DB3D-L: Depth-aware BEV Feature Transformation for Accurate 3D Lane Detection

Xiaosu Xu; Yehao Liu; Yiqing Yao; Zijian Wang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

DB3D-L: Depth-aware BEV Feature Transformation for Accurate 3D Lane Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DB3D-L builds bird's-eye-view lane features from monocular depth rather than flat-ground projection, and reports accuracy on par with state-of-the-art methods on Apollo and OpenLane.

desk verdict A competent, incremental depth-aware BEV lane detector whose ApolloSim results look plausible, but the OpenLane depth supervision is never specified, which undercuts the real-world claim until clarified. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13266 v1 pith:TP4JSLVD submitted 2025-05-19 cs.CV

Yehao Liu , Xiaosu Xu , Zijian Wang , Yiqing Yao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords 3Dlanedetectionbird's-eye-viewdepthestimationBEVfeaturetransformationmonocularperceptionfusionautonomousdrivingattentionmechanism

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

DB3D-L is an end-to-end monocular 3D lane detection method that constructs a bird's-eye-view (BEV) feature by mixing a front-view feature with a learned depth distribution, instead of relying on inverse perspective mapping under a flat-ground assumption. The authors try to show that adding a lightweight Depth Net, compressing the height dimension of both feature types, and fusing them with attention gives accuracy comparable to state-of-the-art transformer and view-relation methods on the ApolloSim and OpenLane benchmarks, while using only standard operators and fewer parameters. If correct, this would make depth-aware BEV construction a simple and generally applicable alternative for 3D lane detection, and it would strengthen the case that explicit depth is the right vehicle for the view transformation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the depth-aware BEV fusion pipeline: a shared backbone (D&F Net) outputs both a front-view feature and a depth probability volume of size $H \times W \times D$, where each pixel column holds $D$ depth probabilities that sum to one. The Prime Feature Extraction (PFE) compresses the front-view feature's height dimension to one channel per column, and the Depth Attention (DAT) compresses the depth volume to $D \times W \times 1$ under spatial guidance from the front-view feature. The BEV feature is then formed by the cross-attention-style product $B = X \odot F$, which allocates each width column's prime feature across depth positions according to the estimated depth probability. This construction is what lets the method build BEV without inverse perspective mapping or a transformer.

What would settle it

Run the same training recipe on OpenLane with the depth branch removed and compare F1; if the score does not drop by more than the run-to-run variation, the depth-aware fusion is not what carries the reported performance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a BEV feature for 3D lane detection can be generated directly from a monocular image by estimating a dense depth distribution, reshaping the front-view feature and depth feature into single-column 'prime' forms, and fusing them with a Hadamard product $B = X \odot F$. The paper argues that in image space, key lane information from different distances overlaps in the height dimension, whereas in BEV space each grid cell holds only one key instance, so the height dimension can be safely compressed before fusion. The fused BEV feature is fed to a lane head that classifies each BEV cell and regresses lateral and height offsets, with ablations showing that adding depth training and the depth attention module raises F1 by more than two points on ApolloSim.

Load-bearing premise

The method's claimed advantage depends on having dense depth ground truth to supervise the Depth Net, yet the paper does not state how that supervision is obtained for the OpenLane dataset, which provides no dense depth maps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

3D lane detection no longer needs to assume a flat ground plane when constructing BEV features, since depth is estimated per pixel rather than derived from a homography.
The height-compression design cuts computation on elevated regions, so the method should be cheaper than transformer-based BEV construction while keeping comparable accuracy.
The depth-aware fusion can be added to a shared backbone with multitask supervision, which suggests the same architecture can serve both depth estimation and lane perception without a separate view-transformation stage.
On benchmarks, the near-distance lateral error is consistently low, which matters for downstream planning that uses nearby lane geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

If dense depth ground truth is genuinely unavailable for OpenLane, the paper's real-world results would have to come from the pretrained-depth variant (Table IV), which would make the claimed depth-awareness on real data indirect; the paper never says which training mode produced the OpenLane results.
The fusion rule $B = X \odot F$ is a generic soft feature-lifting operation, so the same block could be dropped into other monocular BEV perception tasks such as object detection or occupancy prediction as a lightweight alternative to LSS-style splatting.
A testable extension is to swap the learned Depth Net for an off-the-shelf monocular depth predictor and measure how much of the F1 gain survives, which would isolate whether the benefit comes from depth accuracy or from end-to-end training.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is an incremental but competent 3D lane detection paper. The architecture is a sensible LSS-style variant: compress front-view and depth features along height, then fuse them with a Hadamard product in BEV space. The ablation evidence on ApolloSim is reasonably convincing that depth supervision helps (F1 goes from 95.03 to 98.15). I believe this is a new combination of known components rather than a new paradigm, but that is fine for a deployment-oriented paper.

The main problem is the OpenLane experiments. The depth loss in Eq. (1) requires dense depth ground truth. The paper says ApolloSim has depth maps but never says what happens on OpenLane. Table II is the evidence for "realistic OpenLane" performance, and without knowing whether depth supervision is pretrained, frozen, disabled, or pseudo-labeled, the result is unverifiable. Their own Table IV shows the supervision protocol changes F1 by 3 points (94.92 vs 98.15), so this is not a minor detail. The authors need to state exactly how depth supervision is handled on OpenLane, or remove the depth loss there and explain what that does to the architecture.

Second problem: Tables IV and V show identical F1/X/Z numbers (94.92 and 98.15) under different method names. That looks like a copy-paste error or a missing row, and a serious referee should ask for corrected tables. There are also no error bars or multiple seeds anywhere; for a 2-3% F1 claim, single runs are thin.

What is not a problem: no circularity. The fusion B=X⊙F is a defined operation with learned depth, no fitting of target labels. Credit is due for a clean architecture and an ablation that isolates depth's contribution.

Bottom line: this is a paper for a workshop or a conference short paper audience, not a landmark. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject, because the method is coherent and the ApolloSim results are plausible. I would not cite it until the OpenLane supervision is clarified and the table conflict is fixed.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DB3D-L, a monocular 3D lane detection method that constructs BEV features by fusing front-view features with monocular depth estimates through a simple multiplicative operation (B = X ⊙ F). The architecture consists of a shared backbone (D&F Net) that extracts both depth and front-view features, a feature-reduce stage (PFE and DAT) that collapses the height dimension, a FusionNet that builds the BEV feature, and a lane head that predicts cell-wise confidence and offsets from the BEV grid. Experiments on ApolloSim and OpenLane report F1 scores close to the state of the art, and ablations on ApolloSim indicate that depth training and the DAT module improve F1 by roughly 2–3 points. The paper emphasizes that the method uses only standard operators, making it more efficient and generally applicable than transformer-based alternatives.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the paper offers a simple and parameter-efficient alternative to transformer-based BEV transformation for 3D lane detection, with the attractive property that the BEV feature is formed by a Hadamard product of compressed front-view and depth features, rather than by expensive learned spatial cross-attention. The strengths are the explicit ablations isolating the depth contribution (Table III), the concrete and implementation-friendly fusion formula (Eq. 2), and the inclusion of efficiency as a design goal. The principal risks are all in experimental completeness and reporting: the missing depth-supervision protocol for OpenLane, the ill-defined depth loss in Eq. (1), and the suspicious duplication of numbers between Tables IV and V. The paper does not make analytic claims, so circularity is not a concern; the value stands or falls on whether the described training procedure is actually the procedure used to produce the reported numbers.

major comments (4)

[Section IV.A / III.A (Eq. (1))] The depth loss in Eq. (1) requires dense depth ground truth of size HI×WI×D, but Section IV.A states that only ApolloSim provides corresponding depth maps and describes OpenLane solely as having 3D lane annotations. The manuscript never specifies how Ld is applied on OpenLane: whether the Depth Net is pretrained on ApolloSim and frozen or fine-tuned, whether pseudo-depth labels are derived from the 3D lane annotations, or whether the depth loss is disabled. Because Table II is the main evidence for the realistic-OpenLane part of the central claim, this missing protocol prevents verification of the depth-aware benefit on real data; the ablation in Table IV (Method 2, F1 97.36 vs 98.15) shows that the supervision protocol is quantitatively consequential. Please state the exact OpenLane depth-supervision procedure, including any pretraining-transfer steps.
[Section III.A, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) as written is not a scalar loss: Dtij and Dij are D-dimensional vectors over depth bins, so |Dtij−Dij|⊙Dtij is vector-valued, and summing only over i and j leaves a vector (or requires a hidden summation over depth). The depth-range summation and the index notation must be made explicit, otherwise the gradient of Ld is undefined as written. Please also clarify whether Dtij and Dij are probability vectors after softmax, one-hot vectors, or bin-center values, since this affects the meaning of the absolute difference.
[Tables IV and V] Tables IV and V report exactly the same numbers for different ablations: Method 1 in Table IV (pretraining and fixing the backbone) and 'base + fusion module' in Table V both give F1 94.92, X near 0.0469, X far 0.3113, Z near 0.0361, Z far 0.2383; Method 3 and 'base + FusionNet' both give F1 98.15 with all four errors identical. Either these configurations are in fact the same (which the text denies) or one of the tables contains copied values. Please reconcile the configurations and report corrected numbers.
[Tables I, III, and IV] All reported results are from single training runs with no error bars or multiple-seed statistics. The balanced-scene claim of 'outperforms all compared methods' in Section IV.B rests on a 0.28 pp F1 margin over BEV-LaneDet (98.30 vs 98.02), and the depth-only gain in Table III is 2.56 pp (95.03 to 97.59) with no variance estimate. The central empirical claims would be much more convincing with at least three runs or confidence intervals; if these are unavailable, the ranking claims should be softened to 'comparable' or 'in the same range'.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV.A / IV.B] Section IV.A gives ApolloSim sample counts of 6000 + 1500 + 3000 = 10500, while Section IV.B says '10,000 monocular images.' Please correct the inconsistency.
[Section III.B / Eq. (2)] Section III.B says the BEV feature has size D×W×C, but Eq. (2) defines B ∈ R^{W×D×C}. The dimension order should be kept consistent throughout the paper, especially in the equation that defines the core fusion operation.
[Throughout] The manuscript contains many typos and grammatical errors, including 'transtormation', 'Subquently', 'geomtry', 'consits', 'intergrated', 'machanism', 'spactial', 'intrincs', 'fratures', 'senerios', 'modue', 'rebust', 'aidded', and 'there are there main modue.' A thorough language edit is needed.
[Section III.A / Fig. 3 caption] The sentence 'A small yet is designed efficient Depth Net' is missing words and is not grammatical; please rewrite. Also check the Fig. 3 caption for typographical errors: 'there are there main modue' should be 'there are three main modules.'
[Section IV.C] The text uses 'F-score' in the opening sentence of Section IV.C, while the tables and metrics use 'F1'. Please use one consistent term.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: BEV construction is a standard network design, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a supervised deep-learning pipeline. The depth loss Ld in Eq. (1) is supervised by dense depth ground truth; the BEV feature in Eq. (2), B = X ⊙ F, is a defined fusion operation between learned depth probabilities and reduced front-view features; and the lane outputs are supervised by lane labels through Eqs. (3)-(6). No parameter in the BEV construction is fitted to the lane labels before the lane prediction is made, and no term in the loss is defined in terms of the final detection result. The depth distribution is learned from depth annotations, which are independent of the lane annotations, so the lane predictions are not forced by construction. The paper does not rely on a self-citation or a uniqueness theorem to justify the transformation; the only self-citation (X. Xu in reference [5]) is background material on lane detection and is not load-bearing. The OpenLane depth-supervision gap noted by the reader is an experimental reporting concern about how depth ground truth is obtained or whether the depth loss is active on real data; it does not make any claimed output equivalent to an input by definition. Thus, no circular steps are present.

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

The method introduces no post hoc physical entities. The load-bearing design choices are the height-compression assumption and the reliance on depth ground truth for both datasets, which are listed above. The learned network weights are standard supervised training, not free parameters fit to the target result.

free parameters (3)

Depth bin count D = not reported
The BEV grid is defined as D×W, where D is the number of depth bins treated as longitudinal coordinates. The value is never given, yet it controls the resolution of the output grid and the size of the depth probability map.
Loss weights λd, λconf, λinst, λoffsx, λoffsz = not reported
The total loss in Eq. 7 is a weighted sum of five terms, but no values are given for any of the weights. These choices affect the balance between depth accuracy and lane detection accuracy.
Confidence threshold σ = not reported
Eq. 5 and 6 use a threshold σ to decide which grid cells contribute to the offset losses. The value is not provided, and it affects the effective training target.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Lane key elements do not overlap in the height dimension in BEV space
Section III.B states that key information does not overlap in height in BEV, justifying compression of the height dimension to a single channel in PFE and DAT. Overpasses, bridges, or steep elevation changes would violate this.
domain assumption Depth bin index corresponds directly to longitudinal position in BEV
In Eq. 2, the prime depth feature X is used as the longitudinal axis of the BEV feature. This assumes the depth probability distribution, after being discretized into D bins, aligns with the BEV longitudinal coordinates, following the LSS convention.
ad hoc to paper Dense depth ground truth is available for OpenLane training or transfers from ApolloSim
The depth loss (Eq. 1) requires dense depth maps, which only the ApolloSim dataset provides. The paper never explains how the Depth Net is trained on OpenLane, despite OpenLane being used for the main real-world results.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DB3D-L: Depth-aware BEV Feature Transformation for Accurate 3D Lane Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TP4JSLVD

@misc{pith2026250513266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DB3D-L: Depth-aware BEV Feature Transformation for Accurate 3D Lane Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TP4JSLVD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13266}
}

read the original abstract

3D Lane detection plays an important role in autonomous driving. Recent advances primarily build Birds-Eye-View (BEV) feature from front-view (FV) images to perceive 3D information of Lane more effectively. However, constructing accurate BEV information from FV image is limited due to the lacking of depth information, causing previous works often rely heavily on the assumption of a flat ground plane. Leveraging monocular depth estimation to assist in constructing BEV features is less constrained, but existing methods struggle to effectively integrate the two tasks. To address the above issue, in this paper, an accurate 3D lane detection method based on depth-aware BEV feature transtormation is proposed. In detail, an effective feature extraction module is designed, in which a Depth Net is integrated to obtain the vital depth information for 3D perception, thereby simplifying the complexity of view transformation. Subquently a feature reduce module is proposed to reduce height dimension of FV features and depth features, thereby enables effective fusion of crucial FV features and depth features. Then a fusion module is designed to build BEV feature from prime FV feature and depth information. The proposed method performs comparably with state-of-the-art methods on both synthetic Apollo, realistic OpenLane datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13266 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FV features (a) vs BEV features (b). We find that BEV features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The overall architecture of our proposed method DB3D-L. There are there main modue, D&F Net, Fusion Net, and Lane Head. In D&F Net, SE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Image space representation, pseudo point clouds and BEV space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The process of fuse BEV frature from prime FV feature and prime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The detection results on the OpenLane dataset, from left to right, include various scenarios such as multi-lane, occlusion, curves, night, rainy, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Once-3dlanes: Building monocular 3d lane detection,

F. Yan, M. Nie, X. Cai, J. Han, H. Xu, Z. Yang, C. Ye, Y . Fu, M. B. Mi, and L. Zhang, “Once-3dlanes: Building monocular 3d lane detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 17 143–17 152

work page 2022
[2]

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

Y . Guo, G. Chen, P. Zhao, W. Zhang, J. Miao, J. Wang, and T. E. 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 XXI

work page 2020
[3]

Laneaf: Robust multi-lane detection with affinity fields,

H. Abualsaud, S. Liu, D. B. Lu, K. Situ, A. Rangesh, and M. M. Trivedi, “Laneaf: Robust multi-lane detection with affinity fields,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7477–7484, 2021

2021
[4]

Lanematch: A practical real-time lo- calization method via lane-matching,

M. He and R. R. Rajkumar, “Lanematch: A practical real-time lo- calization method via lane-matching,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4408–4415, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Adaptive multi-lane detection based on robust instance segmentation for intelligent vehicles,

Y . Sun, J. Li, X. Xu, and Y . Shi, “Adaptive multi-lane detection based on robust instance segmentation for intelligent vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 888–899, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Keep your eyes on the lane: Real-time attention- guided lane detection,

L. Tabelini, R. Berriel, T. M. Paixao, C. Badue, A. F. De Souza, and T. Oliveira-Santos, “Keep your eyes on the lane: Real-time attention- guided lane detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 294–302

work page 2021
[7]

Flamnet: A flexible line anchor mechanism network for lane detection,

H. Ran, Y . Yin, F. Huang, and X. Bao, “Flamnet: A flexible line anchor mechanism network for lane detection,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2023

work page 2023
[8]

A review of lane detection methods based on deep learning,

J. Tang, S. Li, and P. Liu, “A review of lane detection methods based on deep learning,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 111, pp. 107623, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 34 references

[9]

Ultra fast structure-aware deep lane detection,

Z. Qin, H. Wang, and X. Li, “Ultra fast structure-aware deep lane detection,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Confer- ence, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXIV 16 . Springer, 2020, pp. 276–291

2020
[10]

Adaptive inverse perspective mapping for lane map generation with slam,

J. Jeong and A. Kim, “Adaptive inverse perspective mapping for lane map generation with slam,” in 2016 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 38–41

2016
[11]

3d- lanenet: end-to-end 3d multiple lane detection,

N. Garnett, R. Cohen, T. Pe’er, R. Lahav, and D. Levi, “3d- lanenet: end-to-end 3d multiple lane detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2019, pp. 2921–2930

2019
[12]

Bev-lanedet: An efficient 3d lane detection based on virtual camera via key-points,

R. Wang, J. Qin, K. Li, Y . Li, D. Cao, and J. Xu, “Bev-lanedet: An efficient 3d lane detection based on virtual camera via key-points,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 1002–1011

2023
[13]

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

J. Philion and S. Fidler, “Lift, splat, shoot: Encoding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly unprojecting to 3d,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XIV 16. Springer, 2020, pp. 194–210

2020
[14]

Bevformer: Learning birds-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotemporal transformers,

Z. Li, W. Wang, H. Li, E. Xie, C. Sima, T. Lu, Y . Qiao, and J. Dai, “Bevformer: Learning birds-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotemporal transformers,” in European conference on computer vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 1–18

2022
[15]

Bevheight: A robust framework for vision-based roadside 3d object detection,

L. Yang, K. Yu, T. Tang, J. Li, K. Yuan, L. Wang, X. Zhang, and P. Chen, “Bevheight: A robust framework for vision-based roadside 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 21 611–21 620

2023
[16]

Springer, 2020, pp. 666–681

2020
[17]

Bevheight++: Toward robust visual centric 3d object detection,

L. Yang, T. Tang, J. Li, P. Chen, K. Yuan, L. Wang, Y . Huang, X. Zhang, and K. Yu, “Bevheight++: Toward robust visual centric 3d object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16179 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[18]

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

L. Chen, C. Sima, Y . Li, Z. Zheng, J. Xu, X. Geng, H. Li, C. He, J. Shi, Y . Qiao et al. , “Persformer: 3d lane detection via perspective transformer and the openlane benchmark,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 550–567

2022
[19]

Latr: 3d lane detection from monocular images with transformer,

Y . Luo, C. Zheng, X. Yan, T. Kun, C. Zheng, S. Cui, and Z. Li, “Latr: 3d lane detection from monocular images with transformer,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 7941–7952

2023
[20]

Bevdepth: Acquisition of reliable depth for multi-view 3d object detection,

Y . Li, Z. Ge, G. Yu, J. Yang, Z. Wang, Y . Shi, J. Sun, and Z. Li, “Bevdepth: Acquisition of reliable depth for multi-view 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 2, 2023, pp. 1477–1485

2023
[21]

Matrixvt: Efficient multi- camera to bev transformation for 3d perception,

H. Zhou, Z. Ge, Z. Li, and X. Zhang, “Matrixvt: Efficient multi- camera to bev transformation for 3d perception,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 8548–8557

2023
[22]

Monocular depth estimation: A survey,

A. Bhoi, “Monocular depth estimation: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09402, 2019

1901 arXiv
[23]

Guiding monocular depth estimation using depth-attention volume,

L. Huynh, P. Nguyen-Ha, J. Matas, E. Rahtu, and J. Heikkil ¨a, “Guiding monocular depth estimation using depth-attention volume,” in Com- puter Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXVI 16 . Springer, 2020, pp. 581–597

2020
[24]

Pseudo-lidar from visual depth estimation: Bridging the gap in 3d object detection for autonomous driving,

Y . Wang, W.-L. Chao, D. Garg, B. Hariharan, M. Campbell, and K. Q. Weinberger, “Pseudo-lidar from visual depth estimation: Bridging the gap in 3d object detection for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, ...

2019
[25]

Adabins: Depth estimation using adaptive bins,

S. F. Bhat, I. Alhashim, and P. Wonka, “Adabins: Depth estimation using adaptive bins,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2021, pp. 4009–4018

2021
[26]

Heightformer: Explicit height modeling without extra data for camera-only 3d object detection in bird’s eye view,

Y . Wu, R. Li, Z. Qin, X. Zhao, and X. Li, “Heightformer: Explicit height modeling without extra data for camera-only 3d object detection in bird’s eye view,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13510 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[27]

Translating im- ages into maps,

A. Saha, O. Mendez, C. Russell, and R. Bowden, “Translating im- ages into maps,” in 2022 International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 9200–9206

2022
[28]

Hybridnet: A fast vehicle detection system for autonomous driving,

X. Dai, “Hybridnet: A fast vehicle detection system for autonomous driving,” Signal Processing: Image Communication , vol. 70, pp. 79– 88, 2019

2019
[29]

Yolop: You only look once for panoptic driving perception,

D. Wu, M. W. Liao, W. T. Zhang, X. G. Wang, X. Bai, W. Q. Cheng, and W. Y . Liu, “Yolop: You only look once for panoptic driving perception,” Machine Intelligence Research , vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 550– 562, 2022

2022
[30]

Lanenet: Real-time lane detection networks for autonomous driving,

Z. Wang, W. Ren, and Q. Qiu, “Lanenet: Real-time lane detection networks for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.01726 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[31]

Yolact: Real-time instance segmentation,

D. Bolya, C. Zhou, F. Xiao, and Y . J. Lee, “Yolact: Real-time instance segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2019, pp. 9157–9166

2019
[32]

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

S. Huang, Z. Shen, Z. Huang, Z. Ding, J. Dai, J. Han, N. Wang, and S. Liu, “Anchor3dlane: Learning to regress 3d anchors for monocular 3d lane detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 17 451–17 460

2023
[33]

Curve- former: 3d lane detection by curve propagation with curve queries and attention,

Y . Bai, Z. Chen, Z. Fu, L. Peng, P. Liang, and E. Cheng, “Curve- former: 3d lane detection by curve propagation with curve queries and attention,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 7062–7068

2023
[34]

Deep residual learning for image recognition,

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Once-3dlanes: Building monocular 3d lane detection,

F. Yan, M. Nie, X. Cai, J. Han, H. Xu, Z. Yang, C. Ye, Y . Fu, M. B. Mi, and L. Zhang, “Once-3dlanes: Building monocular 3d lane detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 17 143–17 152

work page 2022

[2] [2]

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

Y . Guo, G. Chen, P. Zhao, W. Zhang, J. Miao, J. Wang, and T. E. 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 XXI

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Laneaf: Robust multi-lane detection with affinity fields,

H. Abualsaud, S. Liu, D. B. Lu, K. Situ, A. Rangesh, and M. M. Trivedi, “Laneaf: Robust multi-lane detection with affinity fields,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7477–7484, 2021

2021

[4] [4]

Lanematch: A practical real-time lo- calization method via lane-matching,

M. He and R. R. Rajkumar, “Lanematch: A practical real-time lo- calization method via lane-matching,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4408–4415, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Adaptive multi-lane detection based on robust instance segmentation for intelligent vehicles,

Y . Sun, J. Li, X. Xu, and Y . Shi, “Adaptive multi-lane detection based on robust instance segmentation for intelligent vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 888–899, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Keep your eyes on the lane: Real-time attention- guided lane detection,

L. Tabelini, R. Berriel, T. M. Paixao, C. Badue, A. F. De Souza, and T. Oliveira-Santos, “Keep your eyes on the lane: Real-time attention- guided lane detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 294–302

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Flamnet: A flexible line anchor mechanism network for lane detection,

H. Ran, Y . Yin, F. Huang, and X. Bao, “Flamnet: A flexible line anchor mechanism network for lane detection,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

A review of lane detection methods based on deep learning,

J. Tang, S. Li, and P. Liu, “A review of lane detection methods based on deep learning,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 111, pp. 107623, 2021

work page 2021