Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 88 references

Self-Supervised Pre-training with Combined Datasets for 3D Perception in Autonomous Driving

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Self-supervised pre-training on combined unlabeled LiDAR-camera datasets lifts 3D perception across detection, tracking, segmentation, and occupancy, and scales with data volume.

desk verdict The combination of BEV contrastive learning, image MAE, and dataset prompt adapters is a sensible recipe with promising held-in results, but the headline scaling claim is not supported by Table 6, and an unexplained inconsistency between Tables 1 and 4 needs resolution. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12709 v1 pith:27QY4M5U submitted 2025-04-17 cs.CV

Shumin Wang , Zhuoran Yang , Lidian Wang , Zhipeng Tang , Heng Li , Lehan Pan , Sha Zhang , Jie Peng
show 2 more authors
Jianmin Ji Yanyong Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords self-supervisedpre-training3DobjectdetectionBEVsegmentationtrackingoccupancypredictionmulti-datasettrainingdomainadaptationpromptadapter
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

Self-supervised pre-training on unlabeled LiDAR-camera data from multiple driving datasets can substitute for some annotated 3D data. The paper proposes a framework that jointly trains image and point-cloud backbones from scratch using a BEV-grid contrastive loss and an image masked-autoencoder loss, then fine-tunes on a small annotated subset. Adding per-dataset learnable prompts through a prompt adapter mitigates the domain gap between heterogeneous datasets, so that combining NuScenes, Lyft, and ONCE frames improves rather than hurts downstream performance. Across 3D object detection, 3D tracking, BEV segmentation, and occupancy prediction, the approach beats training from scratch and a BEVDistill baseline, and performance rises steadily as pre-training data grows from 40K to 250K frames.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a BEV-grid contrastive loss: image features are projected into a bird's-eye-view grid via lift-splat-shoot (LSS), LiDAR features are voxelized into the same BEV grid, and the corresponding grid cells across modalities are treated as positive pairs under an NCE loss, with non-corresponding cells as negatives. A masked-autoencoder (MAE) loss on the image patches supplements this, preserving semantic detail lost when images are lifted to BEV. To handle dataset bias, each dataset gets a learnable soft prompt that an MLP adapter converts into scale and bias parameters modulating LayerNorm layers (PromptNorm), so the backbone shares common knowledge while dataset-specific variation is absorbed outside it.

What would settle it

Corrupt the correspondence by shifting the image-derived BEV grid relative to the LiDAR grid by a fixed offset (e.g., 2 meters) during pre-training while keeping everything else unchanged; if downstream gains persist, the learned alignment is not the source of the improvement, and the claimed mechanism is not load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a self-supervised pre-training objective based on cross-modal BEV alignment plus image reconstruction lets a multi-modal 3D perception model learn transferable representations entirely from unlabeled driving data. On 20% of NuScenes fine-tuning data, the pre-trained model outperforms a from-scratch baseline and a BEVDistill-style baseline on object detection (mAP 55.5 vs 51.5 vs 54.1), tracking (AMOTA 61.8 vs 57.1 vs 60.6), BEV segmentation (mIoU 39.3 vs 39.1 vs 39.1), and occupancy prediction (IoU 32.5 vs 32.3 vs 32.3), and it also generalizes out-of-domain to Waymo detection. The paper further claims that naive mixing of multiple datasets degrades performance, while per-dataset prompt adapters restore and improve it, and that scaling the unlabeled pre-training set from 40K to 250K frames yields steady gains across all tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the BEV grids from camera projection and LiDAR genuinely correspond cell-by-cell across all datasets; if sensor calibration, occlusion, or differing camera rigs make those correspondences systematically wrong, the contrastive loss learns alignment artifacts rather than semantic knowledge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fine-tuning on as little as 20% of annotated NuScenes reaches detection mAP 55.5 and NDS 58.8, suggesting that unlabeled pre-training can cut annotation cost.
  • Pre-training on combined datasets with prompt adapters outperforms single-dataset pre-training, so heterogeneous unlabeled data can be pooled rather than discarded.
  • Performance rises monotonically from 40K to 250K pre-training frames across all four tasks, indicating the method has room to scale with data volume.
  • The learned representations transfer out-of-domain (NuScenes pre-training to Waymo fine-tuning) with L1 mAP 66.6, beating both scratch and the BEVDistill baseline.
  • Even initializing a downstream prompt with the 'wrong' dataset prompt still outperforms training without prompts, implying the backbone itself stores generalizable cross-dataset knowledge.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The BEV-grid correspondence definition is tested only through its downstream effect; a direct measurement of alignment error (e.g., mean distance between projected camera rays and LiDAR returns per cell) would sharpen the claim and likely reveal where the method breaks.
  • The same prompt-adapter idea could be applied at fine-tuning time to adapt a single pre-trained model to new cities or sensor configurations without retraining the backbone, which the paper only partially explores.
  • The scaling trend suggests that with more data the contrastive-and-MAE objective may approach the behavior of a foundation model for driving scenes, but the paper's largest run (250K frames) is still small relative to the 1M+ frames available in ONCE.
  • An immediate testable extension is to ablate the correspondence by replacing positive pairs with random pairs within a local neighborhood, isolating whether the spatial alignment or the mere cross-modal agreement drives the gain.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a self-supervised pre-training framework for multimodal (camera + LiDAR) Bird's Eye View (BEV) perception in autonomous driving. The method combines a masked autoencoder (MAE) loss on images with a contrastive loss that treats corresponding grids in LSS-projected image BEV and LiDAR BEV maps as positive pairs, and it uses dataset-specific prompt adapters to mitigate domain bias when pre-training on a mixture of NuScenes, Lyft, and ONCE data. The authors pre-train Swin-Transformer and DSVT backbones from scratch, then fine-tune on 20% of NuScenes or 20% of Waymo and evaluate on 3D object detection, 3D object tracking, BEV segmentation, and occupancy prediction. They report improvements over Scratch and a modified BEVDistill baseline, show that the prompt adapter helps over naive dataset mixing, and claim steady performance improvement as pre-training data volume scales up to 250K frames.

Significance. If the main results hold, the paper is a useful empirical contribution: it demonstrates that heterogeneous unlabeled multi-dataset pre-training can improve multimodal BEV perception across several downstream tasks, and it provides an explicit mechanism (prompt adapters) for reducing dataset bias during self-supervised pre-training. The evaluation across four tasks, the held-out Waymo experiment, the ablation of both losses, and the correct-versus-wrong prompt comparison are concrete strengths. The scalability claim, however, is not supported by the present experimental design, and the held-out improvement is borderline relative to noise. The paper is worth publishing after the scaling experiment and the alignment assumption are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4, Table 6, Appendix Table 8] The scalability claim is confounded. Appendix Table 8 shows that the 250K-frame run actually presents 28,130*4 + 22,680*4 + 200,000 = 403,240 samples per epoch, versus 100,810 for the 100K run and approximately 39,900 for the 40K run. Since Appendix A states that Tables 4-6 keep the same settings except for the learning rate, the 250K run is trained with about four times as many optimizer steps as the 100K run and repeats the NuScenes and Lyft frames four times. The reported curves are also non-monotonic and mostly within one standard deviation: mAP is 53.6±0.7 -> 53.6±0.4 -> 54.1±0.6, AMOTP worsens from 77.1 at 40K to 78.2 at 100K before returning to 77.1, and occupancy mIoU is flat at 16.1 for both 100K and 250K. The abstract and conclusion claim of "steady performance increase" is therefore not established. Please rerun with a matched total compute/step budget, or at minimum report the number of epochs and total steps for each run and separate unique-data scaling from repeated-sample/epoch scaling.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The contrastive loss treats BEV grids at corresponding spatial positions in LSS-projected image BEV and LiDAR BEV as positive pairs. This assumes that the camera-derived BEV is geometrically aligned with the LiDAR BEV across datasets with different camera rigs, mounting angles, and fields of view, and that occlusion or missing sensor coverage does not create systematic mismatches. The paper does not quantify the alignment error or ablate the correspondence definition. If the correspondence is noisy, the contrastive loss can encode alignment artifacts rather than semantic knowledge. Please provide quantitative alignment diagnostics (e.g., mean distance between LSS-projected image features and LiDAR occupancy per grid) or an ablation with an alternative correspondence or negative-sampling rule.
  3. [Section 4.2, Table 3] The held-out Waymo evidence is weaker than the text suggests. The improvement over Scratch is only 0.7 L1 mAP (66.6±0.8 vs. 65.9±1.1), which is within the reported error bars, and the BEVDistill baseline is below Scratch (64.8±1.1). The statement that the method "effectively enhances model performance in out-of-distribution scenarios" overstates this evidence. Please report significance tests or more seeds, or soften the claim accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix C.1] The text introduces a "Random" setting for prompt handling that does not appear in Table 5; please clarify or remove it.
  2. [Appendix A and Eq. (3)] Several key hyperparameters are missing: the NCE temperature tau, the MAE masking ratio, the number of sampled grids K, and the relative weights of L_MAE and L_CL in Eq. (1). These should be reported for reproducibility.
  3. [Appendix Table 8] The table header is garbled (three identical "NuScenes" columns); it should label NuScenes, Lyft, and ONCE separately.
  4. [Related Works] There are several typos and citation issues: "rescent" should be "recent", "have have" appears in the contrastive-learning discussion, and reference [68] is cited as an MAE method although the listed paper is M2BEV, which is not a masked autoencoder method.
  5. [Section 4.1] The text contains typos such as "bechmark", "portions", "detailes", and "fro occupancy"; these should be corrected.
  6. [Appendix B] The only pre-training baseline is a modified version of BEVDistill with the object-level distillation loss removed, and CALICO is not compared because it is not open-sourced. A comparison with other recent self-supervised BEV pre-training methods, if available, would strengthen the claim, and the unmodified BEVDistill result should be reported if feasible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are empirical transfer results, and its proxy pre-training losses are not definitionally tied to the downstream metrics.

full rationale

All of the paper's central claims are empirical transfer results. The pre-training objective in Eq. (1) combines two proxy losses defined on unlabeled data: L_CL contrasts BEV grids at corresponding positions in image-derived and LiDAR-derived BEV maps (Eqs. 2-3), and L_MAE reconstructs masked image patches (Eq. 4). Neither loss is algebraically tied to the downstream metrics (mAP, NDS, AMOTA, mIoU), which are evaluated on separate annotated benchmarks and could in principle fail; the improvements in Tables 1, 4, and 6 are therefore not forced by construction. The prompt adapter is explicitly adopted from external prior work [67] and is tested with a falsifiable 'wrong prompt' control (Table 5), so its effect is not assumed by definition. Citations [24] and [83] include co-authors, but they are used only for an architecture choice and a general taxonomy statement, not to justify the paper's load-bearing conclusions. The scaling comparison in Table 6 has a methodological confound—the 250K run repeats NuScenes and Lyft frames four times (Table 8) and the optimizer step budget is not reported—but that is an empirical/correctness concern about whether the scaling axis is cleanly defined, not a definitional equivalence between the paper's inputs and outputs. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or cited chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The method depends on several hand-chosen hyperparameters and domain assumptions about BEV alignment and prompt effectiveness; these are standard engineering choices but are not independently derived or fully reported.

free parameters (6)
  • NCE temperature tau = not reported
    Used in Eq. (3); scalar temperature controls contrastive sharpness and is a hand-chosen hyperparameter, not derived from data.
  • Masked autoencoder masking ratio = not reported
    Fraction of image patches masked for the MAE loss (Section 3.1); chosen by hand and not stated in the main text or appendix.
  • Contrastive sampled grid count K = not reported
    Number of BEV grid locations sampled for the NCE loss in Eq. (3); chosen for memory reasons but the value is not reported.
  • Loss weights for LMAE and LCL = 1:1 (implicit)
    Equation (1) sums the two losses without coefficients; this equal weighting is a hand choice that affects the learned representation balance.
  • Dataset repeat ratios = 1x/1x/1x for 40K and 100K; 4x/4x/1x for NuScenes/Lyft/ONCE in the 250K run
    Table 8; chosen by hand to balance data volumes, and changes the effective mixing distribution during pre-training.
  • Pre-training learning rate = 4e-4 (Table 1) and 2e-4 (Tables 4-6)
    Found by parameter search (Appendix A); different values are used in different experiments, which affects comparability between tables.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math NCE contrastive loss and MAE reconstruction are valid training objectives for representation learning.
    Standard techniques widely used in prior work [16,17]; the paper relies on their convergence and transfer properties without re-deriving them.
  • domain assumption BEV grids at corresponding positions in image-derived and LiDAR-derived maps form semantically aligned positive pairs.
    Section 3.1, Eq. (2)-(3): assumes LSS projection geometrically aligns with LiDAR BEV across datasets with different sensor configurations; no quantitative verification is provided.
  • domain assumption The prompt adapter design from [67] transfers successfully to multimodal BEV backbones for both image and point cloud modalities.
    Section 3.2: the paper adopts the prompt adapter for both backbones; if the adapter fails to capture dataset bias, the multi-dataset gains may not hold.
  • domain assumption Pre-training on unlabeled public driving data transfers to downstream tasks when fine-tuned on only 20% of NuScenes.
    Central to the evaluation in Section 4.2; the paper does not compare with full-data fine-tuning or test whether the benefit persists with more labels.
  • domain assumption Repeating NuScenes and Lyft frames in the scaling study does not artificially inflate the apparent benefit of more data.
    Section 4.4 and Table 8: the 250K run uses repeated smaller datasets; the scaling curve mixes unique and repeated frames, so the effect of raw data volume is not cleanly isolated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-Supervised Pre-training with Combined Datasets for 3D Perception in Autonomous Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/27QY4M5U

@misc{pith2026250412709,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-Supervised Pre-training with Combined Datasets for 3D Perception in Autonomous Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/27QY4M5U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12709}
}
read the original abstract

The significant achievements of pre-trained models leveraging large volumes of data in the field of NLP and 2D vision inspire us to explore the potential of extensive data pre-training for 3D perception in autonomous driving. Toward this goal, this paper proposes to utilize massive unlabeled data from heterogeneous datasets to pre-train 3D perception models. We introduce a self-supervised pre-training framework that learns effective 3D representations from scratch on unlabeled data, combined with a prompt adapter based domain adaptation strategy to reduce dataset bias. The approach significantly improves model performance on downstream tasks such as 3D object detection, BEV segmentation, 3D object tracking, and occupancy prediction, and shows steady performance increase as the training data volume scales up, demonstrating the potential of continually benefit 3D perception models for autonomous driving. We will release the source code to inspire further investigations in the community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12709 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The pre-train-then-fine-tune framework for multi-modal 3D perception integrating image and point cloud data. The point clouds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-dataset training strategy with prompt adapters. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. BEV heatmaps of image modality when testing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: BEV heatmaps of image modality when testing the models by applying various prompts or using the model without prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Qwen technical report

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, et al. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023. 1

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Transfusion: Ro- bust lidar-camera fusion for 3d object detection with trans- formers

    Xuyang Bai, Zeyu Hu, Xinge Zhu, Qingqiu Huang, Yilun Chen, Hongbo Fu, and Chiew-Lan Tai. Transfusion: Ro- bust lidar-camera fusion for 3d object detection with trans- formers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1090–1099,

  3. [3]

    nuscenes: A multi- modal dataset for autonomous driving

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11621–11631, 2020. 1, 5

    2020

  4. [4]

    Nuplan: A closed-loop ml-based plan- ning benchmark for autonomous vehicles, 2022

    Holger Caesar, Juraj Kabzan, Kok Seang Tan, Whye Kit Fong, Eric Wolff, Alex Lang, Luke Fletcher, Oscar Beijbom, and Sammy Omari. Nuplan: A closed-loop ml-based plan- ning benchmark for autonomous vehicles, 2022. 1

    2022

  5. [5]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9650–9660, 2021. 1

    2021

  6. [6]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Ge- offrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In ICML, pages 1597–1607, 2020. 8

    2020

  7. [7]

    Multi-view 3d object detection network for autonomous driving

    Xiaozhi Chen, Huimin Ma, Ji Wan, Bo Li, and Tian Xia. Multi-view 3d object detection network for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1907–1915, 2017. 8

    1907

  8. [8]

    Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning

    Xinlei Chen, Haoqi Fan, Ross Girshick, and Kaiming He. Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04297, 2020. 8

    arXiv 2003

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Bevdistill: Cross-modal bev distillation for multi-view 3d object detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09386, 2022

    Zehui Chen, Zhenyu Li, Shiquan Zhang, Liangji Fang, Qin- hong Jiang, and Feng Zhao. Bevdistill: Cross-modal bev distillation for multi-view 3d object detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09386, 2022. 1, 5, 8, 13

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Back-tracing representative points for voting- based 3d object detection in point clouds

    Bowen Cheng, Lu Sheng, Shaoshuai Shi, Ming Yang, and Dong Xu. Back-tracing representative points for voting- based 3d object detection in point clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8963–8972, 2021. 8

    2021

  3. [11]

    Lyft 3d object detection for autonomous vehicles

    Christy, Maggie, NikiNikatos, Phil Culliton, Vinay Shet, and Vladimir Iglovikov. Lyft 3d object detection for autonomous vehicles. https://kaggle.com/competitions/3d- object-detection-for-autonomous-vehicles, 2019. Kaggle. 1, 5

    2019

  4. [12]

    Scaling vision transformers to 22 billion pa- rameters

    Mostafa Dehghani, Josip Djolonga, Basil Mustafa, Piotr Padlewski, Jonathan Heek, Justin Gilmer, Andreas Peter Steiner, Mathilde Caron, Robert Geirhos, Ibrahim Alabdul- mohsin, et al. Scaling vision transformers to 22 billion pa- rameters. In International Conference on Machine...

    2023

  5. [13]

    V oxel r-cnn: To- wards high performance voxel-based 3d object detec- tion

    Jiajun Deng, Shaoshuai Shi, Peiwei Li, Wengang Zhou, Yanyong Zhang, and Houqiang Li. V oxel r-cnn: To- wards high performance voxel-based 3d object detec- tion. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 1201–1209, 2021. 8

    2021

  6. [14]

    Embracing single stride 3d object detector with sparse trans- former

    Lue Fan, Ziqi Pang, Tianyuan Zhang, Yu-Xiong Wang, Hang Zhao, Feng Wang, Naiyan Wang, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. Embracing single stride 3d object detector with sparse trans- former. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8458–8468,

  7. [15]

    Sparse dense fusion for 3d object detection

    Yulu Gao, Chonghao Sima, Shaoshuai Shi, Shangzhe Di, Si Liu, and Hongyang Li. Sparse dense fusion for 3d object detection. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 10939–10946. IEEE, 2023. 8

    2023

  8. [16]

    Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual rep- resentation learning

    Kaiming He, Haoqi Fan, Yuxin Wu, Saining Xie, and Ross Girshick. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual rep- resentation learning. In CVPR, pages 9726–9735, 2020. 1, 2, 8

    2020

  9. [17]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners, 2021

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Doll´ar, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners, 2021. 1, 2, 8

    2021

  10. [18]

    Data-efficient image recognition with con- trastive predictive coding

    Olivier Henaff. Data-efficient image recognition with con- trastive predictive coding. InICML, pages 4182–4192, 2020. 8

    2020

  11. [19]

    Masked autoencoder for self-supervised pre-training on lidar point clouds

    Georg Hess, Johan Jaxing, Elias Svensson, David Hager- man, Christoffer Petersson, and Lennart Svensson. Masked autoencoder for self-supervised pre-training on lidar point clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 350–35...

    2023

  12. [20]

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

    Junjie Huang, Guan Huang, Zheng Zhu, Yun Ye, and Dalong Du. Bevdet: High-performance multi-camera 3d object de- tection in bird-eye-view. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11790,

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ep- net: Enhancing point features with image semantics for 3d object detection

    Tengteng Huang, Zhe Liu, Xiwu Chen, and Xiang Bai. Ep- net: Enhancing point features with image semantics for 3d object detection. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XV 16, pages 35–52. Springer, 2020. 8

    2020

  14. [22]

    Tri-perspective view for vision- based 3d semantic occupancy prediction

    Yuanhui Huang, Wenzhao Zheng, Yunpeng Zhang, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. Tri-perspective view for vision- based 3d semantic occupancy prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9223–9232, 2023. 8

    2023

  15. [23]

    Learning semantic segmentation from multiple datasets with label shifts

    Dongwan Kim, Yi-Hsuan Tsai, Yumin Suh, Masoud Faraki, Sparsh Garg, Manmohan Chandraker, and Bohyung Han. Learning semantic segmentation from multiple datasets with label shifts. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 20–36. Springer, 2022. 8

    2022

  16. [24]

    Occmamba: Semantic occupancy prediction with state space models

    Heng Li, Yuenan Hou, Xiaohan Xing, Xiao Sun, and Yany- ong Zhang. Occmamba: Semantic occupancy prediction with state space models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09859,

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Deepfusion: Lidar-camera deep fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection

    Yingwei Li, Adams Wei Yu, Tianjian Meng, Ben Caine, Ji- quan Ngiam, Daiyi Peng, Junyang Shen, Yifeng Lu, Denny Zhou, Quoc V Le, et al. Deepfusion: Lidar-camera deep fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pat...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Simipu: Simple 2d image and 3d point cloud un- supervised pre-training for spatial-aware visual representa- tions

    Zhenyu Li, Zehui Chen, Ang Li, Liangji Fang, Qinhong Jiang, Xianming Liu, Junjun Jiang, Bolei Zhou, and Hang Zhao. Simipu: Simple 2d image and 3d point cloud un- supervised pre-training for spatial-aware visual representa- tions. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artifi...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Bev- former: 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. Bev- former: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi- camera images via spatiotemporal transformers. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 1–18. Springer, 2022. 4, 8

    2022

  20. [28]

    Bevfusion: A simple and robust lidar-camera fu- sion framework

    Tingting Liang, Hongwei Xie, Kaicheng Yu, Zhongyu Xia, Zhiwei Lin, Yongtao Wang, Tao Tang, Bing Wang, and Zhi Tang. Bevfusion: A simple and robust lidar-camera fu- sion framework. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:10421–10434, 2022. 5, 8

    2022

  21. [29]

    Geomim: Towards better 3d knowledge transfer via masked image modeling for multi-view 3d un- derstanding

    Jihao Liu, Tai Wang, Boxiao Liu, Qihang Zhang, Yu Liu, and Hongsheng Li. Geomim: Towards better 3d knowledge transfer via masked image modeling for multi-view 3d un- derstanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 17839–17849, 202...

    2023

  22. [30]

    P4contrast: Contrastive learn- ing with pairs of point-pixel pairs for rgb-d scene understand- ing

    Yunze Liu, Li Yi, Shanghang Zhang, Qingnan Fan, Thomas Funkhouser, and Hao Dong. P4contrast: Contrastive learn- ing with pairs of point-pixel pairs for rgb-d scene understand- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.13089, 2020. 8

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    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 Vision, pages 531–548. Springer, 2022. 8

    2022

  24. [32]

    Swin trans- former: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted win- dows, 2021

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin trans- former: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted win- dows, 2021. 4

    2021

  25. [33]

    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 L Rus, and Song Han. Bevfusion: Multi- task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view repre- sentation. In 2023 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 2774–2781. I...

    2023

  26. [34]

    One million scenes for autonomous driving: Once dataset

    Jiageng Mao, Minzhe Niu, Chenhan Jiang, Hanxue Liang, Jingheng Chen, Xiaodan Liang, Yamin Li, Chaoqiang Ye, Wei Zhang, Zhenguo Li, et al. One million scenes for autonomous driving: Once dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11037, 2021. 1, 5

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    V oxel transformer for 3d object detection

    Jiageng Mao, Yujing Xue, Minzhe Niu, Haoyue Bai, Ji- ashi Feng, Xiaodan Liang, Hang Xu, and Chunjing Xu. V oxel transformer for 3d object detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 3164–3173, 2021. 4

    2021

  28. [36]

    Multi-camera unified pre-training via 3d scene recon- struction

    Chen Min, Liang Xiao, Dawei Zhao, Yiming Nie, and Bin Dai. Multi-camera unified pre-training via 3d scene recon- struction. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024. 8

    2024

  29. [37]

    Uniscene: Multi-camera unified pre-training via 3d scene reconstruction for autonomous driving, 2024

    Chen Min, Liang Xiao, Dawei Zhao, Yiming Nie, and Bin Dai. Uniscene: Multi-camera unified pre-training via 3d scene reconstruction for autonomous driving, 2024. 13

    2024

  30. [38]

    Self-supervised learning of pretext-invariant representations

    Ishan Misra and Laurens van der Maaten. Self-supervised learning of pretext-invariant representations. In CVPR, pages 6707–6717, 2020. 8

    2020

  31. [39]

    Masked autoencoders for point cloud self-supervised learning

    Yatian Pang, Wenxiao Wang, Francis EH Tay, Wei Liu, Yonghong Tian, and Li Yuan. Masked autoencoders for point cloud self-supervised learning. In European conference on computer vision, pages 604–621. Springer, 2022. 1

    2022

  32. [40]

    Simpletrack: Understanding and rethinking 3d multi-object tracking

    Ziqi Pang, Zhichao Li, and Naiyan Wang. Simpletrack: Understanding and rethinking 3d multi-object tracking. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 680–696. Springer, 2022. 14

    2022

  33. [41]

    Standing between past and future: Spatio-temporal modeling for multi-camera 3d multi- object tracking

    Ziqi Pang, Jie Li, Pavel Tokmakov, Dian Chen, Sergey Zagoruyko, and Yu-Xiong Wang. Standing between past and future: Spatio-temporal modeling for multi-camera 3d multi- object tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages...

    2023

  34. [42]

    What do self-supervised vision transform- ers learn? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00729, 2023

    Namuk Park, Wonjae Kim, Byeongho Heo, Taekyung Kim, and Sangdoo Yun. What do self-supervised vision transform- ers learn? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00729, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Lift, splat, shoot: En- coding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly un- projecting to 3d

    Jonah Philion and Sanja Fidler. Lift, splat, shoot: En- coding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly un- projecting to 3d. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XIV 16, pages 194–210. Springer, 2020. 8

    2020

  36. [44]

    Deep hough voting for 3d object detection in point clouds

    Charles R Qi, Or Litany, Kaiming He, and Leonidas J Guibas. Deep hough voting for 3d object detection in point clouds. In proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9277–9286, 2019. 8

    2019

  37. [45]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021. 1, 2 10

    2021

  38. [46]

    Image-to-lidar self-supervised distillation for autonomous driving data,

    Corentin Sautier, Gilles Puy, Spyros Gidaris, Alexandre Boulch, Andrei Bursuc, and Renaud Marlet. Image-to-lidar self-supervised distillation for autonomous driving data,

  39. [47]

    Pointr- cnn: 3d object proposal generation and detection from point cloud

    Shaoshuai Shi, Xiaogang Wang, and Hongsheng Li. Pointr- cnn: 3d object proposal generation and detection from point cloud. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–779,

  40. [48]

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

    Shaoshuai Shi, Chaoxu Guo, Li Jiang, Zhe Wang, Jian- ping Shi, Xiaogang Wang, and Hongsheng Li. Pv-rcnn: Point-voxel feature set abstraction for 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10529–10538, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    From points to parts: 3d object detec- tion from point cloud with part-aware and part-aggregation network

    Shaoshuai Shi, Zhe Wang, Jianping Shi, Xiaogang Wang, and Hongsheng Li. From points to parts: 3d object detec- tion from point cloud with part-aware and part-aggregation network. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(8):2647–2664, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Mvx- net: Multimodal voxelnet for 3d object detection

    Vishwanath A Sindagi, Yin Zhou, and Oncel Tuzel. Mvx- net: Multimodal voxelnet for 3d object detection. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 7276–7282. IEEE, 2019. 8

    2019

  43. [51]

    Calico: Self- supervised camera-lidar contrastive pre-training for bev per- ception

    Jiachen Sun, Haizhong Zheng, Qingzhao Zhang, Atul Prakash, Z Morley Mao, and Chaowei Xiao. Calico: Self- supervised camera-lidar contrastive pre-training for bev per- ception. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00349, 2023. 1, 2, 5, 8, 13

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset

    Pei Sun, Henrik Kretzschmar, Xerxes Dotiwalla, Aure- lien Chouard, Vijaysai Patnaik, Paul Tsui, James Guo, Yin Zhou, Yuning Chai, Benjamin Caine, et al. Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer ...

    2020

  45. [53]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth´ee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi`ere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Pointpainting: Sequential fusion for 3d object de- tection

    Sourabh V ora, Alex H Lang, Bassam Helou, and Oscar Bei- jbom. Pointpainting: Sequential fusion for 3d object de- tection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4604–4612,

  47. [55]

    Pointaugmenting: Cross-modal augmentation for 3d object detection

    Chunwei Wang, Chao Ma, Ming Zhu, and Xiaokang Yang. Pointaugmenting: Cross-modal augmentation for 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11794– 11803, 2021

    2021

  48. [56]

    Rbgnet: Ray-based grouping for 3d object detection

    Haiyang Wang, Shaoshuai Shi, Ze Yang, Rongyao Fang, Qi Qian, Hongsheng Li, Bernt Schiele, and Liwei Wang. Rbgnet: Ray-based grouping for 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1110–1119, 2022. 8

    2022

  49. [57]

    Dsvt: Dy- namic sparse voxel transformer with rotated sets, 2023

    Haiyang Wang, Chen Shi, Shaoshuai Shi, Meng Lei, Sen Wang, Di He, Bernt Schiele, and Liwei Wang. Dsvt: Dy- namic sparse voxel transformer with rotated sets, 2023. 4

    2023

  50. [58]

    Unitr: A unified and efficient multi-modal transformer for bird’s-eye-view repre- sentation

    Haiyang Wang, Hao Tang, Shaoshuai Shi, Aoxue Li, Zhen- guo Li, Bernt Schiele, and Liwei Wang. Unitr: A unified and efficient multi-modal transformer for bird’s-eye-view repre- sentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 6792–680...

    2023

  51. [59]

    Cross-dataset collaborative learning for seman- tic segmentation in autonomous driving

    Li Wang, Dong Li, Han Liu, Jinzhang Peng, Lu Tian, and Yi Shan. Cross-dataset collaborative learning for seman- tic segmentation in autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2487– 2494, 2022. 8

    2022

  52. [60]

    Mv- contrast: Unsupervised pretraining for multi-view 3d object recognition

    Luequan Wang, Hongbin Xu, and Wenxiong Kang. Mv- contrast: Unsupervised pretraining for multi-view 3d object recognition. Machine Intelligence Research, 20(6):872–883,

  53. [61]

    Tracking everything everywhere all at once

    Qianqian Wang, Yen-Yu Chang, Ruojin Cai, Zhengqi Li, Bharath Hariharan, Aleksander Holynski, and Noah Snavely. Tracking everything everywhere all at once. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 19795–19806, 2023. 8

    2023

  54. [62]

    Fcos3d: Fully convolutional one-stage monocular 3d object detection

    Tai Wang, Xinge Zhu, Jiangmiao Pang, and Dahua Lin. Fcos3d: Fully convolutional one-stage monocular 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 913–922, 2021. 8

    2021

  55. [63]

    Openoccupancy: A large scale benchmark for surrounding semantic occupancy perception

    Xiaofeng Wang, Zheng Zhu, Wenbo Xu, Yunpeng Zhang, Yi Wei, Xu Chi, Yun Ye, Dalong Du, Jiwen Lu, and Xin- gang Wang. Openoccupancy: A large scale benchmark for surrounding semantic occupancy perception. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision,...

    2023

  56. [64]

    Detr3d: 3d object detection from multi-view images via 3d-to-2d queries

    Yue Wang, Vitor Campagnolo Guizilini, Tianyuan Zhang, Yilun Wang, Hang Zhao, and Justin Solomon. Detr3d: 3d object detection from multi-view images via 3d-to-2d queries. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 180–191. PMLR, 2022. 8

    2022

  57. [65]

    Masked feature predic- tion for self-supervised visual pre-training

    Chen Wei, Haoqi Fan, Saining Xie, Chao-Yuan Wu, Alan Yuille, and Christoph Feichtenhofer. Masked feature predic- tion for self-supervised visual pre-training. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14668–14678, 2022. 1, 8

    2022

  58. [66]

    Virtual sparse convolution for multimodal 3d ob- ject detection

    Hai Wu, Chenglu Wen, Shaoshuai Shi, Xin Li, and Cheng Wang. Virtual sparse convolution for multimodal 3d ob- ject detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 21653– 21662, 2023. 8

    2023

  59. [67]

    Towards large-scale 3d representation learning with multi-dataset point prompt training

    Xiaoyang Wu, Zhuotao Tian, Xin Wen, Bohao Peng, Xi- hui Liu, Kaicheng Yu, and Hengshuang Zhao. Towards large-scale 3d representation learning with multi-dataset point prompt training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1...

    2024

  60. [68]

    M2 bev: Multi-camera joint 3d detection and segmentation with unified birds-eye view representation

    Enze Xie, Zhiding Yu, Daquan Zhou, Jonah Philion, Anima Anandkumar, Sanja Fidler, Ping Luo, and Jose M Alvarez. M2 bev: Multi-camera joint 3d detection and segmentation with unified birds-eye view representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05088, 2022. 8

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Pointcontrast: Unsupervised pre- 11 training for 3d point cloud understanding

    Saining Xie, Jiatao Gu, Demi Guo, Charles R Qi, Leonidas Guibas, and Or Litany. Pointcontrast: Unsupervised pre- 11 training for 3d point cloud understanding. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part III 16, pag...

    2020

  62. [70]

    Qi, Leonidas J

    Saining Xie, Jiatao Gu, Demi Guo, Charles R. Qi, Leonidas J. Guibas, and Or Litany. PointContrast: Unsu- pervised pre-training for 3D point cloud understanding. In ECCV, pages 574–591, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  63. [71]

    Simmim: A simple framework for masked image modeling

    Zhenda Xie, Zheng Zhang, Yue Cao, Yutong Lin, Jianmin Bao, Zhuliang Yao, Qi Dai, and Han Hu. Simmim: A simple framework for masked image modeling. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9653–9663, 2022. 1, 8

    2022

  64. [72]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 18268–18278, 2023. 1

    2023

  65. [73]

    Spot: Scalable 3d pre-training via occu- pancy prediction for autonomous driving

    Xiangchao Yan, Runjian Chen, Bo Zhang, Jiakang Yuan, Xinyu Cai, Botian Shi, Wenqi Shao, Junchi Yan, Ping Luo, and Yu Qiao. Spot: Scalable 3d pre-training via occu- pancy prediction for autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10527, 2023. 5

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Second: Sparsely embed- ded convolutional detection

    Yan Yan, Yuxing Mao, and Bo Li. Second: Sparsely embed- ded convolutional detection. Sensors, 18(10):3337, 2018. 8

    2018

  67. [75]

    Boost- ing 3d object detection via object-focused image fusion

    Hao Yang, Chen Shi, Yihong Chen, and Liwei Wang. Boost- ing 3d object detection via object-focused image fusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.10589, 2022. 8

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Gd-mae: Gen- erative decoder for mae pre-training on lidar point clouds,

    Honghui Yang, Tong He, Jiaheng Liu, Hua Chen, Boxi Wu, Binbin Lin, Xiaofei He, and Wanli Ouyang. Gd-mae: Gen- erative decoder for mae pre-training on lidar point clouds,

  69. [77]

    Pred: pre-training via semantic rendering on lidar point clouds

    Hao Yang, Haiyang Wang, Di Dai, and Liwei Wang. Pred: pre-training via semantic rendering on lidar point clouds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36,

  70. [78]

    3dssd: Point-based 3d single stage object detector

    Zetong Yang, Yanan Sun, Shu Liu, and Jiaya Jia. 3dssd: Point-based 3d single stage object detector. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11040–11048, 2020. 8

    2020

  71. [79]

    Center- based 3d object detection and tracking

    Tianwei Yin, Xingyi Zhou, and Philipp Krahenbuhl. Center- based 3d object detection and tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11784–11793, 2021. 8

    2021

  72. [80]

    3d-cvf: Generating joint camera and lidar fea- tures using cross-view spatial feature fusion for 3d ob- ject detection

    Jin Hyeok Yoo, Yecheol Kim, Jisong Kim, and Jun Won Choi. 3d-cvf: Generating joint camera and lidar fea- tures using cross-view spatial feature fusion for 3d ob- ject detection. In Computer vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, proceeding...

    2020

  73. [81]

    Sparselif: High-performance sparse lidar- camera fusion for 3d object detection

    Hongcheng Zhang, Liu Liang, Pengxin Zeng, Xiao Song, and Zhe Wang. Sparselif: High-performance sparse lidar- camera fusion for 3d object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07284, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Point-m2ae: multi-scale masked autoencoders for hierarchical point cloud pre-training

    Renrui Zhang, Ziyu Guo, Peng Gao, Rongyao Fang, Bin Zhao, Dong Wang, Yu Qiao, and Hongsheng Li. Point-m2ae: multi-scale masked autoencoders for hierarchical point cloud pre-training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27061–27074, 2022. 1, 8

    2022

  75. [83]

    Hvdistill: Transferring knowl- edge from images to point clouds via unsupervised hybrid- view distillation

    Sha Zhang, Jiajun Deng, Lei Bai, Houqiang Li, Wanli Ouyang, and Yanyong Zhang. Hvdistill: Transferring knowl- edge from images to point clouds via unsupervised hybrid- view distillation. International Journal of Computer Vision, pages 1–15, 2024. 2, 8

    2024

  76. [84]

    Self-supervised pretraining of 3d features on any point-cloud

    Zaiwei Zhang, Rohit Girdhar, Armand Joulin, and Ishan Misra. Self-supervised pretraining of 3d features on any point-cloud. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 10252–10263, 2021. 8

    2021

  77. [85]

    Unidistill: A universal cross-modality knowl- edge distillation framework for 3d object detection in bird’s- eye view, 2023

    Shengchao Zhou, Weizhou Liu, Chen Hu, Shuchang Zhou, and Chao Ma. Unidistill: A universal cross-modality knowl- edge distillation framework for 3d object detection in bird’s- eye view, 2023. 1, 8, 13

    2023

  78. [86]

    Sim- ple multi-dataset detection

    Xingyi Zhou, Vladlen Koltun, and Philipp Kr¨ahenb¨uhl. Sim- ple multi-dataset detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7571–7580, 2022. 8

    2022

  79. [87]

    Cylindrical and asymmetrical 3d convolution networks for lidar seg- mentation

    Xinge Zhu, Hui Zhou, Tai Wang, Fangzhou Hong, Yuexin Ma, Wei Li, Hongsheng Li, and Dahua Lin. Cylindrical and asymmetrical 3d convolution networks for lidar seg- mentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9939–9948,

  80. [2021]

    NuScenes

    8 12 A. Hyperparameters & configurations of pre- training For experiments in Table 1 in section 4.2, we use a linear lr warm up and then use a cosine lr decay policy to reduce the lr to 0.01 times of the peak value. We conducted parameter search for learning rate and the final...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.