Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

A2RL V\textsubscript{max}: The A2RL autonomous racing dataset for long-range, high-speed perception and multi-vehicle interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The A2RL Vmax dataset is the first large-scale autonomous racing dataset with professionally annotated LiDAR point clouds, captured at over 200 km/h with multiple interacting vehicles.

desk verdict A genuinely needed racing-perception dataset, but the annotation protocol and the non-deskewed LiDAR aggregation need to be documented before the 'professionally annotated' claim can be fully trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17813 v1 pith:PJWJGFXB submitted 2026-07-20 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Marvin Klemp , Dominic Ebner , Cornelius Schröder , Davide Malvezzi , László Turányi , Riccardo Donati , Ilia Schminik , Xia Ning
show 10 more authors
Yanxin Zhou Matthew Flagg Christoph Stiller Markus Lienkamp Marko Bertogna Gergely Bári Andreas Birk Ren Jin Chen Lv Johannes Betz
This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords autonomousracingLiDARpointcloud3Dobjectdetectionmulti-objecttrackinghigh-speeddrivingdatasetbenchmarkmulti-vehicleinteractionlong-rangeperception
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 introduces A2RL Vmax, an open-source perception dataset recorded during the 2024 Abu Dhabi Autonomous Racing League, and argues it is the first large-scale autonomous racing dataset with professionally annotated LiDAR point clouds. The dataset contains nearly 30,000 annotated point clouds with 38,545 vehicle bounding boxes, plus RADAR, GNSS, and vehicle data, spanning single-vehicle practice, head-to-head sessions, and a four-vehicle final race. By providing this data in the widely used nuScenes format and evaluating off-the-shelf 3D detection and tracking methods, the paper aims to establish a shared benchmark for long-range, high-speed, multi-vehicle perception. The baseline results show that current detectors perform well under 80 meters but degrade sharply beyond, and that standard trackers fragment in high-speed corners, highlighting open challenges that the dataset is meant to catalyze.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dataset itself, specifically the aggregated LiDAR point clouds formed by combining measurements from all three LiDAR sensors into a single cloud per frame, transformed to a right-hand coordinate system at the rear-axle midpoint. This design choice allows cross-team compatibility despite sensor misalignment, but it also means the clouds are not deskewed; at racing speeds, motion distortion from the different sensor sampling times is embedded in the data. The evaluation machinery is the nuScenes devkit, extended to report detection metrics in distance bins (0-80 m, 80-130 m, beyond 130 m), which is what exposes the long-range performance cliff.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a subset of frames at high ego speed (e.g., above 200 km/h) using a deskewed point cloud or a single LiDAR's timestamps, and compare object box overlap and detection metrics against the dataset's ground truth; if systematic translation errors appear, the aggregated clouds are not a stable ground-truth source.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that A2RL Vmax supplies the first large-scale, professionally annotated LiDAR dataset specifically for autonomous racing, enabling deep learning-based perception research in a regime that urban driving datasets do not cover: speeds above 200 km/h, sparse long-range returns, and genuine multi-vehicle interaction. The dataset comprises 28,791 professionally annotated LiDAR point clouds aggregated from three LiDAR sensors (38,545 vehicle bounding boxes across 297 scenes and 466 opponent tracks), with 386,006 RADAR point clouds and additional vehicle state data, all provided in the nuScenes format for compatibility with existing tools. The paper also provides baselin

Load-bearing premise

Merging all three LiDAR sensors' measurements into a single point cloud without correcting for motion at speeds above 200 km/h produces a scene representation accurate enough for professional annotation and reliable benchmarking.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the dataset is adopted, 3D detection research gains a standardized stress test for ranges beyond 80 meters, where current methods lose half their average precision.
  • The baselines establish that sub-50 ms latency is a separate challenge from accuracy; only one of ten detectors meets the 30 ms threshold, and the faster methods are not the most accurate.
  • Tracking benchmarks show that identity switches and fragmentation roughly double when tracks extend beyond 80 meters, even with perfect detections, pointing to motion-model failures in high-yaw corners.
  • The near-zero cross-dataset generalization of detectors trained on nuScenes and Argoverse quantifies a domain gap between urban driving and racing that the dataset can help close.
  • Because the data covers entire races with multiple vehicles, it can serve as a foundation for future motion forecasting and interaction-aware planning research in racing scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The dataset's aggregated, non-deskewed point clouds could be used to directly measure how motion distortion degrades perception at speed, by comparing detection quality against a deskewed re-rendering of the same scenes; the paper does not quantify this effect.
  • The distance-binned evaluation protocol the authors introduce could generalize beyond racing to any long-range perception benchmark, offering a standard way to report where detectors fail rather than a single aggregate score.
  • The 466 opponent tracks and full race recordings make the dataset suitable for studying multi-agent interaction at the edge, potentially linking perception errors to downstream planning failures, though the paper leaves that connection implicit.
  • RADAR point clouds are provided but not annotated; future work could extend the benchmark to radar-based detection or sensor fusion without collecting new data, since the sensor streams are synchronized.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces A2RL Vmax, an open-source autonomous-racing dataset collected during the 2024 A2RL competition at Yas Marina Circuit. It contains 297 scenes, 466 opponent tracks, 28,791 LiDAR point clouds annotated with 38,545 vehicle bounding boxes, plus RADAR, GNSS, INS, and vehicle data. The data are provided in the nuScenes format to facilitate use with existing toolkits. The authors claim this is the first large-scale dataset in autonomous racing with professionally annotated LiDAR point clouds. They also provide off-the-shelf detection baselines (SECOND, PointPillars, PV-RCNN, CenterPoint, DSVT, Voxel-Mamba, VoxelNeXt, LION) and an AB3DMOT tracking baseline, reporting performance versus distance and latency. The main findings are that detection performance degrades substantially beyond 80 m, and that only SECOND meets their 30 ms real-time threshold.

Significance. If the annotation quality is sound, this dataset fills a genuine gap: high-speed, multi-vehicle interaction with long-range LiDAR perception, provided in a widely used format with open baseline code. The paper's explicit evaluation of detection beyond 80 m and its public release are valuable. The authors are to be credited for using externally published detector configurations, reporting latency on the racecar GPU, and for the careful distance-stratified analysis. However, the central claim of being a professionally annotated benchmark rests on two load-bearing, currently unverified pillars: temporal consistency of the aggregated LiDAR point clouds, and the annotation protocol/quality. These issues must be addressed before the benchmark can be relied upon as ground truth at the decimeter level claimed by the ATE numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-D and II-B] The paper states in Section III-D that 'All frames consist of a single point cloud that is generated by combining measurements from all three LiDAR sensors,' with no deskewing and no per-sensor timestamps. At 250 km/h the ego moves ~3.5 m per 50 ms LiDAR period, and the three sensors may acquire points at different times. A static object therefore appears smeared over multiple ego poses, and a moving opponent is further distorted by its own motion. Section II-B acknowledges that motion distortion has 'a large impact on static objects.' This directly affects the annotated boxes: their centers, orientations, and dimensions do not correspond to a single physical instant. Consequently, the ATE of ~0.1 m in Table II may reflect consistency between detectors and similarly distorted labels rather than absolute localization accuracy. The authors should quantify this effect—e.g., by reporting per
  2. [Section III-D and Abstract] The claim 'professionally annotated' is load-bearing for the dataset's novelty, but no annotation protocol is provided. There is no description of annotator qualifications, labeling tool, instruction guidelines for sparse long-range returns or occluded/truncated cars, quality-control steps, or inter-annotator agreement. Given that 46.5% of annotations lie beyond 80 m and many targets contain fewer than 100 points (Section IV-A), label noise at long range is a real concern. The authors should add a detailed annotation section, ideally with IAA on a subset, and describe how ambiguous cases were resolved. Without this, the claim of being the first large-scale professionally annotated autonomous-racing LiDAR dataset is not verifiable.
  3. [Section IV-B / Table III] The tracking baseline is evaluated with perfect detections and with the Kalman filter's velocity set to zero because ground-truth velocity is not provided. Racecars move several meters between frames, so a zero-velocity motion model cannot represent opponent motion; Table III's AMOTA/IDS/FRAG numbers are therefore an upper bound for a tracker with no motion model, not a realistic tracking baseline. In addition, the maximum matching distance is changed from 2 m to 8 m without a sensitivity analysis. The authors should either derive velocity from temporal box differences or GNSS/INS and include it in the annotations, or at minimum discuss how the zero-velocity assumption affects the reported tracking results. They should also report how the results vary with the matching-distance parameter.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-B] There is an unresolved 'Figure??' reference in the text; the figure should be properly cited and included.
  2. [Abstract and Section I] The number '28.791' should be formatted as '28,791' to avoid confusion with a decimal.
  3. [Table II] DSVT and Voxel-Mamba are not evaluated beyond 130 m because of the field-of-view restriction described in Section IV-A. The table caption should state this explicitly so that readers do not misinterpret the missing 130+ entries as method failures.
  4. [Section IV-A] The real-time threshold of 30 ms is described as 'conservatively set' with no formal justification. A brief rationale or reference would make the benchmark criterion more transparent.
  5. [Table I] The footnote on KIN, HUM, and FLY ('Data not included in the nuScenes format, as road cars following the autonomous race vehicle are visible') is unclear and should be rephrased.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: dataset is a data-collection artifact, baselines are external off-the-shelf methods, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the introduction of a new perception dataset, not a derived model. The annotated LiDAR point clouds, RADAR data, and vehicle data are collected artifacts; there is no equation or theoretical derivation whose output reduces to an input. Baseline detection and tracking evaluations use published, external architectures (SECOND, PointPillars, PV-RCNN, CenterPoint, AB3DMOT) applied with their original configurations and only minor, explicitly disclosed parameter adjustments (e.g., 8 m matching distance, 130 m FOV limit, 30 ms latency threshold). These hand-set values affect reported benchmark numbers but do not fit or define the dataset's existence, composition, or annotations. The paper itself states: "We do not reimplement well-known algorithms or conduct extensive parameter searches and tuning; instead, we apply them to our dataset," confirming that no fitted input is being relabeled as a prediction. Self-citations (e.g., [3], [8], [29], [31]) appear in contextual or related-work statements and are not invoked to justify the dataset's novelty or to forbid alternatives. The acknowledged motion-distortion issue -- "All frames consist of a single point cloud that is generated by combining measurements from all three LiDAR sensors" with no deskewing, and "Motion-Distortion-Effects have a large impact on static objects" -- is a legitimate data-quality and ground-truth-accuracy concern, but it is a correctness/validity risk, not a circularity in any derivation. The dataset's central value is an independently collected, externally benchmarked artifact, so no circular step is present.

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

The central dataset claim rests on data-collection and annotation assumptions rather than mathematical axioms. The free parameters listed affect the secondary baseline evaluations, not the dataset's existence or composition. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • AB3DMOT maximum matching distance = 8 m
    Section IV-B: changed from the nuScenes default of 2 m to reduce identity switches at racing speeds; chosen by hand with no sensitivity analysis, and tracking baseline numbers depend on it.
  • Detection field-of-view restriction for DSVT and Voxel-Mamba = [-130, 130] m
    Section IV-A: FOV was restricted to make training feasible due to GPU memory; these methods are not evaluated beyond 130 m, and their 130+ AP is absent in Table II.
  • Real-time latency threshold = 30 ms
    Section IV-A: defined conservatively to assess 'real-time capability'; not derived from the 50 ms frame budget at 20 Hz, and the qualitative latency discussion depends on this threshold.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 28,791 LiDAR point clouds are professionally annotated and accurate enough to serve as ground truth.
    Stated in the abstract and Section III-C/III-D, but no annotation protocol, quality-control process, or inter-annotator agreement is provided; all dataset value and benchmark metrics depend on this.
  • domain assumption Aggregating the three LiDAR sensors into one point cloud preserves an accurate scene representation at the annotation timestamp.
    Section III-D states frames are combined measurements from all three LiDARs, with no per-sensor splitting for some teams; no deskewing is applied, and at racing speeds this can introduce motion distortion.
  • domain assumption The nuScenes devkit metrics and standard detection/tracking configurations are appropriate for single-class, racing-specific data.
    Section IV uses nuScenes devkit and AB3DMOT defaults with minor changes; no validation that these metrics behave as intended for extremely sparse long-range targets and missing velocity annotations.
  • domain assumption All ground-truth race vehicles have identical dimensions, supporting a single 'car' class and fixed box template.
    The paper states this and uses it to explain low ATE; if vehicle dimensions differ or annotations conflate classes, localization metrics become less informative.
  • domain assumption Missing velocity annotations do not materially bias the tracking benchmark.
    Section IV-B sets predicted velocity to 0 in the Kalman filter because velocity annotations are not provided; this handicaps the tracker and makes AMOTA not directly comparable to nuScenes tracking results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A2RL V\textsubscript{max}: The A2RL autonomous racing dataset for long-range, high-speed perception and multi-vehicle interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PJWJGFXB

@misc{pith2026260717813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A2RL V\textsubscriptmax: The A2RL autonomous racing dataset for long-range, high-speed perception and multi-vehicle interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PJWJGFXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17813}
}
read the original abstract

In autonomous driving development, a perception dataset is crucial, as it provides fundamental data for training, testing, and validating algorithms for an autonomous vehicle's multimodal perception systems. So far, most research has concentrated on providing datasets for well-structured urban environments. This work introduces the A2RL V\textsubscript{max} open-source dataset, specifically designed for perception tasks in high-speed autonomous driving and multi-vehicle interaction. The dataset was captured during the 2024 Abu Dhabi Autonomous Racing League (A2RL), held at the Yas Marina F1 Circuit, with participation from all competing teams. It contains diverse scenarios, including single-vehicle data at varying speeds, multi-vehicle sessions, and the full final four-vehicle race. The dataset contains almost 30,000 professionally annotated LiDAR point clouds, along with RADAR point clouds. In particular, it is the first large-scale dataset in autonomous racing to feature professionally annotated LiDAR point clouds, enabling deep learning-based perception research. The data is provided in a developer-friendly format, enabling easy implementation and evaluation in future research. We provide implementation and evaluation for off-the-shelf 3D detection and tracking methods. Although baseline methods show promising results for both 3D detection and tracking, specialized methods are required to address the unique challenges of high-speed autonomous driving. For a detailed description of the dataset, please visit the \href{https://tum-avs.github.io/A2RL_Dataset_website/}{A2RL V\textsubscript{max} Dataset Website}

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17813 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A2RL competition 2024: Head-to-Head race between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A2RL Vmax Dataset Overview: The data was collected over 3 competitions, 8 different teams on one racetrack, and includes sensor Data, vehicle data, and track data. a rare, large-scale experimental environment that bridges competitive benchmarking and open scientific collaboration. To advance research in high-speed, high-interaction au￾tonomous driving, we present the A2RL Vmax dataset, cap￾tured during the inaugural… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A2RL autonomous racing vehicle and sensor place [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of Euclidean distances between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relationship between the distance to an opponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Challenges in designing datasets and validation for autonomous driving,

    M. U ˇriˇc´aˇr, D. Hurych, P. K ˇr´ıˇzek, and S. Yogamani, “Challenges in designing datasets and validation for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2019) - V olume 5: VISAPP, INSTICC. SciTePress, 2019, pp. 653–659

    2019

  2. [2]

    A matched case-control analysis of autonomous vs human-driven vehicle accidents,

    M. Abdel-Aty and S. Ding, “A matched case-control analysis of autonomous vs human-driven vehicle accidents,”Nature Communi- cations, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 4931, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Autonomous vehicles on the edge: A survey on autonomous vehicle racing,

    J. Betz, H. Zheng, A. Liniger, U. Rosolia, P. Karle, M. Behl, V . Krovi, and R. Mangharam, “Autonomous vehicles on the edge: A survey on autonomous vehicle racing,”IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 3, pp. 458–488, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    How fast is my software? latency evaluation for a ros 2 autonomous driving software,

    T. Betz, M. Schmeller, H. Teper, and J. Betz, “How fast is my software? latency evaluation for a ros 2 autonomous driving software,” in2023 IEEE Intelligent V ehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  5. [5]

    Outracing champion gran turismo drivers with deep reinforcement learning,

    P. R. Wurmanet al., “Outracing champion gran turismo drivers with deep reinforcement learning,”Nature, vol. 602, no. 7896, pp. 223–228, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    F1tenth: An open-source evaluation environment for continuous control and reinforcement learning,

    M. O’Kelly, H. Zheng, D. Karthik, and R. Mangharam, “F1tenth: An open-source evaluation environment for continuous control and reinforcement learning,” inProceedings of the NeurIPS 2019 Compe- tition and Demonstration Track, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, H. J. Escalante and R. Hadsell, Eds., vol. 123. PMLR, 08– 14 Dec 2020, pp. 77–89

    2019

  7. [7]

    Amz driverless: The full autonomous racing system,

    J. Kabzanet al., “Amz driverless: The full autonomous racing system,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 1267–1294, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Tum autonomous motorsport: An autonomous rac- ing software for the indy autonomous challenge,

    J. Betzet al., “Tum autonomous motorsport: An autonomous rac- ing software for the indy autonomous challenge,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 783–809, 2023

    2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    er. autopilot 1.0: The full autonomous stack for oval racing at high speeds,

    A. Rajiet al., “er. autopilot 1.0: The full autonomous stack for oval racing at high speeds,”Field Robotics, vol. 4, pp. 99–137, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    er. autopilot 1.1: A software stack for autonomous racing on oval and road course tracks,

    ——, “er. autopilot 1.1: A software stack for autonomous racing on oval and road course tracks,”IEEE Transactions on Field Robotics, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Autonomous system for head-to-head race: Design, implementation and analysis; team kaist at the indy autonomous challenge,

    C. C. Chung, A. Finazzi, H. Seong, D. Lee, S. Lee, B. Kim, G. Gang, and D. H. Shim, “Autonomous system for head-to-head race: Design, implementation and analysis; team kaist at the indy autonomous challenge,”IEEE Transactions on Field Robotics, pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Head-to-head autonomous racing at the limits of handling in the a2rl challenge

    S. Hoffmannet al., “Head-to-head autonomous racing at the limits of handling in the a2rl challenge.”

  5. [13]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, C. Stiller, and R. Urtasun, “Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1231–1237, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,

    P. Sunet al., “Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,” in2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,

    H. Caesar, V . Bankiti, A. H. Lang, S. V ora, V . E. Liong, Q. Xu, A. Krishnan, Y . Pan, G. Baldan, and O. Beijbom, “nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

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

    B. Wilsonet al., “Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self- driving perception and forecasting,” inProceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks (NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021), 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Racecar - the dataset for high-speed autonomous racing,

    A. Kulkarni, J. Chrosniak, E. Ducote, F. Sauerbeck, A. Saba, U. Chir- imar, J. Link, M. Behl, and M. Cellina, “Racecar - the dataset for high-speed autonomous racing,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, Oct. 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Fsoco: The formula student objects in context dataset,

    N. V ¨odisch, D. Dodel, and M. Sch ¨otz, “Fsoco: The formula student objects in context dataset,”SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated V ehicles, vol. 5, no. 12-05-01-0003, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Accurate, low-latency visual perception for autonomous racing: Challenges, mechanisms, and practical solutions,

    K. Strobel, S. Zhu, R. Chang, and S. Koppula, “Accurate, low-latency visual perception for autonomous racing: Challenges, mechanisms, and practical solutions,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020, pp. 1969–1975

    2020

  12. [20]

    Real-time 3d traffic cone detection for autonomous driving,

    A. Dhall, D. Dai, and L. Van Gool, “Real-time 3d traffic cone detection for autonomous driving,” in2019 IEEE Intelligent V ehicles Symposium (IV), 2019, pp. 494–501

    2019

  13. [21]

    Quantifying the lidar sim-to-real domain shift: A detailed investigation using object detectors and analyzing point clouds at target-level,

    S. Huch, L. Scalerandi, E. Rivera, and M. Lienkamp, “Quantifying the lidar sim-to-real domain shift: A detailed investigation using object detectors and analyzing point clouds at target-level,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2970–2982, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Openpcdet: An open-source toolbox for 3d object detec- tion from point clouds,

    O. D. Team, “Openpcdet: An open-source toolbox for 3d object detec- tion from point clouds,” https://github.com/open-mmlab/OpenPCDet, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Man truckscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous trucking in diverse conditions,

    F. Fentet al., “Man truckscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous trucking in diverse conditions,”Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 62 062–62 082, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Zenseact open dataset: A large-scale and diverse multimodal dataset for au- tonomous driving,

    M. Alibeigi, W. Ljungbergh, A. Tonderski, G. Hess, A. Lilja, C. Lind- str¨om, D. Motorniuk, J. Fu, J. Widahl, and C. Petersson, “Zenseact open dataset: A large-scale and diverse multimodal dataset for au- tonomous driving,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conferenc...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Pandaset: Advanced sensor suite dataset for au- tonomous driving,

    P. Xiaoet al., “Pandaset: Advanced sensor suite dataset for au- tonomous driving,” in2021 IEEE international intelligent transporta- tion systems conference (ITSC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 3095–3101

    2021

  18. [26]

    LION: Linear group RNN for 3d object detection in point clouds,

    Z. Liu, J. Hou, X. Wang, X. Ye, J. Wang, H. Zhao, and X. Bai, “LION: Linear group RNN for 3d object detection in point clouds,” inThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Seyond falcon k product description,

    “Seyond falcon k product description,” https://www.seyond.com/ products/falcon-k1/, accessed: 2025-05-13

    2025

  20. [28]

    Lidar-based vehicle detection and tracking for autonomous racing,

    M. Cellina, M. Corno, and S. M. Savaresi, “Lidar-based vehicle detection and tracking for autonomous racing,” 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Learn to see fast: Lessons learned from autonomous racing on how to develop perception systems,

    F. Sauerbeck, S. Huch, F. Fent, P. Karle, D. Kulmer, and J. Betz, “Learn to see fast: Lessons learned from autonomous racing on how to develop perception systems,”Ieee Access, vol. 11, pp. 44 034–44 050, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    How fast is too fast? the role of perception latency in high-speed sense and avoid,

    D. Falanga, S. Kim, and D. Scaramuzza, “How fast is too fast? the role of perception latency in high-speed sense and avoid,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1884–1891, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Multi- modal sensor fusion and object tracking for autonomous racing,

    P. Karle, F. Fent, S. Huch, F. Sauerbeck, and M. Lienkamp, “Multi- modal sensor fusion and object tracking for autonomous racing,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 3871–3883, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

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

    G. Zhang, L. Fan, C. HE, Z. Lei, Z.-X. ZHANG, and L. Zhang, “V oxel mamba: Group-free state space models for point cloud based 3d object detection,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C....

    2024

  25. [33]

    Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection,

    Y . Yan, Y . Mao, and B. Li, “Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection,”Sensors, vol. 18, p. 3337, 10 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    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,” in2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019, pp. 12 689–12 697

    2019

  27. [35]

    Pv- rcnn: Point-voxel feature set abstraction for 3d object detection,

    S. Shi, C. Guo, L. Jiang, Z. Wang, J. Shi, X. Wang, and H. Li, “Pv- rcnn: Point-voxel feature set abstraction for 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Center-based 3d object detec- tion and tracking,

    T. Yin, X. Zhou, and P. Krahenbuhl, “Center-based 3d object detec- tion and tracking,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2021, pp. 11 784–11 793

    2021

  29. [37]

    Pv-rcnn++: Point-voxel feature set abstraction with local vector representation for 3d object detection,

    S. Shi, L. Jiang, J. Deng, Z. Wang, C. Guo, J. Shi, X. Wang, and H. Li, “Pv-rcnn++: Point-voxel feature set abstraction with local vector representation for 3d object detection,”International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 531–551, February 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Dsvt: Dynamic sparse voxel transformer with rotated sets,

    H. Wang, C. Shi, S. Shi, M. Lei, S. Wang, D. He, B. Schiele, and L. Wang, “Dsvt: Dynamic sparse voxel transformer with rotated sets,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 13 520–13 529

    2023

  31. [39]

    V oxelnext: Fully sparse voxelnet for 3d object detection and tracking,

    Y . Chen, J. Liu, X. Zhang, X. Qi, and J. Jia, “V oxelnext: Fully sparse voxelnet for 3d object detection and tracking,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    3D Multi-Object Tracking: A Baseline and New Evaluation Metrics,

    X. Weng, J. Wang, D. Held, and K. Kitani, “3D Multi-Object Tracking: A Baseline and New Evaluation Metrics,”IROS, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.