Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

CooperRisk: A Driving Risk Quantification Pipeline with Multi-Agent Cooperative Perception and Prediction

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 A V2X-driven pipeline from cooperative perception to risk-map-based planning cuts the ego vehicle's conflict rate with background traffic by 44.35% on the V2XPnP dataset, the paper reports.

desk verdict V2X-perception-to-risk-map integration is genuinely new and the prediction module looks plausible, but Eq. (19) is not the gradient of Eq. (16), so the headline conflict-rate reduction is unsubstantiated as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15868 v1 pith:TRNCEJJK submitted 2025-06-18 cs.RO

Mingyue Lei , Zewei Zhou , Hongchen Li , Jia Hu , Jiaqi Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords V2Xcooperativeperceptiondrivingriskquantificationmapmulti-agenttrajectorypredictionsceneconsistencymodelpredictivecontrolconnectedautonomousvehiclesoverlaprate
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

CooperRisk is presented as the first vehicle-to-everything (V2X) driving risk quantification pipeline that connects cooperative perception, multi-agent trajectory prediction, and risk-map-based motion planning. Its central claim is that fusing detections from multiple agents and predicting all agents' futures scene-consistently, instead of one object at a time, lets a planner quantify risk from both severity and exposure and lower the ego vehicle's conflict rate with background traffic by 44.35% on the real-world V2XPnP dataset (CR 0.04 versus 0.08 for QCNet- and MTR-based pipelines). This matters because single-vehicle perception suffers occlusion and limited range, and conflicting single-agent predictions tend to overestimate risk, narrow the drivable area, and make an autonomous vehicle hesitant or unsafe.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the scenario risk map, a time-indexed field $V^h(s,l,t\mid\mu_{s,i,j,t},\mu_{l,i,j,t},\sigma_{s,i,j,t},\sigma_{l,i,j,t},\Sigma_{i,j,t},w_{i,j,t})$ produced by pushing each background agent's predicted Gaussian trajectory distribution through the two-object risk potential $V = c_0\Delta v^2 + c_1 q / (c_2 \Delta s\, e^{c_3\Delta v})^2 + c_4 \Delta l^2$, where $\Delta v$ is a mass-weighted relative speed (severity) and $\Delta s,\Delta l$ are heading-rotated longitudinal and lateral separations (exposure). Because the predictor outputs one Gaussian mixture per intention for every agent and enforces scene consistency through agent-level self-attention, cross-attention, and scene-level self-attention on paired intention queries, the resulting risk maps do not paint risks across trajectories that contradict each other. The MPC planner then minimizes the value of this risk map along its horizon together with a tracking cost, which is how the predicted distributions become a concrete conflict-rate reduction.

What would settle it

Take the trained CooperRisk predictor and MPC planner, keep all weights fixed, and rerun the V2XPnP evaluation while perturbing each of $c_0$ through $c_4$ within a reasonable range; if the ego conflict rate rises above the 0.08 achieved by the QCNet- and MTR-based baselines under small perturbations, then the headline 0.04 result is carried by the hand-tuned potential, not by cooperative perception or scene-consistent prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a complete V2X pipeline can carry risk quantification all the way from raw shared sensor features to a planned trajectory, and that each stage improves the final conflict outcome. On V2XPnP, CooperRisk achieves the best prediction accuracy among the compared predictors (minADE 0.74 m and minFDE 1.26 m with V2X sharing), the lowest trajectory overlap rate (a 37.31% average reduction versus QCNet and MTR), and the lowest conflict rate in planning (CR 0.04). V2X sharing raises detection average precision from 51.0 to 58.0 AP@0.5 relative to single-agent perception, and using ground-truth perception lowers CR to 0.00, which the paper reads as evidence that upstream perception errors are the main residual source of conflict. The pipeline also keeps the best end-to-end perception-and-prediction accuracy under added V2X communication noise and delay.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-specified risk potential $V$ with its five unspecified 'positive' constants $c_0$ through $c_4$ is a faithful proxy for real collision risk; if those constants are miscalibrated or were tuned to the test scenarios, the reported 44.35% conflict-rate reduction could come from the cost function rather than from V2X perception or scene-consistent prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • V2X sharing alone raises detection AP by 12.07% (58.0 vs 51.0 at AP@0.5), so occluded and out-of-range objects that single-vehicle perception misses become visible to risk quantification.
  • Scene-consistent multi-agent multi-modal prediction cuts trajectory overlap rate by 37.31% on average, which prevents risk maps from flagging large parts of the drivable area as dangerous.
  • Risk-map-based MPC keeps the conflict rate below 9% even with single-modal predictors and reaches 0.04 with CooperRisk, so a distribution-based interpretable risk map can serve as the planner's cost without a learned reward.
  • With ground-truth perception the conflict rate drops to 0.00 for all multi-modal predictors, indicating that perception errors, rather than prediction errors, dominate the remaining conflicts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The five constants $c_0$ through $c_4$ of the risk potential are never assigned numerical values; calibrating them on collision outcomes or learning them end-to-end would show whether the 44.35% conflict-rate reduction is robust or an artifact of the chosen potential.
  • Because the risk map is a time-indexed spatial field, it could be reused outside planning, for example as a real-time driver warning or as a safety monitor that flags imminent conflicts independent of the MPC.
  • A stricter ablation that fixes the prediction architecture and toggles only the paired-intention scene-consistency mechanism would isolate how much of the CR gain comes from scene consistency versus from the multi-modal GMM decoder itself.
  • The robustness curves suggest a testable prediction: if V2X noise increases beyond 1.0 m and 500 ms, the benefit of cooperative perception should eventually disappear; the paper does not report where that crossover lies.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. CooperRisk is a V2X-enabled driving risk quantification pipeline that combines cooperative perception via late fusion, a transformer-based multi-agent multi-modal trajectory predictor, a risk map generator built from a hand-crafted potential function over predicted Gaussian trajectory distributions, and an MPC planner that uses the risk map as a cost objective. The paper claims to be the first V2X-enabled risk quantification pipeline covering perception through planning, and reports on the V2XPnP dataset a 44.35% reduction in conflict rate (CR 0.04 versus 0.08 for QCNet- and MTR-based pipelines), along with improvements in minADE, minFDE, trajectory overlap rate, and robustness to V2X noise.

Significance. The problem addressed is important: connecting cooperative perception, scene-consistent multi-agent prediction, and interpretable risk quantification for downstream planning is a valuable direction for safe autonomous driving. The scene-consistency argument is well motivated, and the evaluation on a real-world V2X dataset with ablations on fusion and noise robustness is a meaningful effort. If the planning results were backed by a correct and reproducible optimization, the pipeline would be a useful contribution. However, the current manuscript contains load-bearing mathematical and reproducibility issues that prevent the central claims from being accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.D, Eqs. (16)-(20)] Equation (19) is not the gradient of the cost in Eq. (16). The first term, (B_k^i)^T (∂V_h/∂X) V_h(X_k^i), is the gradient of (1/2)V_h^2 rather than of V_h, and the second term, (B_k^i)^T Q delta (delta^T Q delta), has an extra scalar factor (delta^T Q delta) and does not match the gradient 2Q delta of the quadratic term. Moreover, since X_{k+1}=A_k X_k + B_k U_k, the cost term V_h(X_k) depends on U_{k-1}, not on U_k, so the same-index chain rule in Eq. (19) is structurally inconsistent with the dynamics. Thus, if the planner was implemented with Eq. (19), it is not minimizing the stated risk-map cost; if it was implemented with a correct gradient, then Eq. (19) misrepresents the method. Either way, the reported conflict-rate reduction in Table I is unsubstantiated. The optimization is also underspecified: no constraints on U or X, no step size, no convergence criterion, and no feasibility discussion are provided.
  2. [III.C, Eq. (4)] The five constants c0-c4 are described only as 'parameters with positive values' and their numerical settings and tuning procedure are never disclosed. Because the risk map V_h and hence the MPC cost in Eq. (16) directly depend on these constants, the CR numbers in Table I cannot be reproduced or audited. If the constants were selected using the evaluation scenarios, the reported 44.35% improvement could reflect tuning of the cost function rather than a benefit of V2X perception or scene-consistent prediction. The authors should disclose the values and include a sensitivity analysis.
  3. [III.C, Eq. (10) and 'Risk Map' paragraph] Equation (10) is only a notation for a 'hierarchical distribution'; the actual functional form of V_h(s,l,t|...) is never defined. The text states that the risk map is obtained by 'mapping the risk distribution across the entire scene' and that 'the risk value is the quantity of the distribution,' which is not a computable definition. It is also unclear whether the planner uses the expected value over the predicted Gaussian modes, a quantile, or a worst-case value. Without an explicit formula relating V_h(X_k) to the predicted means, variances, covariances, and weights, Eq. (16) cannot be evaluated by a reader, and the experiments cannot be reproduced.
  4. [IV.D, Table I and CR definition] The planning evaluation lacks statistical and procedural detail. No error bars, number of test scenarios, or significance tests are reported, and the computation of CR is not specified (e.g., how 'the probability of collision between the ego CAV's planned trajectory and the ground truth trajectories' is estimated). The headline 44.35% conflict-rate reduction rests on single point estimates, so its robustness and statistical significance are unknown. This is a major issue because the central claim of the paper is built on this comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III.A] The sentence 'We utilize the PointPillar network [33] as the LiDAR feature backbone as the is extracted' appears to contain a typo and should be rewritten.
  2. [III.C, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is difficult to parse as printed; please clarify the placement of c2 and the exponent in the term involving ∆s.
  3. [I and V] The novelty claim 'to the best of our knowledge, this is the first driving risk quantification pipeline enhanced by V2X information' is strong; please cite and discuss the closest existing works on V2X-based risk assessment to support or qualify this claim.
  4. [IV.D, Fig. 4] The robustness results in Fig. 4 are reported without error bars or confidence intervals; please state whether these curves are single runs or averaged over multiple trials.
  5. [IV.A, Eq. (21)] The EPA formula has a formatting issue: '|bNT P|' should presumably be '|N_TP|' or an equivalent notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the risk map is an explicit deterministic transform of predicted trajectory distributions, and the headline conflict-rate reduction is evaluated against ground-truth background trajectories; the main defects (undisclosed potential constants and the Eq. 19 gradient mismatch) are correctness and reproducibility issues, not circularity.

full rationale

CooperRisk's risk map is not claimed as an independent first-principles output: Eq. (10) defines V_h as the accumulated weighted trajectory distributions produced by the learned predictor, so the risk prediction is by construction a transform of the predictor's output. That alone is not circular, because the downstream claim is the 44.35% conflict-rate reduction in Table I, which is measured externally: the MPC trajectory is checked against ground-truth background trajectories, not against CooperRisk's own risk values. The hand-specified potential in Eq. (4) lists c0-c4 only as 'parameters with positive values' and gives no numerical settings, and the gradient update in Eq. (19) does not equal the gradient of the cost in Eq. (16); both are serious reproducibility and correctness concerns that should be addressed, but neither is a reduction of the claimed result to its own inputs. The self-citations (e.g., V2XPnP [22], QCNet [35]) are to public dataset and baseline resources and are not invoked as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem. No circular step can be exhibited from the text, so the circularity score is 0.

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

No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the 'scenario risk map' is a representational construct rather than a postulated entity. The central claim rests on undisclosed risk constants, a hand-specified potential, and assumptions about the calibration of learned distributions and the convergence of a poorly specified MPC.

free parameters (4)
  • c0-c4 risk potential constants
    Positive constants in Eq 4 that set the relative importance of speed difference, distance, and lateral offset in the risk value; never reported numerically, so the risk map and planner cost are not reproducible.
  • Q weighting matrix
    Trade-off between risk and reference-tracking in Eq 16; values not given.
  • M number of intention modes
    Number of Gaussian modes per agent in the decoder; not specified.
  • Risk map discretization
    Spatial resolution used to rasterize the risk distribution into a map; not defined.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The risk potential V in Eq 4 is a valid surrogate for collision risk.
    No calibration to actual collision probability is provided; the planner minimizes this hand-specified function.
  • domain assumption Predicted Gaussian mixture trajectories are well-calibrated, including covariances.
    The risk distribution V_h is the expectation over these Gaussians; miscalibrated variance leads to miscalibrated risk maps.
  • domain assumption Late-fusion NMS produces a single consistent set of tracks with no duplicate or misassociated objects.
    Section III.A assumes fused detections are accurate; noise tests only add zero-mean Gaussian noise and do not test association errors.
  • domain assumption The MPC gradient descent in Eqs 18-20 converges to a feasible, collision-relevant trajectory.
    No constraints, line search, or convergence guarantee is described, and the printed gradient expression is dimensionally inconsistent.
  • domain assumption V2XPnP data are representative of general V2X driving.
    Single dataset, from the authors' group, covers 24 intersections; no cross-dataset validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CooperRisk: A Driving Risk Quantification Pipeline with Multi-Agent Cooperative Perception and Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TRNCEJJK

@misc{pith2026250615868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CooperRisk: A Driving Risk Quantification Pipeline with Multi-Agent Cooperative Perception and Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TRNCEJJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15868}
}
read the original abstract

Risk quantification is a critical component of safe autonomous driving, however, constrained by the limited perception range and occlusion of single-vehicle systems in complex and dense scenarios. Vehicle-to-everything (V2X) paradigm has been a promising solution to sharing complementary perception information, nevertheless, how to ensure the risk interpretability while understanding multi-agent interaction with V2X remains an open question. In this paper, we introduce the first V2X-enabled risk quantification pipeline, CooperRisk, to fuse perception information from multiple agents and quantify the scenario driving risk in future multiple timestamps. The risk is represented as a scenario risk map to ensure interpretability based on risk severity and exposure, and the multi-agent interaction is captured by the learning-based cooperative prediction model. We carefully design a risk-oriented transformer-based prediction model with multi-modality and multi-agent considerations. It aims to ensure scene-consistent future behaviors of multiple agents and avoid conflicting predictions that could lead to overly conservative risk quantification and cause the ego vehicle to become overly hesitant to drive. Then, the temporal risk maps could serve to guide a model predictive control planner. We evaluate the CooperRisk pipeline in a real-world V2X dataset V2XPnP, and the experiments demonstrate its superior performance in risk quantification, showing a 44.35% decrease in conflict rate between the ego vehicle and background traffic participants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15868 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Unsafe planning may result from the limitations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our CooperRisk framework. (i) Cooperative perception: fuse multi-agent information and operate detection at each frame. (ii) Risk-oriented Predictor: incorporate intention-wise, context-wise and agent-wise attention to decode multi￾modal trajectory distributions for multiple agents. (iii) Risk Map Generator: extract risk exposure and severity distributions from trajectory distributions to generate risk m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results of CooperRisk in the real-world V2XPnP Dataset. This scenario is chosen due to its dense traffic and complex interactions among objects, which provide a challenging and realistic environment for evaluating the performance of CooperRisk. Each row represents different perception and risk map settings. The first column displays the detection results, the second column illustrates the generated risk … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Communication noise and delay experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. QuantV2X: A Fully Quantized Multi-Agent System for Cooperative Perception

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    QuantV2X shows that a fully quantized multi-agent fusion system reduces end-to-end latency by 3.2x and improves system-level mAP30 by 9.5 over a full-precision system on the V2X-Real dataset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Foundation intelligence for smart infrastructure services in transportation 5.0,

    X. Han, Z. Meng, X. Xia, X. Liao, Y . He, Z. Zheng, Y . Wang, H. Xiang, Z. Zhou, L. Gaoet al., “Foundation intelligence for smart infrastructure services in transportation 5.0,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Planning-oriented autonomous driving,

    Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wanget al., “Planning-oriented autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 17 853–17 862

    2023

  3. [3]

    A comprehensive study of speed prediction in transportation system: From vehicle to traffic,

    Z. Zhou, Z. Yang, Y . Zhang, Y . Huang, H. Chen, and Z. Yu, “A comprehensive study of speed prediction in transportation system: From vehicle to traffic,”Iscience, vol. 25, no. 3, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A Safe Self-evolution Algorithm for Autonomous Driving Based on Data-Driven Risk Quantification Model

    S. Yang, S. Li, Y . Huang, and H. Chen, “A safe self-evolution algo- rithm for autonomous driving based on data-driven risk quantification model,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12805, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    A new integrated colli- sion risk assessment methodology for autonomous vehicles,

    C. Katrakazas, M. Quddus, and W.-H. Chen, “A new integrated colli- sion risk assessment methodology for autonomous vehicles,”Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 127, pp. 61–79, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Potential risk assessment for safe driving of autonomous vehicles under occluded vision,

    D. Wang, W. Fu, Q. Song, and J. Zhou, “Potential risk assessment for safe driving of autonomous vehicles under occluded vision,”Scientific reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 4981, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    V2x-real: a largs-scale dataset for vehicle-to- everything cooperative perception,

    H. Xiang, Z. Zheng, X. Xia, R. Xu, L. Gao, Z. Zhou, X. Han, X. Ji, M. Li, Z. Menget al., “V2x-real: a largs-scale dataset for vehicle-to- everything cooperative perception,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16034, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Towards autonomous vehicles: a survey on cooperative vehicle-infrastructure system,

    Y . Ji, Z. Zhou, Z. Yang, Y . Huang, Y . Zhang, W. Zhang, L. Xiong, and Z. Yu, “Towards autonomous vehicles: a survey on cooperative vehicle-infrastructure system,”Iscience, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Autonomous vehicles meet the physical world: Rss, variability, uncertainty, and proving safety,

    P. Koopman, B. Osyk, and J. Weast, “Autonomous vehicles meet the physical world: Rss, variability, uncertainty, and proving safety,” in Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security: 38th International Con- ference, SAFECOMP 2019, Turku, Finland, September 11–13, 2019, Proceeding...

    2019

  2. [10]

    An evalua- tion of time-to-collision as a surrogate safety measure and a proposal of a new method for its application in safety analysis,

    N. Nadimi, D. R. Ragland, and A. Mohammadian Amiri, “An evalua- tion of time-to-collision as a surrogate safety measure and a proposal of a new method for its application in safety analysis,”Transportation letters, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 491–500, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Uncertainty-aware predic- tion and application in planning for autonomous driving: Definitions, methods, and comparison,

    W. Shao, J. Xu, Z. Cao, H. Wang, and J. Li, “Uncertainty-aware predic- tion and application in planning for autonomous driving: Definitions, methods, and comparison,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02297, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    An integrated framework of autonomous vehicles based on distributed potential field in bev,

    Q. Zhang, L. Qian, L. Liu, L. Ding, and F. Yang, “An integrated framework of autonomous vehicles based on distributed potential field in bev,” in2022 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1313–1320

    2022

  5. [13]

    Scept: Scene-consistent, policy- based trajectory predictions for planning,

    Y . Chen, B. Ivanovic, and M. Pavone, “Scept: Scene-consistent, policy- based trajectory predictions for planning,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 17 103–17 112

    2022

  6. [14]

    A survey on motion pre- diction and risk assessment for intelligent vehicles,

    S. Lef `evre, D. Vasquez, and C. Laugier, “A survey on motion pre- diction and risk assessment for intelligent vehicles,”ROBOMECH journal, vol. 1, pp. 1–14, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Risk perception and the warning strategy based on safety potential field theory,

    L. Li, J. Gan, Z. Yi, X. Qu, and B. Ran, “Risk perception and the warning strategy based on safety potential field theory,”Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 148, p. 105805, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Predictive risk estimation for intelligent adas functions,

    J. Eggert, “Predictive risk estimation for intelligent adas functions,” in17th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, 2014, pp. 711–718

    2014

  9. [17]

    Using time-to-react based on naturalistic traffic object behavior for scenario- based risk assessment of automated driving,

    S. Wagner, K. Groh, T. Kuhbeck, M. Dorfel, and A. Knoll, “Using time-to-react based on naturalistic traffic object behavior for scenario- based risk assessment of automated driving,” in2018 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1521–1528

    2018

  10. [18]

    Learning risk-aware costmaps for traversability in challenging environments,

    D. D. Fan, A.-A. Agha-Mohammadi, and E. A. Theodorou, “Learning risk-aware costmaps for traversability in challenging environments,” IEEE robotics and automation letters, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 279–286, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    A risk probability predictor for effective downstream planning tasks,

    J. Xu, W. Shao, Y . Xu, W. Wang, J. Li, and H. Wang, “A risk probability predictor for effective downstream planning tasks,” in2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 5416–5422

    2023

  12. [20]

    V2x-vit: Vehicle-to-everything cooperative perception with vision transformer,

    R. Xu, H. Xiang, Z. Tu, X. Xia, M.-H. Yang, and J. Ma, “V2x-vit: Vehicle-to-everything cooperative perception with vision transformer,” inEuropean conference on computer vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 107– 124

    2022

  13. [21]

    Hm-vit: Hetero-modal vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative perception with vision transformer,

    H. Xiang, R. Xu, and J. Ma, “Hm-vit: Hetero-modal vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative perception with vision transformer,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 284–295

    2023

  14. [22]

    V2XPnP: Vehicle-to-everything spatio- temporal fusion for multi-agent perception and prediction,

    Z. Zhou, H. Xiang, Z. Zheng, S. Z. Zhao, M. Lei, Y . Zhang, T. Cai, X. Liu, J. Liu, M. Bajjiet al., “V2XPnP: Vehicle-to-everything spatio- temporal fusion for multi-agent perception and prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01812, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Learning cooperative trajectory representations for motion forecasting,

    H. Ruan, H. Yu, W. Yang, S. Fan, Y . Tang, and Z. Nie, “Learning cooperative trajectory representations for motion forecasting,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00371, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Co-MTP: A cooperative trajectory prediction framework with multi-temporal fusion for autonomous driving,

    X. Zhang, Z. Zhou, Z. Wang, Y . Ji, Y . Huang, and H. Chen, “Co-MTP: A cooperative trajectory prediction framework with multi-temporal fusion for autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16589, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Opv2v: An open benchmark dataset and fusion pipeline for perception with vehicle-to-vehicle communication,

    R. Xu, H. Xiang, X. Xia, X. Han, J. Li, and J. Ma, “Opv2v: An open benchmark dataset and fusion pipeline for perception with vehicle-to-vehicle communication,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 2583–2589

    2022

  18. [26]

    A survey on trajectory-prediction methods for autonomous driving,

    Y . Huang, J. Du, Z. Yang, Z. Zhou, L. Zhang, and H. Chen, “A survey on trajectory-prediction methods for autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 652–674, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Tnt: Target-driven trajectory prediction,

    H. Zhao, J. Gao, T. Lan, C. Sun, B. Sapp, B. Varadarajan, Y . Shen, Y . Shen, Y . Chai, C. Schmidet al., “Tnt: Target-driven trajectory prediction,” inConference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2021, pp. 895–904

    2021

  20. [28]

    Motion transformer with global intention localization and local movement refinement,

    S. Shi, L. Jiang, D. Dai, and B. Schiele, “Motion transformer with global intention localization and local movement refinement,”Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 6531– 6543, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Scene transformer: A unified architecture for predicting multiple agent tra- jectories,

    J. Ngiam, B. Caine, V . Vasudevan, Z. Zhang, H.-T. L. Chiang, J. Ling, R. Roelofs, A. Bewley, C. Liu, A. Venugopalet al., “Scene transformer: A unified architecture for predicting multiple agent tra- jectories,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08417, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mtr++: Multi-agent motion prediction with symmetric scene modeling and guided intention query- ing,

    S. Shi, L. Jiang, D. Dai, and B. Schiele, “Mtr++: Multi-agent motion prediction with symmetric scene modeling and guided intention query- ing,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Qcnext: A next-generation framework for joint multi-agent trajectory prediction,

    Z. Zhou, Z. Wen, J. Wang, Y .-H. Li, and Y .-K. Huang, “Qcnext: A next-generation framework for joint multi-agent trajectory prediction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10508, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Cooperfuse: A real-time cooperative perception fusion framework,

    Z. Zheng, X. Xia, L. Gao, H. Xiang, and J. Ma, “Cooperfuse: A real-time cooperative perception fusion framework,” in2024 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2024, pp. 533–538

    2024

  25. [33]

    Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds,

    A. H. Lang, S. V ora, H. Caesar, L. Zhou, J. Yang, and O. Beijbom, “Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 12 697–12 705

    2019

  26. [34]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 652–660

    2017

  27. [35]

    Query-centric trajectory prediction,

    Z. Zhou, J. Wang, Y .-H. Li, and Y .-K. Huang, “Query-centric trajectory prediction,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 17 863–17 873

    2023

  28. [36]

    Vip3d: End-to-end visual trajectory prediction via 3d agent queries,

    J. Gu, C. Hu, T. Zhang, X. Chen, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, and H. Zhao, “Vip3d: End-to-end visual trajectory prediction via 3d agent queries,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 5496–5506

    2023

Pith tools

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