late-fusion baseline, and the end-to-end versus modular comparison is confounded by architecture and training differences. The paper has value as a controlled baseline study, but the general claims need to be re-scoped or supported by additional experiments.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Table 8] The central design rule that fusion should be performed before motion prediction is inferred from a single prediction-level fusion implementation: confidence-weighted averaging of associated trajectories. That untrained rule discards covariance, multimodality, and per-agent uncertainty, making it structurally the weakest of the three fusion methods. The gap in Table 8 (mAPf 9.7 for prediction fusion vs 12.2 for tracking fusion) is of the same order as the effect of RPO in Table 7 (10.2 vs 9.7), which shows sensitivity to small design choices. A learned trajectory-level fusion, e.g., cross-attention over top-K trajectory distributions or covariance-aware ensembling, could plausibly close or reverse the ordering. Please add such a baseline or explicitly re-scope the abstract and Sections 5.2 and 8 to state that the conclusion applies to the implemented baseline family rather than to prediction-level fusion in general.
  2. [§5.2, Table 9] The sentence claiming that the end-to-end prototype 'isolates cascade error accumulation' as the dominant cause of the modular pipeline's weak forecasting is not supported by the evidence. The two systems differ in model architecture (FutureDet vs MTR), training objective (joint vs separate), and input representation (raw/fused point cloud vs tracked boxes), so the large mAPf gap (14.15 vs 4.9) could reflect a stronger forecaster rather than the absence of a cascade. To make the attribution, the authors should run a controlled comparison, for example feeding FutureDet's output to the modular tracker/predictor or evaluating MTR on FutureDet detections; otherwise the statement should be softened to a hypothesis.
  3. [§5.2, Tables 4-9] All quantitative results are reported as single runs with no confidence intervals or significance tests, yet Section 5.2 states that some differences 'fall within the expected run-to-run variation.' This is not verifiable from the paper. Since the main fusion-timing ordering (10.3 vs 12.2 vs 9.7 mAPf in Table 8) is comparable in magnitude to the RPO-induced shift in Table 7, the ordering could plausibly change under seed variation. Please provide multiple seeds or bootstrap intervals for at least the fusion-timing comparison and the RENO quantization sweep.
  4. [Abstract and Table 9] The abstract states that collaboration 'improves forecasting accuracy' without qualification, but Table 9 shows that minFDE and MR are worse in every collaborative condition than in the ego-only condition (e.g., minFDE 6.242 at RENO q256 vs 6.216 for ego; MR 0.452 vs 0.448). The improvement is metric-dependent, holding for mAPf and minADE but not for minFDE or MR. The abstract and Section 8 should name the metrics on which the improvement is claimed, or the claim should be weakened to 'improves some forecasting metrics.'
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 6] The IDS entry for 'Infrastructure only' reads 2526, which is either a typo or an implausible value compared with 26 for vehicle-only and 12 for track fusion; please correct the value and ensure column alignment.
  2. [Table 2] The description of mAPf is confusing: it says mAPf penalizes trajectories with minFDEk < 4m for inaccurate forecasts, while the miss-rate definition uses minFDEk > 4m. Please clarify the threshold direction and the exact penalty rule.
  3. [§5.2, Table 7] The sentence 'Gains over the stronger infrastructure-only baseline are smaller and, for some metrics, fall within the expected run-to-run variation' is inconsistent with Table 7, where late fusion with RPO (mAPf 9.7) is below infrastructure-only (9.8); please use neutral wording such as 'differences' and avoid implying consistent gains.
  4. [§6] The phrase 'futility of prediction-level fusion' is too strong for a result based on one baseline; rephrase to 'the ineffectiveness of the implemented prediction-level fusion' or similar.
  5. [§5.1/Table 8] Communication cost units are given inconsistently as 'Bytes', 'bytes per message', and 'per-frame payloads'; please state clearly that Table 8 reports bytes per message (or per frame) and derive the KB/s figures from that convention.
  6. [§2.2] The paper calls the study a 'controlled, reproducible baseline' but does not provide code or model weights; please include a code repository or state explicitly what artifacts are available.
  7. [Abstract] Minor typographical issue: 'roughly34×' should read 'roughly 34×'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical comparisons are external to the framework, and the self-cited conceptual framework is background, not evidence.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claims—prediction-level fusion underperforms detection- and tracking-level fusion, and the RENO+FutureDet prototype improves forecasting over ego-only operation while compressing bandwidth by roughly 34x—are derived from external benchmarks (DAIR-V2X-Seq) and independently published components (PointPillars, AB3DMOT, MTR, RENO, FutureDet). The self-citations ([1], [34]) supply the conceptual Co-P&P framing and a literature review; they are not invoked to derive any numerical result or to forbid alternative fusion designs. No parameter is fitted to the headline outcome: RPO is a test-time registration correction, and its inclusion changes but does not manufacture the fusion-stage ordering. The prediction-level fusion baseline (confidence-weighted averaging) is a design choice rather than a circular one, because it is not defined in terms of the conclusion, and the paper's recommendation does not reduce to any fitted constant. Concerns about the strength of the single prediction-fusion baseline are correctness or robustness issues, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external evidence.

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

The central comparisons depend on hand-chosen fusion thresholds, an unstated visibility stratification, and a test-time ICP pose correction. No new physical or algorithmic entities are introduced beyond the existing components.

free parameters (4)
  • NMS IoU threshold for detection fusion = 0.5
    Used to merge vehicle and infrastructure detection boxes at detection-level fusion; chosen by hand.
  • Track association center-distance threshold = 5 m
    Used for Hungarian matching between vehicle and infrastructure tracks; chosen by hand.
  • RPO point-set registration parameters = unspecified (iterative closest point)
    Relative pose optimization estimates a per-frame rigid correction from object-center matches; convergence criteria and iterations are not reported.
  • RENO quantization levels = q in {16, 64, 256}
    Swept to produce the compression/accuracy trade-off curve, not fitted to make a claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DAIR-V2X-Seq provides accurate ground-truth tracks, sensor poses, and HD maps
    The dataset specs in Section 5.1 are taken at face value; evaluation of prediction metrics depends on these annotations.
  • domain assumption Visibility groups (fully visible, partially visible, fully invisible) are well-defined
    Section 4.1 states the categorization but does not specify the occlusion or point-count criterion used to assign objects to groups, which affects the recall comparisons in Table 4.
  • ad hoc to paper The test-time RPO registration of vehicle and infrastructure observations yields a valid common frame
    Equation (1) fits a rigid correction to matched detection centers; the reliability of these matches is central to all fusion results.
  • domain assumption Standard model implementations with default configs are adequate for the comparison
    Section 5.1 relies on third-party PointPillars, MTR, FutureDet, and RENO implementations without custom adaptation or hyperparameter tuning.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Collaborative Joint Perception and Prediction: Framework, Baseline Evaluation, and Deployment Perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNNJ7RLX

@misc{pith2026260809541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Collaborative Joint Perception and Prediction: Framework, Baseline Evaluation, and Deployment Perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNNJ7RLX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09541}
}
read the original abstract

Connected Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) increasingly exploit Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) communication to exchange multi-source sensor information, enabling advanced Collaborative Perception (CP) capabilities. Extending beyond these capabilities, this work focuses on Collaborative Joint Perception and Prediction (Co-P&P), a paradigm that unifies CP with motion prediction to mitigate two persistent challenges: the accumulation of perception errors and visual occlusions. We present a conceptual framework for Collaborative Joint Perception and Prediction (Co-P&P) that improves motion prediction of surrounding road users, thereby enhancing situational awareness in complex and dynamic traffic environments. Building upon our preliminary study, this extended version compares the performance of different fusion strategies and establishes baseline performance for a modular design of perception and prediction. Experimental results show that prediction-level fusion leads to a decline in overall system performance compared to detection-level or tracking-level fusion. We further implement a minimal end-to-end Co-P&P prototype that couples collaborative point-cloud sharing via the RENO neural codec with joint detection-forecasting via FutureDet, showing that collaboration improves forecasting accuracy while neural compression preserves this benefit at roughly 34x lower communication bandwidth.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Sys- tems - VEHITS, pp

    Wan, L., Keen, H.E., Vinel, A.: The Components of Collaborative Joint Per- ception and Prediction: A Conceptual Framework. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Sys- tems - VEHITS, pp. 458–465. SciTePress, ??? (2025). https://doi.org/10.5220/ 0013285300003941 . INSTICC

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    In: 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Geiger, A., Lenz, P., Urtasun, R.: Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. In: 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3354–3361 (2012). IEEE

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Caesar, H., Bankiti, V., Lang, A.H., Vora, S., Liong, V.E., Xu, Q., Krish- nan, A., Pan, Y., Baldan, G., Beijbom, O.: nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 11621–11631 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Sun, P., Kretzschmar, H., Dotiwalla, X., Chouard, A., Patnaik, V., Tsui, P., Guo, J., Zhou, Y., Chai, Y., Caine, B.,et al.: Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2446–2454 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17122 (2025)

    Mirlach, J., Wan, L., Wiedholz, A., Keen, H.E., Eich, A.: R-livit: A lidar-visual- thermal dataset enabling vulnerable road user focused roadside perception. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17122 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    tuk campus dataset

    Keen, H.E., Jan, Q.H., Berns, K.: Drive on pedestrian walk. tuk campus dataset. In: 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 3822–3828 (2021). IEEE

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    In: Advances in Service and Industrial Robotics, pp

    Keen, H.E., Berns, K.: Probabilistic fusion of surface and underwater maps in a shallow water environment. In: Advances in Service and Industrial Robotics, pp. 195–202. Springer, Cham (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    In: Advances in Service and Industrial Robotics, pp

    Keen, H.E., Berns, K.: Generation of elevation maps for planning and naviga- tion of vehicles in rough natural terrain. In: Advances in Service and Industrial Robotics, pp. 488–495. Springer, Cham (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    IEEE Access8, 58970–58981 (2020) https://doi.org/10

    Owais, M., Alshehri, A.: Pareto optimal path generation algorithm in stochastic transportation networks. IEEE Access8, 58970–58981 (2020) https://doi.org/10. 1109/ACCESS.2020.2983047

    2020

  2. [10]

    Sensors25(7) (2025)

    Almutairi, A., Owais, M.: Reliable vehicle routing problem using traffic sensors augmented information. Sensors25(7) (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    IEEE Access12, 2882–2900 23 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3349499

    Almutairi, A., Yi, P., Owais, M.: New approach for estimating intersection control delay from passive traffic sensors at network level. IEEE Access12, 2882–2900 23 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3349499

    2024

  4. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC), pp

    Chen, Q., Ma, X., Tang, S., Guo, J., Yang, Q., Fu, S.: F-Cooper: Feature-based cooperative perception for autonomous vehicle edge computing system using 3D point clouds. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC), pp. 88–100 (2019). ACM

    2019

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Hu, Y., Lu, Y., Xu, R., Xie, W., Chen, S., Wang, Y.: Collaboration helps camera overtake lidar in 3D detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 9243–9252 (2023). IEEE

    2023

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE 98th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2023-Fall), pp

    Liu, H., Gu, Z., Wang, C., Wang, P., Vukobratovic, D.: A lidar semantic segmenta- tion framework for the cooperative vehicle-infrastructure system. In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE 98th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2023-Fall), pp. 1–5 (2023). IEEE

    2023

  7. [15]

    In: Vedaldi, A., Bischof, H., Brox, T., Frahm, J.-M

    Wang, T.-H., Manivasagam, S., Liang, M., Yang, B., Zeng, W., Urtasun, R.: V2VNet: Vehicle-to-vehicle communication for joint perception and prediction. In: Vedaldi, A., Bischof, H., Brox, T., Frahm, J.-M. (eds.) Computer Vision – ECCV 2020, vol. 12347, pp. 605–621. Springer, ?...

    2020

  8. [16]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence38(6), 5599–5606 (2024)

    Wang, T., Kim, S., Jiang, W., Xie, E., Ge, C., Chen, J., Li, Z., Luo, P.: DeepAcci- dent: A motion and accident prediction benchmark for V2X autonomous driving. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence38(6), 5599–5606 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Liang, M., Yang, B., Zeng, W., Chen, Y., Hu, R., Casas, S., Urtasun, R.: PnPNet: End-to-end perception and prediction with tracking in the loop. In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 11553–11562 (2020). IEEE

    2020

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Gu, J., Hu, C., Zhang, T., Chen, X., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Zhao, H.: ViP3D: End- to-end visual trajectory prediction via 3D agent queries. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 5496–5506 (2023). IEEE

    2023

  11. [19]

    In: Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) (2022)

    Li, Y., Zhang, J., Ma, D., Wang, Y., Feng, C.: Multi-robot scene comple- tion: Towards task-agnostic collaborative perception. In: Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) (2022). PMLR

    2022

  12. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp

    Wang, B., Zhang, L., Wang, Z., Zhao, Y., Zhou, T.: CoRe: Cooperative reconstruction for multi-agent perception. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 8676–8686 (2023). IEEE

    2023

  13. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on 24 Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    You, K., Chen, T., Ding, D., Asif, M.S., Ma, Z.: Reno: Real-time neural compres- sion for 3d lidar point clouds. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on 24 Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 22172–22181 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Peri, N., Luiten, J., Li, M., Osep, A., Leal-Taix´ e, L., Ramanan, D.: Forecasting from lidar via future object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 17202–17211 (2022). IEEE

    2022

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14088 (2024)

    Dal’Col, L., Oliveira, M., Santos, V.: Joint perception and prediction for autonomous driving: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14088 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Luo, W., Yang, B., Urtasun, R.: Fast and furious: Real time end-to-end 3d detection, tracking and motion forecasting with a single convolutional net. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3569–3577 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters6(2), 526–533 (2020)

    Meyer, G.P., Charland, J., Pandey, S., Laddha, A., Gautam, S., Vallespi-Gonzalez, C., Wellington, C.K.: Laserflow: Efficient and probabilistic object detection and motion forecasting. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters6(2), 526–533 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    In: 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp

    Liu, X., Gong, M., Fang, Q., Xie, H., Li, Y., Zhao, H., Feng, C.: Lidar-based 4d occupancy completion and forecasting. In: 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 11102–11109 (2024). IEEE

    2024

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09743 (2022)

    Zhang, Y., Zhu, Z., Zheng, W., Huang, J., Huang, G., Zhou, J., Lu, J.: Beverse: Unified perception and prediction in birds-eye-view for vision-centric autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09743 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Hu, Y., Yang, J., Chen, L., Li, K., Sima, C., Zhu, X., Chai, S., Du, S., Lin, T., Wang, W.,et al.: Planning-oriented autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 17853–17862 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    IEEE Open Journal of Intel- ligent Transportation Systems3, 222–235 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/OJITS

    Khalil, Y.H., Mouftah, H.T.: Licanet: Further enhancement of joint perception and motion prediction based on multi-modal fusion. IEEE Open Journal of Intel- ligent Transportation Systems3, 222–235 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/OJITS. 2022.3160888

    2022

  22. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Wu, P., Chen, S., Metaxas, D.N.: Motionnet: Joint perception and motion pre- diction for autonomous driving based on bird’s eye view maps. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 11385–11395 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01006 (2023) 25

    Ye, T., Jing, W., Hu, C., Huang, S., Gao, L., Li, F., Wang, J., Guo, K., Xiao, W., Mao, W., et al.: Fusionad: Multi-modality fusion for prediction and planning tasks of autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01006 (2023) 25

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01812 (2024)

    Zhou, Z., Xiang, H., Zheng, Z., Zhao, S.Z., Lei, M., Zhang, Y., Cai, T., Liu, X., Liu, J., Bajji, M., et al.: V2xpnp: Vehicle-to-everything spatio-temporal fusion for multi-agent perception and prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01812 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Yu, H., Yang, W., Zhong, J., Yang, Z., Fan, S., Luo, P., Nie, Z.: End-to-end autonomous driving through v2x cooperation. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, pp. 9598–9606 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04631 (2025)

    Wan, L., Zhao, J., Wiedholz, A., Bied, M., Lucena, M.M., Jagtap, A.D., Fes- tag, A., Fr¨ ohlich, A.A., Keen, H.E., Vinel, A.: Systematic literature review on vehicular collaborative perception–a computer vision perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04631 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Wang, B., Zhang, L., Wang, Z., Zhao, Y., Zhou, T.: Core: Cooperative reconstruc- tion for multi-agent perception. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 8710–8720 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    In: 2021 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Workshops (IV Workshops), pp

    Triess, L.T., Dreissig, M., Rist, C.B., Z¨ ollner, J.M.: A survey on deep domain adaptation for lidar perception. In: 2021 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Workshops (IV Workshops), pp. 350–357 (2021). IEEE

    2021

  29. [37]

    Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies10(3), 171–187 (2002)

    Ochieng, W., Sauer, K.: Urban road transport navigation: Performance of the global positioning system after selective availability. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies10(3), 171–187 (2002)

    2002

  30. [38]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles8(2), 1574–1596 (2022)

    Chalvatzaras, A., Pratikakis, I., Amanatiadis, A.A.: A survey on map-based local- ization techniques for autonomous vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles8(2), 1574–1596 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    18428–18435 (2023)

    Xu, Y., Chambon, L., Zablocki, ´E., Chen, M., Alahi, A., Cord, M., P´ erez, P.: Towards motion forecasting with real-world perception inputs: Are end-to-end approaches competitive? In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 18428–18435 (2023). IEEE

    2023

  32. [40]

    IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology65(12), 9457–9470 (2016)

    Abboud, K., Omar, H.A., Zhuang, W.: Interworking of dsrc and cellular network technologies for V2X communications: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology65(12), 9457–9470 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Proceedings of the IEEE99(7), 1162–1182 (2011)

    Kenney, J.B.: Dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) standards in the united states. Proceedings of the IEEE99(7), 1162–1182 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Technical Report DOT HS 812 014, United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2014)

    Harding, J., Powell, G., Yoon, R., Fikentscher, J., Doyle, C., Sade, D., Lukuc, M., Simons, J., Wang, J.: Vehicle-to-vehicle communications: Readiness of V2V technology for application. Technical Report DOT HS 812 014, United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administrati...

    2014

  35. [43]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Zhou, Y., Tuzel, O.: VoxelNet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3D 26 object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 4490–4499 (2018). IEEE

    2018

  36. [44]

    Vehicular Communications46, 100733 (2023)

    Bharilya, V., Kumar, N.: Machine learning for autonomous vehicle’s trajectory prediction: A comprehensive survey, challenges, and future research directions. Vehicular Communications46, 100733 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, L., Polosukhin, I.: Attention is all you need. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp

    Ettinger, S., Cheng, S., Caine, B., Liu, C., Zhao, H., Pradhan, S., Chai, Y., Sapp, B., Qi, C.R., Zhou, Y.,et al.: Large-scale interactive motion forecasting for autonomous driving: The waymo open motion dataset. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Comp...

    2021

  39. [47]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03525 (2023)

    Huang, T., Liu, J., Zhou, X., Nguyen, D.C., Azghadi, M.R., Xia, Y., Han, Q.-L., Sun, S.: V2X cooperative perception for autonomous driving: Recent advances and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03525 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine (2023)

    Han, Y., Zhang, H., Li, H., Jin, Y., Lang, C., Li, Y.: Collaborative percep- tion in autonomous driving: Methods, datasets, and challenges. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp

    Wang, T., Chen, G., Chen, K., Liu, Z., Zhang, B., Knoll, A., Jiang, C.: UMC: A unified bandwidth-efficient and multi-resolution based collaborative percep- tion framework. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 8153–8162 (2023). IEEE

    2023

  42. [50]

    In: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Defense Applications IV, vol

    Marez, D., Nans, L., Borden, S.: Bandwidth constrained cooperative object detection in images. In: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Defense Applications IV, vol. 12276, pp. 128–140 (2022). SPIE

    2022

  43. [51]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Yu, H., Yang, W., Ruan, H., Yang, Z., Tang, Y., Gao, X., Hao, X., Shi, Y., Pan, Y., Sun, N., Song, J., Yuan, J., Luo, P., Nie, Z.: V2X-Seq: A large-scale sequen- tial dataset for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception and forecasting. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con...

    2023

  44. [52]

    In: 2023 Proceedings of IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pp

    Axmann, J.,et al.: LUCOOP: Leibniz university cooperative perception and urban navigation dataset. In: 2023 Proceedings of IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pp. 1–8. IEEE, Anchorage, AK, USA (2023). doi: 10.1109/IV55152.2023.10186693

    2023

  45. [53]

    In: Proceedings of 27 the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Lang, A.H., Vora, S., Caesar, H., Zhou, L., Yang, J., Beijbom, O.: Pointpil- lars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds. In: Proceedings of 27 the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 12697–12705 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.08063 (2020)

    Weng, X., Wang, J., Held, D., Kitani, K.: Ab3dmot: A baseline for 3d multi-object tracking and new evaluation metrics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.08063 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 6531–6543 (2022)

    Shi, S., Jiang, L., Dai, D., Schiele, B.: Motion transformer with global inten- tion localization and local movement refinement. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 6531–6543 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    https://github.com/open-mmlab/mmdetection3d (2020)

    Contributors, M.: MMDetection3D: OpenMMLab next-generation platform for general 3D object detection. https://github.com/open-mmlab/mmdetection3d (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08113 (2024)

    Xu, Y., Zablocki, ´E., Boulch, A., Puy, G., Chen, M., Bartoccioni, F., Samet, N., Sim´ eoni, O., Gidaris, S., Vu, T.-H., et al.: Valeo4cast: A modular approach to end-to-end forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08113 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems33(4), 1271–1276 (1997) https: //doi.org/10.1109/7.625124

    Chang, K.C., Saha, R.K., Bar-Shalom, Y.: On optimal track-to-track fusion. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems33(4), 1271–1276 (1997) https: //doi.org/10.1109/7.625124

    1997 doi

  51. [59]

    In: 2022 Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Yu, H.,et al.: DAIR-V2X: A large-scale dataset for vehicle-infrastructure coop- erative 3D object detection. In: 2022 Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 21329–21338. IEEE, New Orleans, LA, USA (2022). doi: 10.1109/CVPR5268...

    2022

  52. [60]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2023)

    Xiang, L., Yin, J., Li, W., Xu, C.-Z., Yang, R., Shen, J.: DI-V2X: Learning domain-invariant representation for vehicle-infrastructure collaborative 3D object detection. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2023). AAAI

    2023

  53. [61]

    In: Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2024)

    Liu, Y., Sun, B., Li, Y., Hu, Y., Wang, F.-Y.: HPL-ViT: A unified perception framework for heterogeneous parallel lidars in V2V. In: Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2024). IEEE 28

    2024

Pith tools

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