Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 39 references

Improving Multi-Vehicle Perception Fusion with Millimeter-Wave Radar Assistance

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sparse radar point clouds align two vehicles' views to within a meter in under 59 ms.

desk verdict Novel radar-based V2V alignment system with a real validation gap: the real-world ground truth is unquantified, so the 0.9m claim is not yet nailed down. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00837 v1 pith:MIYOOZ67 submitted 2025-06-01 cs.RO cs.MA

Zhiqing Luo , Yi Wang , Yingying He , Wei Wang This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.MA
keywords cooperativeperceptionmmWaveradarpointcloudregistrationviewalignmentV2Vfusionmessagepassingneuralnetworkautonomousdriving
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 proposes MMatch, a cooperative-perception system that uses millimeter-wave radar point clouds instead of dense LiDAR or image texture to align the views of two vehicles before fusing their sensor data. The central claim is that even sparse, noisy radar points carry enough spatial information—each target's position, angle, and relation to its neighbors—to uniquely identify which vehicles appear in both views. The system separates moving-target points from the background, learns co-visible matches with a space-across message-passing network, and then registers the views by combining vehicle points with background structure. On CARLA simulation and real campus traffic, it reports localization errors of 0.7 m and 0.9 m respectively, with the full pipeline finishing in under 59 ms, which would make radar-based cooperative perception both accurate enough and fast enough for driving tasks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is RM-net, a space-across message-passing neural network that operates on a graph whose nodes are per-vehicle image detections and whose edges are radar-derived spatial relations. It alternates edge updates and node updates within a view and across views for $N$ iterations, then classifies cross-view edges to find co-visible vehicles. Before that, a velocity-assistant selection scheme exploits the sinusoidal Doppler pattern of stationary radar points to isolate moving targets, and a frustum-based separation scheme uses monocular camera bounding boxes to assign the cleaned radar points to individual vehicles. The final alignment step is a two-stage ICP: an initial transform is estimated from co-visible vehicle point pairs, then a weighted refinement also uses stationary background points (with weights $\omega_n=e^{\mathrm{score}_n}$ and $\omega_g=e^{1/N_v}$) to handle sparse vehicle coverage and avoid symmetry ambiguities from roads and intersections.

What would settle it

On the same campus routes, obtain independent centimeter-level reference poses (for example, with RTK-GNSS or surveyed ground markers) and compute the error of the HD-map alignment used as ground truth; if that reference error is comparable to 0.9 m, the reported decimeter-level translation error cannot be separated from the reference's own error, whereas a small reference error would confirm the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MMatch's central claim is that view alignment for cooperative perception does not require dense LiDAR or image landmarks: cleaned millimeter-wave radar point clouds can encode unique associations among all vehicles in a scene. The paper builds a graph in which each detected vehicle is a node and each edge carries radar-derived spatial relations such as $e_{ij}=(d_{ij}/d_{\max},\theta/\pi,\log(r_i/r_j),\log(\theta_i/\theta_j))$, then a space-across MPNN updates node and edge embeddings both within each vehicle's view and across the two views. A classifier marks which cross-view edges connect the same physical vehicle, and a background-constrained alignment recovers the transform $T=(R_e,t_e)$ by minimizing a weighted sum of co-visible-vehicle point error and stationary-background point error. The reported outcome is decimeter-level registration—about $1.2^\circ$–$1.6^\circ$ rotation and 0.7 m translation on CARLA, and $1.8^\circ$ rotation and 0.9 m translation in real traffic—at an end-to-end latency of 59 ms while sharing only 5–9 KB of data.

Load-bearing premise

The real-world ground-truth transformations come from aligning each vehicle's LiDAR scans to a reconstructed HD map, and the accuracy of that alignment is never quantified, so if it is comparable to or larger than the reported 0.9 m error the claimed decimeter-level accuracy is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A vehicle pair can run cooperative perception with a monocular camera plus radar, sharing only compressed features and sparse radar points instead of dense LiDAR or raw images.
  • The reported 59 ms end-to-end latency and 5–9 KB transmission fit the tens-of-milliseconds data-sharing budget assumed for driving, so the alignment step is not the bottleneck.
  • Even with only two co-visible vehicles, the system reports translation error under 1 m, so it does not require dense traffic to register the views.
  • Fusion raises the number of detected vehicles from about six to about nine within 100 m, extending the effective perception range from roughly 50 m to 100 m in the test scenario.
  • Because radar works through dust, smog, and changing illumination, the method targets conditions where image- and LiDAR-based alignment degrade.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to rerun MMatch on the same routes with an independent centimeter-level reference, such as RTK-GNSS or surveyed ground markers; that would separate system error from the unquantified HD-map alignment error.
  • If the accuracy holds at higher speeds and in denser traffic, radar-assisted matching could serve as a fast initialization that hands a coarse transform to LiDAR- or camera-based fine registration, cutting their search time.
  • The graph-matching core is sensor-agnostic: any detector that supplies nodes plus any sensor that supplies spatial edges could reuse the space-across MPNN, so the design may extend to mixed fleets where some vehicles carry radar and others carry LiDAR or cameras.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents MMatch, a cooperative perception system that aligns and fuses multi-vehicle views using sparse mmWave radar point clouds. The pipeline comprises velocity-based PCD selection, camera-frustum-based vehicle PCD separation, a graph-based space-across MPNN (RM-net) that identifies co-visible vehicles across the two views, and a background-constrained ICP alignment that combines co-visible vehicle PCD pairs with stationary-background PCDs. Experiments are conducted on a CARLA dataset and a real-world campus dataset with over 1,000 image-radar frames. The authors report decimeter-level RTE (0.7 m CARLA, 0.9 m real-world), RRE within about 1.8 degrees, and total latency under 59 ms, along with communication overhead of 5-9 KB per frame.

Significance. If the real-world result holds, MMatch would be a meaningful step towards practical radar-based V2V cooperative perception, offering low-bandwidth, real-time, decimeter-level alignment without dense LiDAR. The design is plausible and the CARLA experiments with known ground truth provide internal consistency; the Doppler model is standard and the ablations support the contribution of the background constraint. The main caveat is that the real-world ground-truth reference is itself unquantified, so the headline real-world accuracy is not yet firmly established. The paper also does not report error bars or a full real-world train/test protocol, which limits the strength of the empirical claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, 'Real-world dataset'] The ground-truth transformation used to compute RRE and RTE is obtained by aligning each vehicle's LiDAR scans to an HD map reconstructed with FAST-LIO [21], but the accuracy of this LiDAR-to-map alignment is never quantified. Since RTE is defined as the difference between the estimated and reference transforms, any error in the reference is directly included in the reported 0.9 m real-world RTE. The paper should report the alignment accuracy against an independent reference (e.g., RTK-GNSS, surveyed ground control points, or loop-closure residuals), and also provide the radar-to-LiDAR and radar-to-camera extrinsic calibration and temporal synchronization procedures; without these, the real-world decimeter-level claim is not yet established.
  2. [Section IV, 'Real-world dataset' and Section V.C] The real-world train/test protocol is not reported. For the CARLA dataset the paper states that 1,000 frames are used for training and the rest for testing, but no analogous split, training procedure, or domain-adaptation strategy is given for the real-world data. It is therefore unclear whether the RM-net model deployed in Section V.C was trained on CARLA data, real-world data, or both, and this directly affects the generalization claim made for real-world performance.
  3. [Section V, all experiments] No error bars, confidence intervals, or repeated-run statistics are reported for any of the RRE/RTE values, ablation comparisons, or latency measurements. Figures 10-17 appear to plot aggregate distributions but no caption defines the plotted quantity, and the text reports only single point values such as 'RRE about 1.2 degrees and RTE about 0.6 m'. Without variance information it is impossible to determine whether the ablation differences are statistically meaningful.
  4. [Section V.B, performance comparison] The baseline setup is under-specified. It is not stated whether PP-ICP, NDT, Fast-GICP, FGR, and BUFFER receive the same velocity-selected and frustum-separated radar PCDs that MMatch uses, or the raw radar PCDs; if the baselines receive raw PCDs, the comparison conflates the contribution of the separation pipeline with that of the alignment algorithm, and the large errors reported for baselines are not an apples-to-apples comparison.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section V.A] The definition of RTE mistakenly labels it 'Relative translation error (RRE)' and defines it using RRE; the second metric should be named RTE.
  2. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract states 'over 15,000 radar point cloud pairs' but Section IV reports 10,000 target pairs in CARLA and 3,000 in real-world, totaling 13,000; please reconcile these numbers.
  3. [Table II] The reduction ratios (395x, 118x, 12x, 5x) do not match the quoted data sizes and latencies (e.g., 2765.8/5-9 KB is 307-553x, 237/3 ms is 79x); specify the exact numbers used.
  4. [Eq. (8)] The term 'log y^(n)_eij' appears to be missing a hat over y; it should likely be 'log \hat{y}^(n)_eij'.
  5. [Eq. (10)] The subscript 'E_i' in the first sum appears inconsistent with 'E_n' used later; please harmonize the notation.
  6. [Figures 10-17] The figures have no captions describing what is plotted; add clear captions (e.g., CDF or box plots) and legend definitions.
  7. [Section V.B and Abstract] Section V.B reports 'RRE about 1.2 degrees and RTE about 0.6 m' in easy mode and 'RRE about 1.6 degrees and RTE about 0.8 m' in hard mode, while the abstract cites '0.7 m' for CARLA; clarify which number is the headline result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain; the main concern is an unquantified real-world ground-truth reference, which is a validation gap, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The Doppler-based PCD selection in Section III-B is derived in-paper via Equations (1) and (2) from standard radial-velocity geometry; the cited works [12], [13] (one of which shares an author) are background support, not load-bearing. The co-visible vehicle detector is a learned MPNN graph classifier, but it is trained on labels and evaluated on held-out data, and the final transformation is still produced by a geometric optimization in Equation (10), not by reading out a fitted parameter. The reported RTE is measured against a reference transformation obtained by aligning each vehicle's LiDAR scans to an HD map reconstructed with FAST-LIO [21]. That reference is independent of the radar-camera pipeline, so the accuracy claim is not definitionally forced. The paper does not quantify the accuracy of this LiDAR-to-HD-map alignment, which is a real validation gap that could affect the 0.9 m real-world RTE, but it is a measurement-assumption concern rather than a circular step. Self-citations [6], [9], [11], [13] appear only as related work or as supporting references for standard techniques, and the central alignment result does not depend on any unverified self-citation chain. Therefore no specific circular reduction can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is low. The CARLA experiments use simulator ground truth and further support the system's independent content.

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

The central claim rests on the trained RM-net classifier and on several hand-set engineering constants whose values are not reported. No new physical entities are introduced. The assumptions listed here are load-bearing: if any of them fails, the reported alignment accuracy would not be reproducible or meaningful.

free parameters (6)
  • eta (co-visible edge threshold)
    Used in Eq. (7) to decide when an edge is classified as connecting the same vehicle across views; no value is given in the paper.
  • delta_d (RoI frustum depth expansion)
    Introduced in Section III-B to compensate for monocular depth estimation error; no value or sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • D_max and ICP iteration counts
    Section III-D defines the iteration period as min{L, N(D_max)} but gives no concrete values; the convergence threshold affects the final alignment accuracy.
  • DBSCAN parameters (eps, min samples)
    Used twice, in frustum-based separation and background filtering; no values or robustness analysis are given.
  • RM-net learned weights = trained on 1,000 CARLA frames; not released
    The co-visible vehicle classifier is a trained neural network whose parameters are fit to the authors' data; the central alignment result depends on these fitted weights.
  • Alignment weights omega_n and omega_g = omega_n = e^{score_n}, omega_g = e^{1/N_v}
    Eq. (10) uses hand-designed exponential weights based on CenterNet detection score and the number of co-visible vehicles; the functional form is chosen ad hoc.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Radar points from stationary targets follow the sinusoidal Doppler relation of Eq. (1), with known ego velocity and radar mounting angle.
    Invoked in Section III-B to separate moving from static PCDs; this is standard Doppler radar physics from cited works [12], [13], but it requires accurate ego-velocity and mounting angle estimates.
  • ad hoc to paper Sparse radar PCDs from a vehicle carry enough local and global spatial structure to uniquely associate the same vehicle across two views.
    This is the paper's key insight, stated in the Abstract and Section I, and is asserted rather than directly validated.
  • domain assumption CenterNet's monocular 3D detections and depth estimates are accurate enough for frustum-based PCD separation.
    Section III-B relies on a well-trained CenterNet and enlarges the frustum by delta_d to compensate for depth error, but no detection accuracy analysis is reported.
  • domain assumption The HD-map/LiDAR alignment used to obtain real-world ground-truth transformations has error well below the reported 0.9m RTE.
    Section IV says ground truth is achieved by aligning vehicle LiDAR with constructed HD maps, but the accuracy of that alignment is not quantified.
  • domain assumption CARLA's simulated radar data is a valid proxy for developing the separation and matching pipeline.
    Section IV collects CARLA data without the impact of noise and separately real campus data; the transfer from simulation to real hardware is assumed without a formal analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving Multi-Vehicle Perception Fusion with Millimeter-Wave Radar Assistance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MIYOOZ67

@misc{pith2026250600837,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving Multi-Vehicle Perception Fusion with Millimeter-Wave Radar Assistance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MIYOOZ67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00837}
}
read the original abstract

Cooperative perception enables vehicles to share sensor readings and has become a new paradigm to improve driving safety, where the key enabling technology for realizing this vision is to real-time and accurately align and fuse the perceptions. Recent advances to align the views rely on high-density LiDAR data or fine-grained image feature representations, which however fail to meet the requirements of accuracy, real-time, and adaptability for autonomous driving. To this end, we present MMatch, a lightweight system that enables accurate and real-time perception fusion with mmWave radar point clouds. The key insight is that fine-grained spatial information provided by the radar present unique associations with all the vehicles even in two separate views. As a result, by capturing and understanding the unique local and global position of the targets in this association, we can quickly find out all the co-visible vehicles for view alignment. We implement MMatch on both the datasets collected from the CARLA platform and the real-world traffic with over 15,000 radar point cloud pairs. Experimental results show that MMatch achieves decimeter-level accuracy within 59ms, which significantly improves the reliability for autonomous driving.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00837 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of cooperative perception in autonomous driving. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Advantages of perception fusion in various traffic situations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An overview of our system design. In the first step, the Ego vehicle and CAV perform the operations, separately. After that, CAV shares the image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PCD selection. (a) Moving and stationary targets show different speed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PCD separation. due to an additional term of its movement. As an example of the traffic in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Graph construction. Graph construction. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: RM-net uses a space-across MPNN to learn and update the association of the all targets in the graph. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Data collection in the real-world traffic on the campus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Performance of alignment accuracy on CARLA dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Performance of time latency. 7 6 5 4 3 2 Number of Co-Visible Vehicles 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 RRE (°) RRE RTE 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 RTE (m) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Impact of vehicle detection missing. Straight road Intersection T-junction 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 RRE (°) RRE RTE 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 RTE (m) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_16.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Fast-lio: A fast, robust lidar-inertial odometry package by tightly-coupled iterated kalman filter,

    W. Xu and F. Zhang, “Fast-lio: A fast, robust lidar-inertial odometry package by tightly-coupled iterated kalman filter,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3317–3324, 2021

    2021

  2. [1]

    Simultaneous localization and mapping: A survey of current trends in autonomous driving,

    G. Bresson, Z. Alsayed, L. Yu, and S. Glaser, “Simultaneous localization and mapping: A survey of current trends in autonomous driving,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 194–220, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Avr: Augmented vehicular reality,

    H. Qiu, F. Ahmad, F. Bai, M. Gruteser, and R. Govindan, “Avr: Augmented vehicular reality,” inProceedings of the 16th Annual In- ternational Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, 2018, pp. 81–95

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Survey on cooperative perception in an automotive context,

    A. Caillot, S. Ouerghi, P. Vasseur, R. Boutteau, and Y . Dupuis, “Survey on cooperative perception in an automotive context,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 14 204–14 223, 2022

    2022

  5. [4]

    Toward col- laborative occlusion-free perception in connected autonomous vehicles,

    Z. Xiao, J. Shu, H. Jiang, G. Min, J. Liang, and A. Iyengar, “Toward col- laborative occlusion-free perception in connected autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Cooperative perception for 3d object detection in driving scenarios using infrastruc- ture sensors,

    E. Arnold, M. Dianati, R. de Temple, and S. Fallah, “Cooperative perception for 3d object detection in driving scenarios using infrastruc- ture sensors,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1852–1864, 2020

    2020

  7. [6]

    Vi-eye: Semantic- based 3d point cloud registration for infrastructure-assisted autonomous driving,

    Y . He, L. Ma, Z. Jiang, Y . Tang, and G. Xing, “Vi-eye: Semantic- based 3d point cloud registration for infrastructure-assisted autonomous driving,” inProceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, 2021, pp. 573–586

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Vips: Real-time perception fusion for infrastructure-assisted autonomous driv- ing,

    S. Shi, J. Cui, Z. Jiang, Z. Yan, G. Xing, J. Niu, and Z. Ouyang, “Vips: Real-time perception fusion for infrastructure-assisted autonomous driv- ing,” inProceedings of the 28th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing And Networking, 2022, pp. 133–146

    work page 2022

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    A survey on lidar scanning mechanisms,

    T. Raj, F. Hanim Hashim, A. Baseri Huddin, M. F. Ibrahim, and A. Hussain, “A survey on lidar scanning mechanisms,”Electronics, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 741, 2020

    2020

  2. [9]

    Robust metric localization in autonomous driving via doppler compensation with single-chip radar,

    P. Gao, S. Zhang, W. Wang, and C. X. Lu, “Robust metric localization in autonomous driving via doppler compensation with single-chip radar,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2023

    2023

  3. [10]

    millieye: A lightweight mmwave radar and camera fusion system for robust object detection,

    X. Shuai, Y . Shen, Y . Tang, S. Shi, L. Ji, and G. Xing, “millieye: A lightweight mmwave radar and camera fusion system for robust object detection,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Internet- of-Things Design and Implementation, 2021, pp. 145–157

    2021

  4. [11]

    Automatch: Leveraging traffic camera to improve perception and lo- calization of autonomous vehicles,

    Y . He, L. Ma, J. Cui, Z. Yan, G. Xing, S. Wang, Q. Hu, and C. Pan, “Automatch: Leveraging traffic camera to improve perception and lo- calization of autonomous vehicles,” inProceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, 2022, pp. 16–30

    2022

  5. [12]

    Instantaneous ego-motion estimation using doppler radar,

    D. Kellner, M. Barjenbruch, J. Klappstein, J. Dickmann, and K. Di- etmayer, “Instantaneous ego-motion estimation using doppler radar,” in16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2013). IEEE, 2013, pp. 869–874

    2013

  6. [13]

    Dc-loc: Accurate automotive radar based metric localization with explicit doppler compensation,

    P. Gao, S. Zhang, W. Wang, and C. X. Lu, “Dc-loc: Accurate automotive radar based metric localization with explicit doppler compensation,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 4128–4134

    2022

  7. [14]

    Objects as points,

    X. Zhou, D. Wang, and P. Kr ¨ahenb¨uhl, “Objects as points,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.07850, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  8. [15]

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

    R. Nabati and H. Qi, “Centerfusion: Center-based radar and camera fusion for 3d object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 1527–1536

    2021

  9. [16]

    Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks,

    M. Sandler, A. Howard, M. Zhu, A. Zhmoginov, and L.-C. Chen, “Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 4510–4520

    2018

  10. [17]

    Grarep: Learning graph representations with global structural information,

    S. Cao, W. Lu, and Q. Xu, “Grarep: Learning graph representations with global structural information,” inProceedings of the 24th ACM international on conference on information and knowledge management, 2015, pp. 891–900

    2015

  11. [18]

    Neural message passing for quantum chemistry,

    J. Gilmer, S. S. Schoenholz, P. F. Riley, O. Vinyals, and G. E. Dahl, “Neural message passing for quantum chemistry,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2017, pp. 1263–1272

    2017

  12. [19]

    Addressing data association by message passing over graph neural networks,

    B. C. Tedeschini, M. Brambilla, L. Barbieri, and M. Nicoli, “Addressing data association by message passing over graph neural networks,” in 2022 25th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION). IEEE, 2022, pp. 01–07

    2022

  13. [20]

    Learning a neural solver for multiple object tracking,

    G. Bras ´o and L. Leal-Taix´e, “Learning a neural solver for multiple object tracking,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 6247–6257

    2020

  14. [22]

    Linear least-squares optimization for point-to-plane icp surface registration,

    K.-L. Low, “Linear least-squares optimization for point-to-plane icp surface registration,”Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 1–3, 2004

    2004

  15. [23]

    The normal distributions transform: A new approach to laser scan matching,

    P. Biber and W. Straßer, “The normal distributions transform: A new approach to laser scan matching,” inProceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003)(Cat. No. 03CH37453), vol. 3. IEEE, 2003, pp. 2743–2748

    2003

  16. [24]

    V oxelized gicp for fast and accurate 3d point cloud registration,

    K. Koide, M. Yokozuka, S. Oishi, and A. Banno, “V oxelized gicp for fast and accurate 3d point cloud registration,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 11 054–11 059

    2021

  17. [25]

    Fast global registration,

    Q.-Y . Zhou, J. Park, and V . Koltun, “Fast global registration,” inCom- puter Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 14. Springer, 2016, pp. 766–782

    2016

  18. [26]

    Buffer: Balancing accuracy, efficiency, and generalizability in point cloud registration,

    S. Ao, Q. Hu, H. Wang, K. Xu, and Y . Guo, “Buffer: Balancing accuracy, efficiency, and generalizability in point cloud registration,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 1255–1264

    2023

  19. [27]

    Stochastic modeling of beam management in mmwave vehicular networks,

    S. Aghashahi, S. Aghashahi, Z. Zeinalpour-Yazdi, A. Tadaion, and A. Asadi, “Stochastic modeling of beam management in mmwave vehicular networks,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Edge- enabled v2x service placement for intelligent transportation systems,

    A. Moubayed, A. Shami, P. Heidari, A. Larabi, and R. Brunner, “Edge- enabled v2x service placement for intelligent transportation systems,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1380–1392, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Multi-technology cooperative driving: An analysis based on plexe,

    M. Segata, R. L. Cigno, T. Hardes, J. Heinovski, M. Schettler, B. Bloessl, C. Sommer, and F. Dressler, “Multi-technology cooperative driving: An analysis based on plexe,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Autocast: Scalable infrastructure-less cooperative perception for dis- tributed collaborative driving,

    H. Qiu, P. Huang, N. Asavisanu, X. Liu, K. Psounis, and R. Govindan, “Autocast: Scalable infrastructure-less cooperative perception for dis- tributed collaborative driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.14947, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Method for registration of 3-d shapes,

    P. J. Besl and N. D. McKay, “Method for registration of 3-d shapes,” inSensor fusion IV: control paradigms and data structures, vol. 1611. Spie, 1992, pp. 586–606

    1992

  24. [32]

    Lidar slam based multivehicle cooperative localization using iterated split cif,

    S. Fang, H. Li, and M. Yang, “Lidar slam based multivehicle cooperative localization using iterated split cif,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 21 137–21 147, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Filterreg: Robust and efficient probabilistic point-set registration using gaussian filter and twist parameterization,

    W. Gao and R. Tedrake, “Filterreg: Robust and efficient probabilistic point-set registration using gaussian filter and twist parameterization,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 11 095–11 104

    2019

  26. [34]

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

    Q. Chen, S. Tang, Q. Yang, and S. Fu, “Cooper: Cooperative perception for connected autonomous vehicles based on 3d point clouds,” in2019 IEEE 39th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 514–524

    2019

  27. [35]

    Learning to communicate and correct pose errors,

    N. Vadivelu, M. Ren, J. Tu, J. Wang, and R. Urtasun, “Learning to communicate and correct pose errors,” inConference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2021, pp. 1195–1210

    2021

  28. [36]

    Leveraging dynamic objects for relative localization correction in a connected autonomous vehicle network,

    Y . Yuan and M. Sester, “Leveraging dynamic objects for relative localization correction in a connected autonomous vehicle network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09418, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Fusioneye: Perception sharing for connected vehicles and its bandwidth-accuracy trade-offs,

    H. Liu, P. Ren, S. Jain, M. Murad, M. Gruteser, and F. Bai, “Fusioneye: Perception sharing for connected vehicles and its bandwidth-accuracy trade-offs,” in2019 16th Annual IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communication, and Networking (SECON). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–9

    2019

  30. [38]

    A review of point cloud registration algorithms for mobile robotics,

    F. Pomerleau, F. Colas, R. Siegwartet al., “A review of point cloud registration algorithms for mobile robotics,”F oundations and Trends® in Robotics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–104, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    Generalized iterative most likely oriented- point (g-imlop) registration,

    S. Billings and R. Taylor, “Generalized iterative most likely oriented- point (g-imlop) registration,”International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, vol. 10, pp. 1213–1226, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.