Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Geo-ConvGRU: Geographically Masked Convolutional Gated Recurrent Unit for Bird-Eye View Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bird's-eye view segmentation improves when the temporal module is a ConvGRU gated by a camera-visibility mask.

desk verdict A modest, clean idea with a real ablation — but the SOTA claim is currently confounded by an unmatched temporal field and inconsistent numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20171 v1 pith:D36TXIWT submitted 2024-12-28 cs.CV

Guanglei Yang , Yongqiang Zhang , Wanlong Li , Yu Tang , Weize Shang , Feng Wen , Hongbo Zhang , Mingli Ding This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords bird's-eyeviewsegmentationConvGRUgeographicalmasktemporalmodelingnuScenesfutureinstanceperceivedmapspredictionautonomousdriving
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 argues that the standard recipe for temporal modeling in bird's-eye view (BEV) segmentation, stacking 3D convolutions over past frames, saturates quickly as more frames are added, and that a convolutional gated recurrent unit (ConvGRU) is a cheaper and more effective replacement. To make the recurrent fusion behave, the authors add a geographical mask that suppresses BEV cells with no camera ray behind them, reducing ghost activations around moving cars. On the nuScenes benchmark they report state-of-the-art mIoU of 41.7, 39.5, and 59.3 in the three BEV semantic segmentation settings, gains of 1.8, 1.3, and 1.6 points over FIERY, plus improvements in perceived maps and future instance segmentation. The broader point a sympathetic reader takes away is that temporal modeling for BEV perception does not need transformers: a gated recurrent convolutional module with a geometric prior can reach competitive accuracy at a fraction of the training time and memory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the geographically masked ConvGRU cell. A ConvGRU replaces the matrix multiplications of a standard GRU with 2D convolutions, producing update gate $z_t$, reset gate $r_t$, candidate hidden state $\tilde{h}_t$, and new hidden state $h_t$ from feature map $f_t$ and previous hidden state $h_{t-1}$; since the same convolution weights are shared over the BEV grid, the recurrent module's parameter cost stays low while its temporal receptive field grows with each unrolled frame. The geographical mask $M_{\mathrm{geo}}$ is derived from the camera intrinsics and extrinsics by unprojecting each BEV voxel into the 2D image planes: a voxel visible in any camera is valid (1) and all others are set to 0.1. Multiplying the ConvGRU output by this mask suppresses temporal features that have no geometric support, which the paper identifies as the source of ghost activations at moving cars.

What would settle it

Train the unchanged FIERY model with temporal field 5 and the same EfficientNet-B4 backbone and static model, then compare against Geo-ConvGRU on the same three nuScenes settings; if the mIoU gap collapses to the 0.2-0.8 points seen among ablations rather than 1.3-1.8, the claimed gains are mostly extra input frames, not the ConvGRU or mask. A second check is to ablate the geographical mask at temporal field 5 exactly, not 3, to see whether the mask's contribution holds with a longer temporal field.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the temporal module of a BEV segmentation network should be a ConvGRU rather than 3D convolutions or transformers. The authors show this by replacing FIERY's 3D-convolution temporal unit with two ConvGRU cells (equations 1-4) and then multiplying the recurrent output by a binary geographical mask $M_{\mathrm{geo}}$ (equation 6) whose value is 1 for BEV voxels visible in at least one camera and 0.1 otherwise. They report that this Geo-ConvGRU reaches 41.7, 39.5, and 59.3 mIoU in the three nuScenes settings, exceeding FIERY by 1.8, 1.3, and 1.6 points; it also improves perceived-map average IoU to 42.1 and future instance segmentation IoU to 37.7. The ablation attributes the gain to both components: ConvGRU outperforms 3D convolution and several video-prediction recurrent models at temporal field 3, and the geographical mask adds a further improvement by suppressing false predictions on mobile cars.

Load-bearing premise

The head-to-head numbers assume the FIERY baseline in the main tables sees the same number of input frames as Geo-ConvGRU (temporal field 5), but the paper only fixes the temporal field at 3 in the ablation, leaving the main comparison's frame count unstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If temporal field 5 is adopted, Geo-ConvGRU reaches 68.6% short-range and 39.5% long-range mIoU while keeping training time at 26.2 hours, versus 64.3 hours for the transformer option.
  • The geographical mask can be dropped into any BEV projection pipeline that has camera intrinsics and extrinsics, because it depends only on visibility, not on the temporal module.
  • Future instance segmentation improves to 37.7 IoU, suggesting the recurrent representation carries enough motion information for 2.0-second prediction.
  • Perceived map prediction gains appear across all four classes, with drivable area, lane, vehicle, and pedestrian each higher than FIERY.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the authors leave implicit: the geographical mask is a geometric prior that should also help transformer-based temporal modules, since BEVFormer's spatial cross-attention can attend to empty voxels with no camera support; adding $M_{\mathrm{geo}}$ to its BEV queries is a natural test.
  • If the mask's benefit is really about moving pixels, it should show up more strongly in dense traffic scenes and less on empty roads; a per-scene breakdown by object density would isolate the mechanism.
  • The recurrent design suggests a cheap way to lengthen temporal context beyond the training field: at inference the hidden state can be carried forward frame to frame, effectively giving the model access to the whole past without buffering extra frames.
  • Because the paper only evaluates on nuScenes, transferability to other camera rigs or to lidar-based BEV grids is untested; a dataset with different camera overlap geometry would show whether the 0.1 epsilon value needs retuning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Geo-ConvGRU, a temporal module for bird's-eye view (BEV) semantic segmentation, future instance segmentation, and perceived-map prediction on nuScenes. The module replaces the 3D-convolution temporal stack used in FIERY with a ConvGRU (Eqs. (1)-(4)) and multiplies the ConvGRU output by a geometric visibility mask Mgeo (Eqs. (6)-(7)) derived from camera intrinsics and extrinsics. The authors report state-of-the-art results in Table I (41.7, 39.5, 59.3 mIoU in the three settings), Table II (42.1 average perceived-map IoU), and Table III (37.7 future IoU), with an ablation study in Table IV comparing ConvGRU and Geo-ConvGRU against several temporal modules at fixed temporal field T=3 and also at T=5 and T=7.

Significance. The core idea is simple and plausible: a recurrent convolutional temporal module with a geometric validity mask is a cheaper alternative to transformer-based temporal fusion for BEV tasks. The internal ablation at fixed T=3 does show a long-range IoU gain for Geo-ConvGRU over the 3D-convolution baseline (38.8 vs 37.7 in Table IV), which is direct evidence that the mask contributes. However, the headline state-of-the-art claim is not yet verifiable because the main tables and the ablation use inconsistent temporal fields, and because the matched-T comparison in Table IV is not uniformly in the method's favor. The paper also reports single-run numbers without error bars and gives mutually inconsistent gains in the Introduction and the results sections. These issues are fixable and do not undermine the derivations, which are standard given the ConvGRU and mask definitions.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-B and Table IV] The headline comparison is confounded by a temporal-field mismatch. Section IV-B sets the temporal field to T=5 for Geo-ConvGRU, while Table IV fixes T=3 for all ablation methods and no 3D-convolution/FIERY baseline is reported at T=5. Since Fig. 1 shows the 3D-convolution baseline's IoU increasing as the temporal field grows, the +1.8/+1.3/+1.6 margins over FIERY in Table I could be substantially explained by seeing more input frames rather than by the ConvGRU or the geographic mask. Please state FIERY's temporal field for the numbers in Table I and include a matched-baseline experiment at T=5; without this, the state-of-the-art claim is unverifiable.
  2. [III-C vs IV-B] The manuscript contradicts itself on the temporal configuration. Section III-C states that "the number of ConvGRU units and the temporal field (T) are set to 2 and 3, respectively," whereas Section IV-B sets the temporal field to 5 and Table IV reports Geo-ConvGRU at T=3, 5, and 7. This ambiguity makes it unclear which configuration produced Tables I-III and prevents the ablation from being a controlled comparison. The authors should state a single consistent configuration and justify why Section III-C uses T=3.
  3. [Table IV] At the only matched temporal field in Table IV, Geo-ConvGRU does not consistently outperform the 3D-convolution baseline. Compared with the baseline row, Geo-ConvGRU at T=3 reduces short-range IoU from 67.2 to 66.8 and short-range PQ from 58.6 to 57.2, while improving long-range IoU from 37.7 to 38.8. The conclusion that the geographic mask "further enhances the model's performance" is therefore supported only for long-range metrics at T=3. Please report the mask and ConvGRU ablations across both ranges and all three main metrics, and include multiple seeds or error bars to establish that the differences are not run-to-run noise.
  4. [Introduction vs Tables I-III] The reported improvements are inconsistent. The Introduction claims 1.3%, 0.9%, and 0.8% gains for BEV semantic segmentation, future instance segmentation, and perceived map prediction, respectively, but Table I reports 1.8/1.3/1.6 over FIERY, Table II shows a 1.9-point average gain over FIERY, and Table III shows a 0.9-point IoU gain over ST-P3 and 1.4/1.0/1.7 gains in PQ/SQ/RQ. The paper should state one consistent set of comparison protocols and report variance information for the main tables, since the claimed margins are on the order of one point.
minor comments (4)
  1. [IV-D] There are typos in Section IV-D and Table IV: "temporal filed" should be "temporal field," "Visulization" should be "Visualization," and the ConvLSTM row appears as "ConvLSTMcite [33]" instead of a proper citation.
  2. [Related Work] The related work refers to "PERT [9], [17]," but the cited works are PETR and PETRv2; please correct the method name.
  3. [III-C, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) uses the notation "∃p ∈ v & p ∈ P_BEV" without defining v as a point set; please clarify the voxel-to-point relationship so the mask definition is unambiguous.
  4. [Tables II-III] Tables II and III mark ST-P3 and FIERY results as re-implementations; please state the re-implementation protocol, including the temporal field and training epochs, so that the comparisons in those tables are reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Geo-ConvGRU uses standard ConvGRU equations and a geometry-derived mask, and its reported gains are measured against external baselines.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and empirically grounded. Equations (1)-(4) are the standard ConvGRU update equations (update gate, reset gate, and candidate hidden state) taken from the cited ConvGRU literature, with no target-dependent fitting. The geographical mask in Eq. (6) is computed directly from the camera intrinsics/extrinsics and the BEV projection of Eq. (5), with epsilon as the only free scalar, and Eq. (7) is simply element-wise multiplication of the ConvGRU output by this mask. No parameter is fitted to the mIoU numbers that are later reported as results, and the headline gains (Table I: 41.7 vs 39.9, 39.5 vs 38.2, 59.3 vs 57.6) are comparisons against the externally published FIERY baseline rather than against a quantity defined by the paper's own equations. The ablation in Table IV compares ConvGRU and Geo-ConvGRU with independent temporal modules from the literature; the temporal-field mismatch between the main experiments (T=5) and the matched ablation (T=3) is an experimental confound about whether the SOTA margin is attributable to more input frames, not a circularity in the derivation. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain invoked to forbid alternatives, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no known empirical result merely renamed as a new contribution. Consequently, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard recurrent architecture and a hand-built mask; no new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. Two hyperparameters (epsilon and T) are tuned on the evaluation benchmark.

free parameters (2)
  • epsilon (mask value for invalid voxels) = 0.1
    Eq. (6) sets invalid BEV voxels to epsilon; Section III-C states epsilon is set to 0.1 for all tasks. Chosen by experiment, not derived.
  • temporal field T = 5
    Section IV-B sets T=5 and Section IV-D ablation selects it as the best among 3, 5, and 7 on the same dataset; all headline results use T=5.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Camera intrinsics and extrinsics in nuScenes are accurate enough for the projection in Eq. (5) and the mask in Eq. (6).
    The geographic mask and BEV projection rely on these calibration values; Section III-C defines the projection from camera parameters.
  • standard math ConvGRU equations (1)-(4) are stable and trainable as used, and the hidden state retains useful long-range information.
    ConvGRU is treated as a black box from prior work [11]; no convergence or stability analysis is given here.
  • domain assumption The LSS-style self-supervised depth distribution from Fiery behaves equivalently for all compared temporal modules.
    The BEV projection pipeline is inherited from [3] and [4]; its depth estimates are not evaluated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Past BEV frames are aligned to the current ego frame, or alignment is unnecessary; the paper does not describe ego-motion compensation in the temporal module.
    No alignment step appears in Section III-B; if temporal features are in different coordinate frames, ConvGRU fusion would be corrupted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geo-ConvGRU: Geographically Masked Convolutional Gated Recurrent Unit for Bird-Eye View Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D36TXIWT

@misc{pith2026241220171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geo-ConvGRU: Geographically Masked Convolutional Gated Recurrent Unit for Bird-Eye View Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D36TXIWT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20171}
}
read the original abstract

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have significantly impacted various computer vision tasks, however, they inherently struggle to model long-range dependencies explicitly due to the localized nature of convolution operations. Although Transformers have addressed limitations in long-range dependencies for the spatial dimension, the temporal dimension remains underexplored. In this paper, we first highlight that 3D CNNs exhibit limitations in capturing long-range temporal dependencies. Though Transformers mitigate spatial dimension issues, they result in a considerable increase in parameter and processing speed reduction. To overcome these challenges, we introduce a simple yet effective module, Geographically Masked Convolutional Gated Recurrent Unit (Geo-ConvGRU), tailored for Bird's-Eye View segmentation. Specifically, we substitute the 3D CNN layers with ConvGRU in the temporal module to bolster the capacity of networks for handling temporal dependencies. Additionally, we integrate a geographical mask into the Convolutional Gated Recurrent Unit to suppress noise introduced by the temporal module. Comprehensive experiments conducted on the NuScenes dataset substantiate the merits of the proposed Geo-ConvGRU, revealing that our approach attains state-of-the-art performance in Bird's-Eye View segmentation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20171 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance (IoU) vs. efficiency (Training Time) with the different temporal filed on bird’s-eye view semantic segmentation. frames significantly improves model performance. According to our experiment (shown in Fig.1), when the temporal field increases (adding more frames to the temporal module), the performance of the 3D CNN model does not achieve a reasonable boost. To address this limitation, [9] and [10] employ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of a segmentation model for BEV segmentation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A example for ConvGRU unit.The ¬ denotes NOT process. dependency for BEV segmentation. Contrasting with huge parameters of the other previous spatial-temporal module, Con￾vGRU can reach the reasonable trade-off between parameters and performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results on BEV semantic segmentation. The resolution setting is 100m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative results on perceived maps prediction . [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative results on future instance segmentation. The furture frame predictions are marked by lighter color for best view. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visulization results of ConvGRU and Geo-ConvGRU on perceived maps prediction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, et al. , “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2021. 1

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Overview of environment perception for intelligent vehicles,

    H. Zhu, K.-V . Yuen, L. Mihaylova, and H. Leung, “Overview of environment perception for intelligent vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 2584–2601, 2017. 1

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    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 European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2020, pp. 194–210. 1, 2, 4, 5

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Fiery: Future instance prediction in bird’s- eye view from surround monocular cameras,

    A. Hu, Z. Murez, N. Mohan, S. Dudas, J. Hawke, V . Badrinarayanan, R. Cipolla, and A. Kendall, “Fiery: Future instance prediction in bird’s- eye view from surround monocular cameras,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 15 273–15 282. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    St-p3: End-to-end vision-based autonomous driving via spatial-temporal feature learning,

    S. Hu, L. Chen, P. Wu, H. Li, J. Yan, and D. Tao, “St-p3: End-to-end vision-based autonomous driving via spatial-temporal feature learning,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 2022. 1, 2, 4, 5

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Future directions of intelligent vehicles: Potentials, possibilities, and perspectives,

    D. Cao, X. Wang, L. Li, C. Lv, X. Na, Y . Xing, X. Li, Y . Li, Y . Chen, and F.-Y . Wang, “Future directions of intelligent vehicles: Potentials, possibilities, and perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 7–10, 2022. 1 SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT VEHICLES 8

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Milestones in autonomous driving and intelligent vehicles: Survey of surveys,

    L. Chen, Y . Li, C. Huang, B. Li, Y . Xing, D. Tian, L. Li, Z. Hu, X. Na, Z. Li, et al. , “Milestones in autonomous driving and intelligent vehicles: Survey of surveys,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1046–1056, 2022. 1

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Controlvideo: Training-free controllable text-to-video generation,

    Y . Zhang, Y . Wei, D. Jiang, X. Zhang, W. Zuo, and Q. Tian, “Controlvideo: Training-free controllable text-to-video generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13077, 2023. 1

    arXiv 2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

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

    Y . Liu, J. Yan, F. Jia, S. Li, Q. Gao, T. Wang, X. Zhang, and J. Sun, “Petrv2: A unified framework for 3d perception from multi-camera images,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.01256 , 2022. 1, 2

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bev- former: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera im- ages via spatiotemporal transformers,

    Z. Li, W. Wang, H. Li, E. Xie, C. Sima, T. Lu, Q. Yu, and J. Dai, “Bev- former: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera im- ages via spatiotemporal transformers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.17270 ,

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Delving deeper into convolutional networks for learning video representations,

    N. Ballas, L. Yao, C. Pal, and A. C. Courville, “Delving deeper into convolutional networks for learning video representations,” in ICLR (Poster), 2016. 1, 2

    2016

  4. [12]

    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–...

    2020

  5. [13]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding,

    M. Cordts, M. Omran, S. Ramos, T. Rehfeld, M. Enzweiler, R. Benenson, U. Franke, S. Roth, and B. Schiele, “The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 3213–3223. 2

    2016

  6. [14]

    Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, and R. Urtasun, “Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite,” in 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . IEEE, 2012, pp. 3354–3361. 2

    2012

  7. [15]

    Cross-view semantic segmentation for sensing surroundings,

    B. Pan, J. Sun, H. Y . T. Leung, A. Andonian, and B. Zhou, “Cross-view semantic segmentation for sensing surroundings,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4867–4873, 2020. 2, 4, 5

    2020

  8. [16]

    Cross-view transformers for real-time map-view semantic segmentation,

    B. Zhou and P. Krähenbühl, “Cross-view transformers for real-time map-view semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 13 760–13 769. 2, 4

    2022

  9. [17]

    Petr: Position embedding transformation for multi-view 3d object detection,

    Y . Liu, T. Wang, X. Zhang, and J. Sun, “Petr: Position embedding transformation for multi-view 3d object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05625, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A closer look at spatiotemporal convolutions for action recognition,

    D. Tran, H. Wang, L. Torresani, J. Ray, Y . LeCun, and M. Paluri, “A closer look at spatiotemporal convolutions for action recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018, pp. 6450–6459. 2

    2018

  11. [19]

    Spatiotemporal multiplier networks for video action recognition,

    C. Feichtenhofer, A. Pinz, and R. P. Wildes, “Spatiotemporal multiplier networks for video action recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 4768–

    2017

  12. [20]

    Full-duplex strategy for video object segmentation,

    G.-P. Ji, K. Fu, Z. Wu, D.-P. Fan, J. Shen, and L. Shao, “Full-duplex strategy for video object segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2021, pp. 4922–4933. 2

    2021

  13. [21]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997. 2

    1997

  14. [22]

    Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling,

    J. Chung, C. Gulcehre, K. Cho, and Y . Bengio, “Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3555, 2014. 2

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Video panoptic segmentation,

    D. Kim, S. Woo, J.-Y . Lee, and I. S. Kweon, “Video panoptic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2020, pp. 9859–9868. 4

    2020

  16. [24]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, et al. , “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019. 4

    2019

  17. [25]

    Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolu- tional neural networks,

    M. Tan and Q. Le, “Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolu- tional neural networks,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2019, pp. 6105–6114. 4, 5

    2019

  18. [26]

    Monocular semantic occupancy grid mapping with convolutional variational encoder– decoder networks,

    C. Lu, M. J. G. van de Molengraft, and G. Dubbelman, “Monocular semantic occupancy grid mapping with convolutional variational encoder– decoder networks,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 445–452, 2019. 4, 5

    2019

  19. [27]

    Predicting semantic map representations from images using pyramid occupancy networks,

    T. Roddick and R. Cipolla, “Predicting semantic map representations from images using pyramid occupancy networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2020, pp. 11 138–11 147. 4, 5

    2020

  20. [28]

    Enabling spatio- temporal aggregation in birds-eye-view vehicle estimation,

    A. Saha, O. Mendez, C. Russell, and R. Bowden, “Enabling spatio- temporal aggregation in birds-eye-view vehicle estimation,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 5133–5139. 4

    2021

  21. [29]

    Fishing net: Future inference of semantic heatmaps in grids,

    N. Hendy, C. Sloan, F. Tian, P. Duan, N. Charchut, Y . Xie, C. Wang, and J. Philbin, “Fishing net: Future inference of semantic heatmaps in grids,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.09917 , 2020. 4

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Learning interpretable end-to-end vision-based motion planning for autonomous driving with optical flow distillation,

    H. Wang, P. Cai, Y . Sun, L. Wang, and M. Liu, “Learning interpretable end-to-end vision-based motion planning for autonomous driving with optical flow distillation,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 13 731–13 737. 5

    2021

  23. [31]

    Tada! temporally-adaptive convolutions for video understanding,

    Z. Huang, S. Zhang, L. Pan, Z. Qing, M. Tang, Z. Liu, and M. H. Ang Jr, “Tada! temporally-adaptive convolutions for video understanding,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2021. 6, 7

    2021

  24. [32]

    Simvp: Simpler yet better video prediction,

    Z. Gao, C. Tan, L. Wu, and S. Z. Li, “Simvp: Simpler yet better video prediction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 3170–3180. 6, 7

    2022

  25. [33]

    Convolutional lstm network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting,

    X. Shi, Z. Chen, H. Wang, D.-Y . Yeung, W.-K. Wong, and W.-c. Woo, “Convolutional lstm network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 28, 2015. 6, 7

    2015

  26. [34]

    Predrnn: A recurrent neural network for spatiotemporal predictive learning,

    Y . Wang, H. Wu, J. Zhang, Z. Gao, J. Wang, P. Yu, and M. Long, “Predrnn: A recurrent neural network for spatiotemporal predictive learning,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2022. 6, 7

    2022

  27. [35]

    Predrnn++: Towards a resolution of the deep-in-time dilemma in spatiotemporal predictive learning,

    Y . Wang, Z. Gao, M. Long, J. Wang, and S. Y . Philip, “Predrnn++: Towards a resolution of the deep-in-time dilemma in spatiotemporal predictive learning,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2018, pp. 5123–5132. 6, 7

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.