Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 58 references

LiDAR-based End-to-end Temporal Perception for Vehicle-Infrastructure Cooperation

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LET-VIC introduces a LiDAR-based end-to-end tracking framework that fuses vehicle and roadside BEV features and uses learned calibration offsets, and it reports large, delay-robust gains over single-vehicle and tracking-by-detection…

desk verdict A credible end-to-end VIC tracking framework with a useful calibration-compensation idea, but the headline gains rest on unverifiable baseline re-implementations, so the numbers should be read as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14927 v2 pith:PNPSEVON submitted 2024-11-22 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGcs.RO

Zhenwei Yang , Jilei Mao , Wenxian Yang , Yibo Ai , Yu Kong , Haibao Yu , Weidong Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LGcs.RO
keywords vehicle-infrastructurecooperationend-to-endmulti-objecttrackingLiDARperceptionBEVfeaturefusioncross-attentioncalibrationerrorcompensationtemporalV2X-Seq-SPD
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

LET-VIC is a proposed answer to a concrete failure: a self-driving car's LiDAR sees only part of the scene, and cooperative perception systems that fuse roadside data usually detect frame-by-frame and then track separately, leaving temporal context underused. The paper argues that a single end-to-end network, which fuses vehicle and infrastructure Bird's Eye View (BEV) features with cross-attention and carries track identity across frames, detects and tracks better than either single-vehicle end-to-end perception or cooperative tracking-by-detection. On the real-world V2X-Seq-SPD-10Hz validation set, LET-VIC reports mAP 0.606 and AMOTA 0.640 at zero latency, +15.0 mAP and +17.3 AMOTA over its single-vehicle counterpart, and at least +13.7 mAP and +13.1 AMOTA over V2VNet, FFNet, and PointPillars with AB3DMOT, with the advantage persisting under 100-300 ms communication delays. If true, this makes the case that temporal perception in cooperative driving should be treated as one learnable detection-and-tracking problem rather than detection followed by association, and that calibration error can be absorbed by learned reference-point offsets instead of precise extrinsic calibration alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the VIC Cross-Attention module, a deformable-attention fusion layer that takes the vehicle-side BEV queries, projects them onto both the vehicle and infrastructure feature maps, and then refines each projected reference point with a learned calibration offset ($\Delta x$, $\Delta y$) before sampling features around the corrected points. An infrastructure mask excludes projections that fall outside the roadside feature bounds. Working with the TrackFormer-style decoder of detect queries and track queries, this module is what lets LET-VIC fuse two LiDAR views and maintain object identity across frames in a single training pass.

What would settle it

Retrain V2VNet, FFNet, and PointPillars+AB3DMOT on the same V2X-Seq-SPD-10Hz split with the same training schedule, hyperparameters, augmentation, and compute budget used for LET-VIC; if LET-VIC no longer leads by roughly +13.7 mAP and +13.1 AMOTA at 0 ms, the central comparative claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors introduce LET-VIC, which they describe as the first LiDAR-based end-to-end tracking framework for vehicle-infrastructure cooperation. The central claim is that detection and tracking should be solved jointly in one Transformer pipeline that fuses vehicle and infrastructure Bird's Eye View (BEV) features, rather than by detecting each frame separately and associating tracks afterwards. The VIC Cross-Attention module performs the fusion with deformable attention, and the Calibration Error Compensation (CEC) module learns per-reference-point offsets $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$ to correct coordinate-transformation misalignment. On the real-world V2X-Seq-SPD-10Hz validation set, LET-VIC reports 0.606 mAP and 0.640 AMOTA at 0 ms latency, improving on its single-vehicle counterpart LET-V by +15.0 mAP and +17.3 AMOTA, and on the tracking-by-detection baselines V2VNet, FFNet, and PointPillars with AB3DMOT by at least +13.7 mAP and +13.1 AMOTA. The advantage persists under 100, 200, and 300 ms simulated communication delays, and the CEC ablation on the 2Hz dataset shows consistent mAP and AMOTA gains at every tested delay.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison against V2VNet, FFNet, and PointPillars assumes those re-implemented baselines were trained as carefully and with as much compute as LET-VIC; the paper gives no training details for them, so if they were undertuned the reported margins are inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported results hold, cooperative temporal perception is better formulated as one end-to-end detection-and-tracking problem; the +15.0 mAP and +17.3 AMOTA gains over LET-V show that roadside LiDAR data materially extends what the ego vehicle can perceive.
  • End-to-end tracking alone is competitive even without cooperation: LET-V, using only ego-vehicle point clouds, approaches PointPillars+AB3DMOT and beats V2VNet and FFNet, suggesting that track queries carry useful temporal context that box-association post-processing does not.
  • Learned calibration compensation is a viable substitute for precise extrinsic alignment: adding CEC improves mAP and AMOTA at all latencies tested on the 2Hz setting, including +6.4 mAP at 0 ms.
  • The framework tolerates communication delay gracefully; at 300 ms delay it still outperforms the best baseline by +8.5 mAP and +9.2 AMOTA, so the fusion strategy is not brittle to stale infrastructure features.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the margins survive controlled baseline tuning, the main design lesson for cooperative perception is that temporal end-to-end heads may matter more than better data association for tracking in V2X settings.
  • Editorial inference: the CEC module's learned offsets could be read as a soft, online estimate of extrinsic calibration error; one testable extension is to compare the learned offsets against measured misalignment values and use them as a calibration-drift monitor.
  • Editorial inference: because the cross-dataset gains on V2X-Sim are much smaller (+2.2 mAP, +6.7 AMOTA) under intermittent cooperation, the framework's robustness to dropped or absent infrastructure features is worth isolating explicitly with feature-dropout tests.
  • Editorial inference: the CEC gains are demonstrated only on the reduced 2Hz, 64-dimension configuration; verifying them at the full 10Hz, 256-dimension setting would determine whether the module's benefit scales with resolution.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. LET-VIC is an end-to-end LiDAR-based detection-and-tracking framework for vehicle-infrastructure cooperation. The method extracts separate BEV features from vehicle and infrastructure point clouds with PointPillars, fuses them through a deformable VIC cross-attention module, and introduces a Calibration Error Compensation (CEC) module that learns per-reference-point offsets to correct misalignment between the two coordinate frames. Detection and tracking are performed jointly with TrackFormer-style queries. The paper reports experiments on the V2X-Seq-SPD-10Hz and V2X-Sim datasets, showing consistent improvements over a single-view end-to-end variant (LET-V) and over self-implemented tracking-by-detection baselines (V2VNet, FFNet, PointPillars+AB3DMOT) at 0-300 ms simulated latency. An ablation on a reduced 2Hz/64-dim setting indicates that CEC improves mAP and AMOTA.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are taken at face value, LET-VIC would be a useful step for cooperative perception: it is a clean end-to-end formulation that combines temporal queries with cross-sensor BEV fusion, it is evaluated on a real-world V2X sequential dataset, and its latency-robustness results in Table I address a practically important issue. The CEC idea, learning spatial offsets within the attention module rather than relying on post-hoc calibration, is simple and potentially transferable. The paper is also transparent about model complexity (514.86 GFLOPs, 30.11 M parameters). However, because the central comparison depends on self-reimplemented baselines whose training settings are not reported, and because the CEC ablation is not performed on the full model, the evidence as currently presented is conditional. The strengths above are real but do not yet verify the headline margins.

major comments (5)
  1. [§IV-A3, Table I] The four baseline methods (LET-V, V2VNet, FFNet, PointPillars+AB3DMOT) are described as "developed and reproduced" by the authors, but the paper gives no training hyperparameters (optimizer, learning rate, batch size, epochs, augmentation), no detection confidence thresholds, and no AB3DMOT association parameters. The main numerical claims in Table I and the text (+15.0 mAP/+17.3 AMOTA over LET-V and +13.7 mAP/+13.1 AMOTA over PointPillars at 0 ms) therefore rest on the unstated assumption that the re-implementations are trained as well as the published methods they are named after. Please provide complete baseline training details, or use official released checkpoints with known settings, and state whether any tuning was performed on the validation split.
  2. [§IV-C2, Table III] The CEC ablation is run on V2X-Seq-SPD-2Hz with the feature dimension reduced from 256 to 64, not on the full 10Hz/256-dim configuration of Table I. The text in Section IV-C3 concludes that "LET-VIC with calibration error compensation" improves performance, but this is only demonstrated for the reduced model. Please add a full-resolution CEC ablation (with and without CEC), or provide a concrete argument and supporting measurements showing that the reduced setting is representative of the full model.
  3. [Table I] In the 0 ms columns, the V2VNet and FFNet rows are identical (mAP=0.349, AMOTA=0.377, AMOTP=1.258). This is suspicious and, as printed, makes the comparison with FFNet uninterpretable. Please correct or verify the entries, and check whether the 100-300 ms rows are also affected.
  4. [§IV-B, Table I] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any of the comparisons. Since the baselines are re-implementations and the reported margins are often in the 5-15 point range, the reader cannot tell whether the differences are statistically meaningful. Please report mean±std over multiple seeds (or another justified significance measure) for at least the main results.
  5. [§II-B, Table I] HYDRO-3D and MOT-CUP are discussed in the related work as cooperative tracking methods, yet neither appears in the experiments. Because the paper's contribution is precisely end-to-end temporal perception for VIC, a direct comparison with these methods should be included, or a concrete reason for their exclusion should be given. Otherwise the claim of outperforming "representative" cooperative temporal-perception baselines is not fully supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III-B vs §IV-A2] The vehicle-side grid is described as 512×512 with 0.2 m voxels over a 102.4 m range, but IV-A2 says the grid size is 0.512 m. These are inconsistent; please reconcile.
  2. [Equations (4)-(7)] The symbols 'xv mineh', 'xv maxeh', 'xi minnf', and 'xi maxnf' appear to be corrupted or missing subscripts; use x_veh^{min}, x_veh^{max}, etc. This makes the normalization in (6)-(7) hard to read.
  3. [Section I, contribution list] The contribution list calls the CEC approach "self-supervised", but the offsets in Section III-E are trained with the same detection/tracking supervision as the rest of the network; a term like "learned" or "end-to-end trained" would be more accurate.
  4. [Abstract and §IV-A2] "floating point operations per second (FLOPs)" should be "floating point operations"; FLOPs is not a rate.
  5. [Table III caption] The table uses checkmark columns but never defines the baseline row (without CEC) besides the table title; also the reduced setting should be stated directly in the table caption to avoid confusion.
  6. [Abstract] The availability statement "All code will be open-sourced" has no repository link or artifact identifier; if code is released, provide a URL or mention that it will be linked in the camera-ready version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains are empirical measurements on held-out annotations, not derivations from fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

LET-VIC's central claims are empirical: Table I compares mAP, AMOTA, and AMOTP on the V2X-Seq-SPD-10Hz validation set, and Table II reports cross-dataset results on V2X-Sim. These numbers come from evaluating trained models against ground-truth annotations; no reported metric is used as a training target or as a fitted parameter. The CEC module learns per-query offsets (Eqs. 4-5) from the detection/tracking loss, and the ablation in Table III compares two trained configurations on held-out frames, so the improvement attributed to CEC is not forced by construction. The paper does cite prior work by overlapping authors for the dataset [9], the FFNet baseline [22], and related components [52,54], but the outperformance claim is not derived from those citations; it is a measured comparison. The re-implementation of baselines without detailed training settings is a reproducibility/fairness risk, but that is a correctness concern, not circularity: the baselines are published external methods, not renamings of LET-VIC's outputs. No equation reduces a target quantity to an input by definition, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternatives. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the V2X-Seq-SPD dataset annotations, calibration matrices, and the re-implemented baselines; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • CEC learnable offsets Δx_inf, Δy_inf, Δx_veh, Δy_veh = learned during training (no values reported)
    These offsets compensate for calibration errors and are optimized end-to-end; the model's performance gain from CEC is tied to these fitted parameters. Cited in Section III-E Eqs. (4)-(5).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ground truth is the union of vehicle and infrastructure annotations (Eq. 1), assumed to be complete and without duplicate objects.
    The evaluation relies on this union as correct for all objects in the ego ROI, but overlapping sensors can double-count or miss objects; no deduplication is described.
  • domain assumption The calibration matrices Mv and Mi provided by V2X-Seq-SPD are accurate enough for projecting BEV features; residual errors are small and can be modeled by per-query offsets.
    The entire VIC fusion assumes a common coordinate transform; if calibration errors are larger than the learned offsets, the method fails. Invoked in Section III-A and III-E.
  • domain assumption Communication delay can be simulated by using infrastructure frames at earlier timestamps (0, 100, 200, 300 ms) without retraining, and the model's performance under these delays reflects real-world latency robustness.
    This is an evaluation protocol assumption; the model was not trained with delays, so the delay results may not reflect a system that actually experiences asynchronous arrivals.
  • standard math Standard components (PointPillars, BEVFormer-style encoder, TrackFormer/MOTR decoder) perform as described in their original papers when assembled in this framework.
    The method builds on these published architectures and assumes their properties hold in the VIC setting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LiDAR-based End-to-end Temporal Perception for Vehicle-Infrastructure Cooperation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PNPSEVON

@misc{pith2026241114927,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LiDAR-based End-to-end Temporal Perception for Vehicle-Infrastructure Cooperation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PNPSEVON}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14927}
}
read the original abstract

Temporal perception, defined as the capability to detect and track objects across temporal sequences, serves as a fundamental component in autonomous driving systems. While single-vehicle perception systems encounter limitations, stemming from incomplete perception due to object occlusion and inherent blind spots, cooperative perception systems present their own challenges in terms of sensor calibration precision and positioning accuracy. To address these issues, we introduce LET-VIC, a LiDAR-based End-to-End Tracking framework for Vehicle-Infrastructure Cooperation (VIC). First, we employ Temporal Self-Attention and VIC Cross-Attention modules to effectively integrate temporal and spatial information from both vehicle and infrastructure perspectives. Then, we develop a novel Calibration Error Compensation (CEC) module to mitigate sensor misalignment issues and facilitate accurate feature alignment. Experiments on the V2X-Seq-SPD dataset demonstrate that LET-VIC significantly outperforms baseline models. Compared to LET-V, LET-VIC achieves +15.0% improvement in mAP and a +17.3% improvement in AMOTA. Furthermore, LET-VIC surpasses representative Tracking by Detection models, including V2VNet, FFNet, and PointPillars, with at least a +13.7% improvement in mAP and a +13.1% improvement in AMOTA without considering communication delays, showcasing its robust detection and tracking performance. The experiments demonstrate that the integration of multi-view perspectives, temporal sequences, or CEC in end-to-end training significantly improves both detection and tracking performance. All code will be open-sourced.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14927 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Vehicle-Infrastructure Cooperative Diagram. The red car represents the Ego Vehicle. The vehicle-side LiDAR covers a semicircular area in front of the Ego Vehicle, while the infrastructure-side LiDAR has a fan-shaped coverage area. Through vehicle-infrastructure cooperation, the infrastructure can provide additional perception information to the vehicle. their dynamic changes over time, providing a detailed under￾sta… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Vehicle-Infrastructure Cooperative Perception. (a) illustrates perception using only infrastructure-side LiDAR, (b) illustrates perception using only vehicle-side LiDAR, and (c) shows the cooperative perception results combining (a) and (b). The red car represents the Ego Vehicle, green boxes indicate detected objects with their orientations, targets within the red dashed circles are those occluded from the vehicle’… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Architecture of LET-VIC. The diagram illustrates the steps involved in the LET-VIC framework. (a) and (b) Both the infrastructure-side and vehicle-side employ PointPillars [53] to extract LiDAR point cloud features. Then the infrastructure-side features are transmitted to the vehicle side through V2X communication and integrated into the VIC cross-attention module along with the vehicle-side features. (c) The BEV en… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PointCloud Backbone. The PointCloud Backbone extract Bird’s Eye View (BEV) features from point cloud data. The pipeline starts with data preprocessing, voxelization, and feature extraction via PillarFeatureNet. Pseudo-image features are then processed by SECOND and FPN…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: VIC Cross-Attention. The VIC Cross-Attention module fuses the Bird’s Eye View (BEV) features from both the infrastructure and vehicle sides, compensating for calibration errors. First, We project BEV queries to both the infrastructure side and vehicle side features to …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance Comparison under Different Latency Conditions. Our proposed LET-VIC model significantly enhances perception performance through multi-perspective fusion in Vehicle-Infrastructure Cooperation (VIC), achieving the best performance across all metrics and under…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization with V2X-Seq-SPD. The visualization comparison clearly demonstrates that our LET-VIC model achieves superior results compared to other baseline models. Each row represents the perception results of each model at time t. Each column shows the temporal perc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vehicle- to-everything (v2x) services supported by lte-based systems and 5g,

    S. Chen, J. Hu, Y . Shi, Y . Peng, J. Fang, R. Zhao, and L. Zhao, “Vehicle- to-everything (v2x) services supported by lte-based systems and 5g,” IEEE Communications Standards Magazine , vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 70–76, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Challenges and solutions for cellular based v2x communications,

    S. Gyawali, S. Xu, Y . Qian, and R. Q. Hu, “Challenges and solutions for cellular based v2x communications,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 222–255, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Classification of c-its services in vehicular environments,

    S. Maaloul, H. Aniss, M. Kassab, and M. Berbineau, “Classification of c-its services in vehicular environments,” IEEE Access , vol. 9, pp. 117 868–117 879, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Motiontrack: end-to-end transformer-based multi-object tracking with lidar-camera fusion,

    C. Zhang, C. Zhang, Y . Guo, L. Chen, and M. Happold, “Motiontrack: end-to-end transformer-based multi-object tracking with lidar-camera fusion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 151–160

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Track- former: Multi-object tracking with transformers,

    T. Meinhardt, A. Kirillov, L. Leal-Taixe, and C. Feichtenhofer, “Track- former: Multi-object tracking with transformers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 8844–8854

    2022

  6. [6]

    Motr: End-to-end multiple-object tracking with transformer,

    F. Zeng, B. Dong, Y . Zhang, T. Wang, X. Zhang, and Y . Wei, “Motr: End-to-end multiple-object tracking with transformer,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 659–675

    2022

  7. [7]

    Tracking objects as points,

    X. Zhou, V . Koltun, and P. Kr ¨ahenb¨uhl, “Tracking objects as points,” in European conference on computer vision. Springer, 2020, pp. 474–490

    2020

  8. [8]

    Center-based 3d object detection and tracking,

    T. Yin, X. Zhou, and P. Krahenbuhl, “Center-based 3d object detection and tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 11 784–11 793

    2021

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    V2x-seq: A large-scale sequential dataset for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception and forecasting,

    H. Yu, W. Yang, H. Ruan, Z. Yang, Y . Tang, X. Gao, X. Hao, Y . Shi, Y . Pan, N. Sun et al. , “V2x-seq: A large-scale sequential dataset for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception and forecasting,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Resource allocation modes in c-v2x: from lte-v2x to 5g-v2x,

    K. Sehla, T. M. T. Nguyen, G. Pujolle, and P. B. Velloso, “Resource allocation modes in c-v2x: from lte-v2x to 5g-v2x,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 8291–8314, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Integrated sensing and communications (isac) for vehicular communication networks (vcn),

    X. Cheng, D. Duan, S. Gao, and L. Yang, “Integrated sensing and communications (isac) for vehicular communication networks (vcn),” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 23, pp. 23 441–23 451, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    A study on v2i based cooperative autonomous driving,

    J. Jang, J. Baek, K. Lim, Y . Ro, S. Yoon, and S. Jang, “A study on v2i based cooperative autonomous driving,” in 2023 International Conference on Electronics, Information, and Communication (ICEIC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–3

    2023

  5. [13]

    Integrated sensing and communications: Recent advances and ten open challenges,

    S. Lu, F. Liu, Y . Li, K. Zhang, H. Huang, J. Zou, X. Li, Y . Dong, F. Dong, J. Zhu et al., “Integrated sensing and communications: Recent advances and ten open challenges,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Cooper: Cooperative perception for connected autonomous vehicles based on 3d point clouds,

    Q. Chen, S. Tang, Q. Yang, and S. Fu, “Cooper: Cooperative perception for connected autonomous vehicles based on 3d point clouds,” in 2019 IEEE 39th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 514–524

    2019

  7. [15]

    Learning distilled collaboration graph for multi-agent perception,

    Y . Li, S. Ren, P. Wu, S. Chen, C. Feng, and W. Zhang, “Learning distilled collaboration graph for multi-agent perception,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 34, pp. 29 541–29 552, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    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,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 2583–2589

    2022

  9. [17]

    F-cooper: Feature based cooperative perception for autonomous vehicle edge computing system using 3d point clouds,

    Q. Chen, X. Ma, S. Tang, J. Guo, Q. Yang, and S. Fu, “F-cooper: Feature based cooperative perception for autonomous vehicle edge computing system using 3d point clouds,” in Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE Symposium on Edge Computing , 2019, pp. 88–100

    2019

  10. [18]

    V2vnet: Vehicle-to-vehicle communication for joint percep- tion and prediction,

    T.-H. Wang, S. Manivasagam, M. Liang, B. Yang, W. Zeng, and R. Urtasun, “V2vnet: Vehicle-to-vehicle communication for joint percep- tion and prediction,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16. Springer,...

    2020

  11. [19]

    Coopernaut: End-to- end driving with cooperative perception for networked vehicles,

    J. Cui, H. Qiu, D. Chen, P. Stone, and Y . Zhu, “Coopernaut: End-to- end driving with cooperative perception for networked vehicles,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 17 252–17 262

    2022

  12. [20]

    How2comm: Communication-efficient and collaboration- pragmatic multi-agent perception,

    D. Yang, K. Yang, Y . Wang, J. Liu, Z. Xu, R. Yin, P. Zhai, and L. Zhang, “How2comm: Communication-efficient and collaboration- pragmatic multi-agent perception,” in Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    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,” in European conference on computer vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 107– 124

    2022

  14. [22]

    Flow-based feature fusion for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative 3d object detection,

    H. Yu, Y . Tang, E. Xie, J. Mao, P. Luo, and Z. Nie, “Flow-based feature fusion for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative 3d object detection,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Lever- aging temporal contexts to enhance vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception,

    J. Zhong, H. Yu, T. Zhu, J. Xu, W. Yang, Z. Nie, and C. Sun, “Lever- aging temporal contexts to enhance vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10531 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    Mutr3d: A multi- camera tracking framework via 3d-to-2d queries,

    T. Zhang, X. Chen, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, and H. Zhao, “Mutr3d: A multi- camera tracking framework via 3d-to-2d queries,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 4537–4546

    2022

  18. [26]

    Motrv2: Bootstrapping end-to-end multi-object tracking by pretrained object detectors,

    Y . Zhang, T. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Motrv2: Bootstrapping end-to-end multi-object tracking by pretrained object detectors,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 22 056–22 065

    2023

  19. [27]

    Motrv3: Release-fetch supervision for end-to-end multi-object tracking,

    E. Yu, T. Wang, Z. Li, Y . Zhang, X. Zhang, and W. Tao, “Motrv3: Release-fetch supervision for end-to-end multi-object tracking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14298, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Sparse4d v3: Advancing end-to-end 3d detection and tracking,

    X. Lin, Z. Pei, T. Lin, L. Huang, and Z. Su, “Sparse4d v3: Advancing end-to-end 3d detection and tracking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11722, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    End-to-end 3d tracking with decoupled queries,

    Y . Li, Z. Yu, J. Philion, A. Anandkumar, S. Fidler, J. Jia, and J. Alvarez, “End-to-end 3d tracking with decoupled queries,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 18 302–18 311

    2023

  22. [30]

    Hydro-3d: Hybrid object detection and tracking for cooperative perception using 3d lidar,

    Z. Meng, X. Xia, R. Xu, W. Liu, and J. Ma, “Hydro-3d: Hybrid object detection and tracking for cooperative perception using 3d lidar,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 4069–4080, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Collab- orative multi-object tracking with conformal uncertainty propagation,

    S. Su, S. Han, Y . Li, Z. Zhang, C. Feng, C. Ding, and F. Miao, “Collab- orative multi-object tracking with conformal uncertainty propagation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    V2x- sim: Multi-agent collaborative perception dataset and benchmark for autonomous driving,

    Y . Li, D. Ma, Z. An, Z. Wang, Y . Zhong, S. Chen, and C. Feng, “V2x- sim: Multi-agent collaborative perception dataset and benchmark for autonomous driving,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 10 914–10 921, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Cooperative 3d multi-object tracking for connected and automated vehicles with complementary data association,

    H. Su, S. Arakawa, and M. Murata, “Cooperative 3d multi-object tracking for connected and automated vehicles with complementary data association,” in 2024 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 285–291

    2024

  26. [34]

    Probabilis- tic 3d multi-object cooperative tracking for autonomous driving via differentiable multi-sensor kalman filter,

    H.-K. Chiu, C.-Y . Wang, M.-H. Chen, and S. F. Smith, “Probabilis- tic 3d multi-object cooperative tracking for autonomous driving via differentiable multi-sensor kalman filter,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 18 458–18 464

    2024

  27. [35]

    V2v4real: A real-world large-scale dataset for vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative perception,

    R. Xu, X. Xia, J. Li, H. Li, S. Zhang, Z. Tu, Z. Meng, H. Xiang, X. Dong, R. Song et al. , “V2v4real: A real-world large-scale dataset for vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative perception,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, p...

    2023

  28. [36]

    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

  29. [37]

    Bevdet4d: Exploit temporal cues in multi- camera 3d object detection,

    J. Huang and G. Huang, “Bevdet4d: Exploit temporal cues in multi- camera 3d object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.17054 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

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

    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 detec- tion,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 37, no. 2, 2023, pp. 1477–1485

    2023

  31. [39]

    Bevstereo: Enhancing depth estimation in multi-view 3d object detection with temporal stereo,

    Y . Li, H. Bao, Z. Ge, J. Yang, J. Sun, and Z. Li, “Bevstereo: Enhancing depth estimation in multi-view 3d object detection with temporal stereo,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 2, 2023, pp. 1486–1494

    2023

  32. [40]

    Bevformer: Learning bird’s-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 bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotemporal transformers,” in European conference on computer vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 1–18. 13

    2022

  33. [41]

    Simple- bev: What really matters for multi-sensor bev perception?

    A. W. Harley, Z. Fang, J. Li, R. Ambrus, and K. Fragkiadaki, “Simple- bev: What really matters for multi-sensor bev perception?” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 2759–2765

    2023

  34. [42]

    Fast-bev: A fast and strong bird’s-eye view perception baseline,

    Y . Li, B. Huang, Z. Chen, Y . Cui, F. Liang, M. Shen, F. Liu, E. Xie, L. Sheng, W. Ouyang et al. , “Fast-bev: A fast and strong bird’s-eye view perception baseline,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    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

  36. [44]

    Is-fusion: Instance-scene collaborative fusion for multimodal 3d object detection,

    J. Yin, J. Shen, R. Chen, W. Li, R. Yang, P. Frossard, and W. Wang, “Is-fusion: Instance-scene collaborative fusion for multimodal 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 14 905–14 915

    2024

  37. [45]

    Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view representation,

    Z. Liu, H. Tang, A. Amini, X. Yang, H. Mao, D. L. Rus, and S. Han, “Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view representation,” in 2023 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2774–2781

    2023

  38. [46]

    Fusionformer: A multi-sensory fusion in bird’s- eye-view and temporal consistent transformer for 3d objection,

    C. Hu, H. Zheng, K. Li, J. Xu, W. Mao, M. Luo, L. Wang, M. Chen, K. Liu, Y . Zhaoet al., “Fusionformer: A multi-sensory fusion in bird’s- eye-view and temporal consistent transformer for 3d objection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05257, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Uniformer: Unifying convolution and self-attention for visual recogni- tion,

    K. Li, Y . Wang, J. Zhang, P. Gao, G. Song, Y . Liu, H. Li, and Y . Qiao, “Uniformer: Unifying convolution and self-attention for visual recogni- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 12 581–12 600, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Planning-oriented autonomous driving,

    Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wang et 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

  41. [49]

    Graphad: Interaction scene graph for end-to-end autonomous driving,

    Y . Zhang, D. Qian, D. Li, Y . Pan, Y . Chen, Z. Liang, Z. Zhang, S. Zhang, H. Li, M. Fu et al. , “Graphad: Interaction scene graph for end-to-end autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19098 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Fusionad: Multi-modality fusion for pre- diction and planning tasks of autonomous driving,

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

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Sparsedrive: End-to-end autonomous driving via sparse scene representation,

    W. Sun, X. Lin, Y . Shi, C. Zhang, H. Wu, and S. Zheng, “Sparsedrive: End-to-end autonomous driving via sparse scene representation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19620, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    End- to-end autonomous driving through v2x cooperation,

    H. Yu, W. Yang, J. Zhong, Z. Yang, S. Fan, P. Luo, and Z. Nie, “End- to-end autonomous driving through v2x cooperation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00717, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    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,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 12 697–12 705

    2019

  46. [54]

    Quest: Query stream for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception,

    S. Fan, H. Yu, W. Yang, J. Yuan, and Z. Nie, “Quest: Query stream for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01804, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Transiff: An instance-level feature fusion framework for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative 3d detection with trans- formers,

    Z. Chen, Y . Shi, and J. Jia, “Transiff: An instance-level feature fusion framework for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative 3d detection with trans- formers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 18 205–18 214

    2023

  48. [56]

    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,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 11 621–11 631

    2020

  49. [57]

    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

  50. [58]

    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,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 10 359–10 366

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.