Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

RaCFormer: Towards High-Quality 3D Object Detection via Query-based Radar-Camera Fusion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read RaCFormer claims query-based radar-camera fusion is the key to high-quality 3D detection, reporting 64.9% mAP and 70.2% NDS on nuScenes and 78.6% mAP on View-of-Delft.

desk verdict Solid query-based radar-camera fusion with strong ablations, but the SOTA claims rest on future frames and unequal training schedules that need a controlled comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12725 v2 pith:4M2E62CI submitted 2024-12-17 cs.CV

Xiaomeng Chu , Jiajun Deng , Guoliang You , Yifan Duan , Houqiang Li , Yanyong Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dobjectdetectionradar-camerafusionquery-basedtransformerbird's-eyeviewdepthestimationtemporalmodelingautonomousdrivingsensor
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

RaCFormer sets out to show that radar and camera data are best fused not by combining bird's-eye-view (BEV) feature maps, but by letting a set of object queries sample features from both the perspective image view and the BEV. The paper argues that BEV-only fusion inherits two weaknesses: image-to-BEV transformation distorts features when pixel depth is inaccurate, while radar BEV features are too sparse to anchor alignment. Its query-based framework, supported by a radar-guided depth head and a Doppler-aware temporal module, is reported to reach 64.9% mAP and 70.2% NDS on the nuScenes test set and 78.57% mAP in the region of interest on View-of-Delft, outperforming prior radar-camera detectors and partially closing the gap to LiDAR-based systems. A sympathetic reader would care because radar-camera perception is a far cheaper alternative to LiDAR for autonomous driving, and the reported gains appear in exactly the conditions where cameras fail—night, rain, and fast-moving objects.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is query-based dual-view sampling: 3D object queries serve as the fusion medium, with a ray-sampling module taking sample points along each query's ray segment and gathering deformable-attention features from both the image plane and the BEV, then aggregating them with an adaptive mixer. Three components strengthen it. First, linearly increasing circular query initialization places queries on concentric circles with $n$ queries in the innermost circle and $\alpha$ times more per outer circle, so the total is $N = (1+\alpha+\dots+\alpha^{k-1})n$, giving denser coverage at distance than the radial layout it replaces. Second, the radar-aware depth head projects radar points with $z_r=1$ onto the full image height, discretizes their depths with increasing spacing, embeds depth and radar cross section, and feeds this into the depth head to refine the depth distribution used by the lift-splat-shoot view transformation. Third, the implicit dynamic catcher feeds multi-frame radar BEV features through a ConvGRU whose hidden state accumulates motion evidence across frames, using the Doppler information implicit in radar velocity measurements to sharpen detection of moving objects.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison that trains RaCFormer and the published radar-camera baselines under identical settings—same number of future and historical frames, same backbone pretraining, same epochs and data augmentations—on the nuScenes validation split. If the 4.7 mAP margin over HyDRa at ResNet-50 resolution shrinks or reverses, the architecture is not the source of the claimed advantage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that cross-modal fusion for 3D detection should be query-based and cross-perspective: each object query defines sampling locations that are projected into the original images and onto the BEV, so the detector can pull instance-relevant evidence from both views instead of requiring the two BEV maps to be spatially aligned first. On top of this, RaCFormer adds a circular query initialization whose density grows linearly with distance from the ego vehicle, a radar-aware depth head that projects radar returns to the full image height and embeds their range and radar cross section to sharpen the lift-splat-shoot transformation, and an implicit dynamic catcher that runs multi-frame radar BEV features through a convolutional gated recurrent unit to exploit the Doppler-derived motion signal. With these components the method reports state-of-the-art numbers on nuScenes and View-of-Delft, including a test-set result of 64.9% mAP and 70.2% NDS with six past and six future frames, which the paper reads as evidence that radar-camera fusion can approach—and on some metrics match—LiDAR-based detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The reported state-of-the-art numbers assume the gains come from the proposed modules rather than from a favorable evaluation setup: the top test-set result uses six past and six future frames plus a V2-99 backbone pretrained on extra data, while several baselines run with fewer frames, shorter schedules, or weaker backbones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the nuScenes validation set, RaCFormer with a ResNet-50 at 256x704 reaches 54.1% mAP and 61.3% NDS, beating the HyDRa baseline by 4.7 mAP and 2.8 NDS, and with ResNet-101 at 512x1408 reaches 57.3% mAP and 63.0% NDS.
  • On the nuScenes test set, using six past and six future frames, RaCFormer reports 64.9% mAP and 70.2% NDS, 4.0 mAP and 2.8 NDS above HVDetFusion even though HVDetFusion uses more frames.
  • On View-of-Delft, RaCFormer reports 54.44% mAP over the whole annotated area and 78.57% mAP in the region of interest, exceeding RCBEVDet by 4.45 and 8.77 points respectively.
  • Under sensor dropout, RaCFormer keeps a car AP of 27.2% with cameras entirely off and 52.8% with radar off, well above the CRN baseline, indicating the fusion remains usable when one sensor fails.
  • Ablations attribute the gains to the proposed modules: query-based dual-view decoding adds 3.1 mAP over BEV-only queries, radar depth and RCS embeddings add 1.1 mAP, and the implicit dynamic catcher improves moving-object mAP while lowering velocity error.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The circular query prior encodes a physical assumption—object density in driving scenes grows roughly linearly with distance from the ego sensor within range. A natural extension is to estimate $\alpha$ and $k$ per dataset from annotated object distributions instead of hand-setting them, which could transfer the method to intersection or highway geometries.
  • The same query-based dual-view sampling idea should transfer to LiDAR-camera fusion, where BEV features are denser but still distorted near occlusion boundaries; if the mechanism is truly density-agnostic, it would reduce the alignment burden there too.
  • Because the implicit dynamic catcher already processes a temporal sequence of BEV features, an explicit radar-Doppler velocity supervision head could be added to predict radial velocity directly from hidden states, potentially cutting the average velocity error further.
  • The graceful-degradation table suggests training with random per-frame sensor dropout could make the system even more robust; this is a testable variant of the paper's claim that query-based fusion tolerates missing modalities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents RaCFormer, a query-based radar-camera fusion framework for 3D object detection. Three main components are introduced: (i) a linearly increasing circular query initialization that places object queries on concentric circles with increasing density toward the outer range, (ii) a radar-aware depth head that projects radar points (with z set to 1) onto the image plane, extends their depth to the full image height, and fuses radar depth and RCS values with image features before the LSS view transformation, and (iii) an implicit dynamic catcher built on ConvGRU that uses multi-frame radar BEV features to exploit Doppler velocity information. The method is evaluated on nuScenes and View-of-Delft (VoD). The authors report state-of-the-art results on the nuScenes test set (64.9% mAP and 70.2% NDS) and on VoD (78.57% mAP in the region of interest), along with extensive ablations and robustness analyses. The central claim is that the query-based dual-view sampling paradigm, together with radar-guided depth and temporal radar encoding, substantially improves radar-camera 3D detection.

Significance. If the reported improvements hold under controlled comparisons, this paper offers a valuable contribution to radar-camera 3D detection. The motivation is clear—addressing the misalignment between sparse radar and depth-estimated camera BEV features—and the ablations in Tables 4–7 provide evidence that each proposed module contributes positively. The availability of code is a strength for reproducibility, and the robustness evaluations under weather, lighting, and sensor dropout conditions are commendable. However, the state-of-the-art claim is currently not supported by an evaluation protocol that matches training epochs, input frames, backbone pretraining, and schedule across methods. The significance of the paper cannot be fully assessed until these confounds are removed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table 1] The comparison with HyDRa on the nuScenes validation set is not epoch-matched: RaCFormer with ResNet-50 is trained for 36 epochs, while HyDRa is reported at 20 epochs and RCBEVDet at 12 epochs, despite Section 4.2 stating a 'standard 24 epochs' unless otherwise indicated. Since longer training is expected to improve mAP and NDS, the 4.7 mAP gain over HyDRa cannot be attributed to the proposed modules without a controlled experiment. Please provide RaCFormer results at 20 epochs and HyDRa results at 36 epochs, or otherwise demonstrate that the gap persists under matched training schedules.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 2] The headline test-set results (64.9 mAP and 70.2 NDS) use 6 historical and 6 future frames, while most radar-camera baselines in the same table do not use future frames. The comparison with HVDetFusion, which does use future frames, is not matched in backbone (V2-99 with DD3D pretraining vs InternImage-B), training epochs (24 vs 20), or input resolution. A controlled comparison is needed in which only the fusion and architecture components vary while the number of input frames, backbone, pretraining, and epochs are held constant. Without this, the claim of outperforming HVDetFusion 'with more input frames' is not conclusive.
  3. [Section 4.3] The statement that RaCFormer 'partially bridges the modality gap' to LiDAR-based methods compares against CenterPoint and VoxelNeXt, which are evaluated without temporal context. Since RaCFormer's best performance uses future frames, this is not a like-for-like comparison between sensor modalities. Please either provide a comparison where the LiDAR baselines also receive equivalent multi-frame input (including future frames) or explicitly qualify the claim as applying only to settings with temporal look-ahead.
  4. [Section 4.2] The paper's statement 'Unless specifically indicated, training is conducted for a standard 24 epochs for all models' is inconsistent with Table 1, where RaCFormer-ResNet50 and RayFormer-ResNet50 are trained for 36 epochs. Please clarify the actual training protocols used for each row in Tables 1 and 2, and ensure that models compared under the same heading are trained under the same schedule, or clearly mark which rows use non-standard schedules.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (4)] The closed-form expression for the geometric sum when α ≠ 1 appears ambiguous as typeset; it should read (α^k − 1)/(α − 1) × n, which is consistent with the reported total of about 900 queries for α=1.25, k=6, n=80.
  2. [Section 4.2] The text uses 'V oVNet-99 (V2-99)'; the correct backbone name is VoVNet-99. Please correct the typo.
  3. [Table 3] Please specify the training schedule and hyperparameters used on the VoD dataset, and confirm that the baseline numbers in Table 3 are obtained under the same evaluation protocol (including IoU thresholds and region definitions).
  4. [Table 9] The layout of the robustness table is confusing: the 'C' and 'R' entries under 'CRN' and 'RaCFormer' are not clearly labeled as indicating which sensor modality is dropped (or which views are dropped). Please clarify the row and column semantics.
  5. [General] The paper does not report variance over multiple runs or seeds. Adding a statement about whether reported numbers are single-run or averaged would help calibrate the significance of the observed performance differences.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: RaCFormer is an empirical system paper whose components are validated by external benchmarks and standard validation-set tuning; the SOTA claim's evaluation-protocol gap is a fairness concern, not a circularity.

full rationale

RaCFormer makes no first-principles prediction that reduces to its own inputs. The derivations in the paper are architectural: the circular query distribution (Eq. 4), the radar-depth projection (Eq. 1), and the ConvGRU recurrence (Eq. 2). None of these equations is fitted to the target mAP/NDS or defined in terms of the benchmark outcome. Hyperparameters α, k, and n are tuned on the nuScenes validation set (Table 7) and then evaluated on the test set; this is standard tuning, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The only notable self-citation is to the authors' own RayFormer [6] for the radial query initialization and ray-sampling mechanism, but the paper explicitly benchmarks against RayFormer, extends it with a linearly increasing circular distribution, and does not rely on any self-cited uniqueness theorem or unverified claim to force its central result. The reader-raised concern about unmatched evaluation protocol (6 future frames, DD3D-pretrained V2-99, and 36 epochs vs. shorter schedules for some baselines) is a correctness/fairness issue about whether the SOTA comparison is controlled, not a circular dependency: the reported numbers are external measurements, not consequences of the method's definition. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no load-bearing conclusion is justified solely by self-citation. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. All components are neural network modules parameterized by training. The free parameters are the query initialization hyperparameters tuned on the validation set and the fixed radar height assumption; the central claim depends on these choices.

free parameters (5)
  • query distribution growth factor alpha = 1.25
    Tuned via ablation on nuScenes val (Table 7); alpha=1.25 chosen over 1, 2, and 4.
  • query count n in innermost circle = 80 (nuScenes), 30 (VoD)
    Chosen to keep total queries near 900 (nuScenes) and 600 (VoD).
  • number of concentric circles k = 6 (nuScenes), 8 (VoD)
    Evaluated in Table 7; k=6 used as standard for nuScenes.
  • transformer decoder layers L = 6
    Standard choice from prior work; no ablation reported for L.
  • radar height assumption zr=1 = 1 meter
    Assumes all radar returns have a fixed height of 1m to improve projection onto images. Ablated as a binary (with/without radar depth), not the exact height value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Radar z-coordinates are unreliable, so projecting them at a fixed height zr=1 improves image-depth association
    Stated in Section 3.2 and Figure 3. If radar height errors dominate, this heuristic may still work; if not, the depth head could be harmed.
  • domain assumption Query-based dual-view sampling yields better fusion than BEV-only concatenation or cross-attention
    Motivates the whole design (Section 1, Figure 1); supported by ablation Table 4 but not theoretically justified.
  • domain assumption NuScenes and VoD are adequate proxies for real-world radar-camera detection performance
    Standard benchmark assumption in the field.
  • standard math The lift-splat-shoot (LSS) view transformation with a learned depth distribution is a sound base for camera BEV features
    Adopted from prior work [15, 25, 43] without re-derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RaCFormer: Towards High-Quality 3D Object Detection via Query-based Radar-Camera Fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4M2E62CI

@misc{pith2026241212725,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RaCFormer: Towards High-Quality 3D Object Detection via Query-based Radar-Camera Fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4M2E62CI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12725}
}
read the original abstract

We propose Radar-Camera fusion transformer (RaCFormer) to boost the accuracy of 3D object detection by the following insight. The Radar-Camera fusion in outdoor 3D scene perception is capped by the image-to-BEV transformation--if the depth of pixels is not accurately estimated, the naive combination of BEV features actually integrates unaligned visual content. To avoid this problem, we propose a query-based framework that enables adaptive sampling of instance-relevant features from both the bird's-eye view (BEV) and the original image view. Furthermore, we enhance system performance by two key designs: optimizing query initialization and strengthening the representational capacity of BEV. For the former, we introduce an adaptive circular distribution in polar coordinates to refine the initialization of object queries, allowing for a distance-based adjustment of query density. For the latter, we initially incorporate a radar-guided depth head to refine the transformation from image view to BEV. Subsequently, we focus on leveraging the Doppler effect of radar and introduce an implicit dynamic catcher to capture the temporal elements within the BEV. Extensive experiments on nuScenes and View-of-Delft (VoD) datasets validate the merits of our design. Remarkably, our method achieves superior results of 64.9% mAP and 70.2% NDS on nuScenes. RaCFormer also secures the state-of-the-art performance on the VoD dataset. Code is available at https://github.com/cxmomo/RaCFormer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12725 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Motivation of RaCFormer. (a) Previous methods typi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall architecture of RaCFormer. The image encoder extracts features from multiple frames of multi-camera images, while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The structure of our implicit dynamic catcher. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The visualization of (a) radar points with raw z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of query initialization methods: (a) Ra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative analysis across varied scenarios—rainy, nighttime, and object-filled. Images (left) exhibit 3D bounding boxes in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Al-Jarrah, Mehrdad Dianati, Saber Fallah, David Oxtoby, and Alex Mouzakitis

    Eduardo Arnold, Omar Y . Al-Jarrah, Mehrdad Dianati, Saber Fallah, David Oxtoby, and Alex Mouzakitis. A survey on 3d object detection methods for autonomous driving applica- tions. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 20(10):3782–3795,

  2. [2]

    Transfusion: Robust lidar-camera fusion for 3d object detection with transform- ers

    Xuyang Bai, Zeyu Hu, Xinge Zhu, Qingqiu Huang, Yilun Chen, Hongbo Fu, and Chiew-Lan Tai. Transfusion: Robust lidar-camera fusion for 3d object detection with transform- ers. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Lang, Sourabh V ora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, Gi- ancarlo Baldan, and Oscar Beijbom

    Holger Caesar, Varun Bankiti, Alex H. Lang, Sourabh V ora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, Gi- ancarlo Baldan, and Oscar Beijbom. nuscenes: A multi- modal dataset for autonomous driving. InIEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) ,

    work page

  4. [4]

    End-to- end object detection with transformers

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End-to- end object detection with transformers. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2020. 2

    2020

  5. [5]

    V oxelnext: Fully sparse voxelnet for 3d object de- tection and tracking

    Yukang Chen, Jianhui Liu, Xiangyu Zhang, Xiaojuan Qi, and Jiaya Jia. V oxelnext: Fully sparse voxelnet for 3d object de- tection and tracking. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023, pages 21674–21683, 2023. 6

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Rayformer: Improving query- based multi-camera 3d object detection via ray-centric strate- gies

    Xiaomeng Chu, Jiajun Deng, Guoliang You, Yifan Duan, Yao Li, and Yanyong Zhang. Rayformer: Improving query- based multi-camera 3d object detection via ray-centric strate- gies. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Con- ference on Multimedia, MM 2024, Melbourne, VIC, Aus- tralia, 28 October 2024 - 1 November 2024 , pages 4620– 4629, 2024. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    PoIFusion: Multi-Modal 3D Object Detection via Fusion at Points of Interest

    Jiajun Deng, Sha Zhang, Feras Dayoub, Wanli Ouyang, Yanyong Zhang, and Ian Reid. Poifusion: Multi-modal 3d object detection via fusion at points of interest. CoRR, abs/2403.09212, 2024. 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Deep ordinal regression net- work for monocular depth estimation

    Huan Fu, Mingming Gong, Chaohui Wang, Kayhan Bat- manghelich, and Dacheng Tao. Deep ordinal regression net- work for monocular depth estimation. In IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) ,

    work page

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Adamixer: A fast-converging query-based object detector

    Ziteng Gao, Limin Wang, Bing Han, and Sheng Guo. Adamixer: A fast-converging query-based object detector. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18- 24, 2022, pages 5354–5363, 2022. 3, 5

    2022

  2. [10]

    Are we ready for autonomous driving? the KITTI vision benchmark suite

    Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, and Raquel Urtasun. Are we ready for autonomous driving? the KITTI vision benchmark suite. In 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Providence, RI, USA, June 16-21, 2012, pages 3354–3361, 2012. 5

    2012

  3. [11]

    Vision meets robotics: The KITTI dataset

    Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, Christoph Stiller, and Raquel Urtasun. Vision meets robotics: The KITTI dataset. Int. J. Robotics Res., 32(11):1231–1237, 2013. 5

    2013

  4. [12]

    Exploring recurrent long-term temporal fusion for multi-view 3d perception

    Chunrui Han, Jinrong Yang, Jianjian Sun, Zheng Ge, Run- pei Dong, Hongyu Zhou, Weixin Mao, Yuang Peng, and Xi- angyu Zhang. Exploring recurrent long-term temporal fusion for multi-view 3d perception. IEEE Robotics Autom. Lett., 9 (7):6544–6551, 2024. 2

    2024

  5. [13]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016. 5

    2016

  6. [14]

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

    Junjie Huang and Guan Huang. Bevdet4d: Exploit temporal cues in multi-camera 3d object detection. CoRR, 2022. 2

    2022

  7. [15]

    Bevdet: High-performance multi-camera 3d object detection in bird-eye-view

    Junjie Huang, Guan Huang, Zheng Zhu, and Dalong Du. Bevdet: High-performance multi-camera 3d object detection in bird-eye-view. CoRR, 2021. 2, 4

    2021

  8. [16]

    Polarformer: Multi- camera 3d object detection with polar transformers

    Yanqin Jiang, Li Zhang, Zhenwei Miao, Xiatian Zhu, Jin Gao, Weiming Hu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Polarformer: Multi- camera 3d object detection with polar transformers. CoRR,

  9. [17]

    Craft: Camera-radar 3d object detection with spatio-contextual fusion transformer

    Youngseok Kim, Sanmin Kim, Jun Won Choi, and Dong- suk Kum. Craft: Camera-radar 3d object detection with spatio-contextual fusion transformer. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 1160– 1168, 2023. 2

    2023

  10. [18]

    CRN: camera radar net for accurate, robust, efficient 3d perception

    Youngseok Kim, Juyeb Shin, Sanmin Kim, In-Jae Lee, Jun Won Choi, and Dongsuk Kum. CRN: camera radar net for accurate, robust, efficient 3d perception. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023 , pages 17569–17580,

    2023

  11. [19]

    Lang, Sourabh V ora, Holger Caesar, Lubing Zhou, Jiong Yang, and Oscar Beijbom

    Alex H. Lang, Sourabh V ora, Holger Caesar, Lubing Zhou, Jiong Yang, and Oscar Beijbom. Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2019, Long Beach, CA, USA, June 16-20, 2019 , pages 1...

    2019

  12. [20]

    An energy and gpu-computation efficient backbone network for real-time object detection

    Youngwan Lee, Joong-Won Hwang, Sangrok Lee, Yuseok Bae, and Jongyoul Park. An energy and gpu-computation efficient backbone network for real-time object detection. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPR Workshops), 2019. 5

    2019

  13. [21]

    An energy and gpu-computation efficient backbone network for real-time object detection

    Youngwan Lee, Joong-Won Hwang, Sangrok Lee, Yuseok Bae, and Jongyoul Park. An energy and gpu-computation efficient backbone network for real-time object detection. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPR Workshops), 2019. 6

    2019

  14. [22]

    Hvdetfusion: A simple and robust camera-radar fusion framework

    Kai Lei, Zhan Chen, Shuman Jia, and Xiaoteng Zhang. Hvdetfusion: A simple and robust camera-radar fusion framework. CoRR, abs/2307.11323, 2023. 2, 6

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Unifying voxel-based representation with transformer for 3d object detection

    Yanwei Li, Yilun Chen, Xiaojuan Qi, Zeming Li, Jian Sun, and Jiaya Jia. Unifying voxel-based representation with transformer for 3d object detection. CoRR, abs/2206.00630,

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ezfusion: A close look at the integration of lidar, millimeter-wave radar, and camera for accurate 3d object detection and tracking

    Yao Li, Jiajun Deng, Yu Zhang, Jianmin Ji, Houqiang Li, and Yanyong Zhang. Ezfusion: A close look at the integration of lidar, millimeter-wave radar, and camera for accurate 3d object detection and tracking. IEEE Robotics Autom. Lett., 7 (4):11182–11189, 2022. 2

    2022

  17. [25]

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

    Yinhao Li, Zheng Ge, Guanyi Yu, Jinrong Yang, Zengran Wang, Yukang Shi, Jianjian Sun, and Zeming Li. Bevdepth: Acquisition of reliable depth for multi-view 3d object detec- tion. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1477–1485, 2023. 2, 4

    2023

  18. [26]

    Bevformer: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotemporal transformers

    Zhiqi Li, Wenhai Wang, Hongyang Li, Enze Xie, Chong- hao Sima, Tong Lu, Yu Qiao, and Jifeng Dai. Bevformer: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotemporal transformers. In European Con- ference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022. 2

    2022

  19. [27]

    ´Alvarez

    Zhiqi Li, Zhiding Yu, Wenhai Wang, Anima Anandkumar, Tong Lu, and Jos´e M. ´Alvarez. FB-BEV: BEV representation from forward-backward view transformations. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023 , pages 6896–6905, 2023. 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    Sparse4d: Multi-view 3d object detection with sparse spatial-temporal fusion

    Xuewu Lin, Tianwei Lin, Zixiang Pei, Lichao Huang, and Zhizhong Su. Sparse4d: Multi-view 3d object detection with sparse spatial-temporal fusion. CoRR, abs/2211.10581,

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rcbevdet: Radar-camera fusion in bird’s eye view for 3d object detection

    Zhiwei Lin, Zhe Liu, Zhongyu Xia, Xinhao Wang, Yongtao Wang, Shengxiang Qi, Yang Dong, Nan Dong, Le Zhang, and Ce Zhu. Rcbevdet: Radar-camera fusion in bird’s eye view for 3d object detection. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2024, Seattl...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Ray denoising: Depth-aware hard negative sampling for multi- view 3d object detection

    Feng Liu, Tengteng Huang, Qianjing Zhang, Haotian Yao, Chi Zhang, Fang Wan, Qixiang Ye, and Yanzhao Zhou. Ray denoising: Depth-aware hard negative sampling for multi- view 3d object detection. CoRR, abs/2402.03634, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sparsebev: High-performance sparse 3d object detec- tion from multi-camera videos

    Haisong Liu, Yao Teng, Tao Lu, Haiguang Wang, and Limin Wang. Sparsebev: High-performance sparse 3d object detec- tion from multi-camera videos. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023, pages 18534–18544, 2023. 2, 3, 5

    2023

  24. [32]

    PETR: position embedding transformation for multi-view 3d object detection

    Yingfei Liu, Tiancai Wang, Xiangyu Zhang, and Jian Sun. PETR: position embedding transformation for multi-view 3d object detection. In European Conference on Computer Vi- sion (ECCV), 2022. 2

    2022

  25. [33]

    Petrv2: A unified framework for 3d perception from multi-camera images

    Yingfei Liu, Junjie Yan, Fan Jia, Shuailin Li, Aqi Gao, Tian- cai Wang, and Xiangyu Zhang. Petrv2: A unified framework for 3d perception from multi-camera images. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023 , pages 3239–...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Bevfusion: Multi- task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view repre- sentation

    Zhijian Liu, Haotian Tang, Alexander Amini, Xinyu Yang, Huizi Mao, Daniela Rus, and Song Han. Bevfusion: Multi- task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view repre- sentation. CoRR, 2022. 1, 7

    2022

  27. [35]

    Radiant: Radar- image association network for 3d object detection

    Yunfei Long, Abhinav Kumar, Daniel Morris, Xiaoming Liu, Marcos Castro, and Punarjay Chakravarty. Radiant: Radar- image association network for 3d object detection. In Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 1808–1816, 2023. 2

    2023

  28. [36]

    SGDR: stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. SGDR: stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017. 5

    2017

  29. [37]

    Decoupled weight de- cay regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight de- cay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019. 5

    2019

  30. [38]

    3d object detection from images for autonomous driv- ing: A survey

    Xinzhu Ma, Wanli Ouyang, Andrea Simonelli, and Elisa Ricci. 3d object detection from images for autonomous driv- ing: A survey. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , 46 (5):3537–3556, 2024. 1

    2024

  31. [39]

    3d object detection for autonomous driving: A comprehensive survey

    Jiageng Mao, Shaoshuai Shi, Xiaogang Wang, and Hong- sheng Li. 3d object detection for autonomous driving: A comprehensive survey. Int. J. Comput. Vis. , 131(8):1909– 1963, 2023. 1

    1909

  32. [40]

    Centerfusion: Center- based radar and camera fusion for 3d object detection

    Ramin Nabati and Hairong Qi. Centerfusion: Center- based radar and camera fusion for 3d object detection. In IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vi- sion, WACV 2021, Waikoloa, HI, USA, January 3-8, 2021 , pages 1526–1535, 2021. 1

    2021

  33. [41]

    Andras Palffy, Ewoud A. I. Pool, Srimannarayana Baratam, Julian F. P. Kooij, and Dariu M. Gavrila. Multi-class road user detection with 3+1d radar in the view-of-delft dataset. IEEE Robotics Autom. Lett., 7(2):4961–4968, 2022. 2, 5

    2022

  34. [42]

    Is pseudo-lidar needed for monocular 3d object detection? In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021

    Dennis Park, Rares Ambrus, Vitor Guizilini, Jie Li, and Adrien Gaidon. Is pseudo-lidar needed for monocular 3d object detection? In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021. 5, 6

    2021

  35. [43]

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

    Jonah Philion and Sanja Fidler. Lift, splat, shoot: Encoding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly unprojecting to 3d. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV),

  36. [44]

    3d object detection for au- tonomous driving: A survey

    Rui Qian, Xin Lai, and Xirong Li. 3d object detection for au- tonomous driving: A survey. Pattern Recognit., 130:108796,

  37. [45]

    Exploring object-centric temporal modeling for efficient multi-view 3d object detection

    Shihao Wang, Yingfei Liu, Tiancai Wang, Ying Li, and Xi- angyu Zhang. Exploring object-centric temporal modeling for efficient multi-view 3d object detection. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023 , pages 3598–3608...

    2023

  38. [46]

    DETR3D: 3d object detec- tion from multi-view images via 3d-to-2d queries

    Yue Wang, Vitor Guizilini, Tianyuan Zhang, Yilun Wang, Hang Zhao, and Justin Solomon. DETR3D: 3d object detec- tion from multi-view images via 3d-to-2d queries. In Con- ference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2021. 2

    2021

  39. [47]

    Object as query: Lifting any 2d object detector to 3d detection

    Zitian Wang, Zehao Huang, Jiahui Fu, Naiyan Wang, and Si Liu. Object as query: Lifting any 2d object detector to 3d detection. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023, pages 3768–3777, 2023. 2

    2023

  40. [48]

    Unleashing hydra: Hybrid fusion, depth consistency and radar for unified 3d perception

    Philipp Wolters, Johannes Gilg, Torben Teepe, Fabian Her- zog, Anouar Laouichi, Martin Hofmann, and Gerhard Rigoll. Unleashing hydra: Hybrid fusion, depth consistency and radar for unified 3d perception. CoRR, abs/2403.07746,

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Cross modal trans- former: Towards fast and robust 3d object detection

    Junjie Yan, Yingfei Liu, Jianjian Sun, Fan Jia, Shuailin Li, Tiancai Wang, and Xiangyu Zhang. Cross modal trans- former: Towards fast and robust 3d object detection. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023, pages 182...

    2023

  42. [50]

    Radarnet: Exploiting radar for robust per- ception of dynamic objects

    Bin Yang, Runsheng Guo, Ming Liang, Sergio Casas, and Raquel Urtasun. Radarnet: Exploiting radar for robust per- ception of dynamic objects. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2020 - 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23- 28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XVIII, pages 496–512, 2020. 1

    2020

  43. [51]

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

    Junbo Yin, Jianbing Shen, Runnan Chen, Wei Li, Ruigang Yang, Pascal Frossard, and Wenguan Wang. Is-fusion: Instance-scene collaborative fusion for multimodal 3d object detection. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2024, Seattle, WA, USA, Ju...

    2024

  44. [52]

    Center- based 3d object detection and tracking

    Tianwei Yin, Xingyi Zhou, and Philipp Kr ¨ahenb¨uhl. Center- based 3d object detection and tracking. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021. 6, 7, 8

    2021

  45. [53]

    Rcfu- sion: Fusing 4d radar and camera with bird’s-eye view fea- tures for 3d object detection

    Lianqing Zheng, Sen Li, Bin Tan, Long Yang, Sihan Chen, Libo Huang, Jie Bai, Xichan Zhu, and Zhixiong Ma. Rcfu- sion: Fusing 4d radar and camera with bird’s-eye view fea- tures for 3d object detection. IEEE Transactions on Instru- mentation and Measurement, 72, 2023. 1, 2, 7

    2023

  46. [54]

    Bridging the view disparity between radar and camera features for multi-modal fusion 3d object detection

    Taohua Zhou, Junjie Chen, Yining Shi, Kun Jiang, Meng- meng Yang, and Diange Yang. Bridging the view disparity between radar and camera features for multi-modal fusion 3d object detection. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh., 8(2):1523–1535,

  47. [55]

    Temporal enhanced training of multi-view 3d object detector via historical object prediction

    Zhuofan Zong, Dongzhi Jiang, Guanglu Song, Zeyue Xue, Jingyong Su, Hongsheng Li, and Yu Liu. Temporal enhanced training of multi-view 3d object detector via historical object prediction. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, Octob...

    2023

Pith tools

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