Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

MamV2XCalib: V2X-based Target-less Infrastructure Camera Calibration with State Space Model

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MamV2XCalib claims that a roadside camera's rotational misalignment can be recovered targetlessly from vehicle-side LiDAR point clouds by temporally fused calibration-flow regression, reaching about 0.63° mean rotation error on V2X-Seq.

desk verdict A genuinely useful V2X calibration pipeline with real-data results, but the frame bookkeeping for a moving vehicle's LiDAR is under-specified and must be clarified before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23595 v1 pith:5BMDO2HM submitted 2025-07-31 cs.CV

Yaoye Zhu , Zhe Wang , Yan Wang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords roadsidecameracalibrationtargetlessV2XLiDAR-cameraMambastatespacemodel4Dcorrelationvolumeinfrastructure
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

The paper tries to establish that fixed roadside cameras can be calibrated automatically while ordinary traffic flows, with no calibration targets, no reference images, and no road closures: a LiDAR-equipped vehicle drives past the camera, and the camera's rotational deviation from its initial mounting is recovered by a network. The motivation is that roadside cameras drift under weather and vibration, and uncalibrated rotation degrades vehicle-to-infrastructure fusion. The proposed system, MamV2XCalib, projects each vehicle point cloud into the camera using the flawed initial extrinsics, builds a 4D correlation volume between the resulting depth map and the RGB image, refines a pixel-level 'calibration flow' iteratively, and uses a Mamba state-space model to fuse these flow fields over time. On V2X-Seq with initial deviations up to ±20°, it reports mean rotation error 0.6313° with standard deviation 0.3211°, which the paper describes as an order-of-magnitude reduction in standard deviation over the single-vehicle baseline LCCNet.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'calibration flow': a per-pixel correspondence field between the depth map formed by projecting the vehicle LiDAR point cloud with the inaccurate extrinsics and the roadside camera image. This flow is initialized at zero and refined by a RAFT-style iterative update: multi-scale 4D correlation volumes store all-pairs similarity between image and depth features, a GRU recurrently updates the flow using looked-up correlations and context features, and the sequence of flow fields from multiple frames and iterations is patched, position/temporally embedded, and passed through a bidirectional Mamba state-space model. A summarization token in the Mamba sequence is then regressed to the quaternion rotation error. The machinery's dual role is to make pixel-level matching robust under sparse, viewpoint-shifted point clouds and to let temporal fusion compensate for defective single frames.

What would settle it

If a LiDAR vehicle drives the same route past the same camera twice — once stationary and once at normal speed — and the network's predicted rotation differs by more than the reported error bars, or if calibration accuracy worsens monotonically with vehicle speed, then the missing ego-motion compensation is doing real work and the fixed-transform premise would fail. A simpler version: run inference on a sequence while the vehicle is parked with engine off; the method should still recover the same camera rotation if the premise holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a cooperative V2X setup can invert the usual direction of assistance: the vehicle's LiDAR perception of the whole environment acts as a free calibration reference for the infrastructure camera. Because the camera is hinge-mounted, the only unknown that matters is the rotational deviation Rerror from the initial extrinsic Tinit, so the projection problem reduces to regressing a quaternion from the discrepancy between a projected depth map and the observed image. The paper argues that the key to making this work in V2X scenarios is temporal aggregation: individual frames are too sparse and viewpoint-shifted, but the camera's error is constant while the vehicle moves, so multiple flow estimates over time can be selectively fused by Mamba to suppress occlusions and bad frames. The resulting claim is a calibration method that needs no targets, no manual intervention, and no pre-built scene representation.

Load-bearing premise

The method treats the LiDAR-to-camera transform as a fixed matrix even though the LiDAR is moving with the vehicle, and the paper does not describe transforming each point cloud into a common frame using vehicle pose; if vehicle motion is not compensated or learned implicitly, the projected depth maps encode motion as well as camera error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Roadside camera recalibration could become a routine byproduct of normal traffic, since any LiDAR-equipped vehicle driving near a camera provides the data.
  • Calibration campaigns would no longer require placing checkerboards, closing lanes, or preparing reference images for every camera.
  • Large initial misalignments up to about ±20° can be brought back into the range where existing roadside perception systems operate correctly.
  • The reported stability (standard deviation reduced by roughly an order of magnitude versus LCCNet) implies fewer catastrophic calibration failures in fleet deployment.
  • The same architecture can be adapted to single-vehicle LiDAR-camera calibration when translation noise is also modeled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper never explicitly compensates for the vehicle's ego-motion when treating the LiDAR-to-camera transform as fixed, the learned network may implicitly absorb a vehicle-motion prior; a useful stress test would be calibrating from a stationary LiDAR vehicle or comparing estimates across different vehicle speeds.
  • The fixed-deviation-over-time assumption means temporal fusion can average away bad frames, but it also makes the method sensitive to time synchronization; misaligned timestamps could blur the fusion and bias the rotation estimate.
  • A testable extension is corridor-wide calibration: if a single LiDAR vehicle drives through a road network, every roadside camera that sees it could in principle be recalibrated in one pass, provided each camera's data stream is associated with the same vehicle trajectory.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MamV2XCalib, a targetless V2X-based method for calibrating the rotation of a fixed roadside camera using vehicle-mounted LiDAR and roadside camera images. The method projects vehicle LiDAR point clouds into the camera view using an initially erroneous extrinsic transform, computes a pixel-level 'calibration flow' via multi-scale 4D correlation volumes and iterative GRU updates, and then uses a Mamba-based spatiotemporal fusion module to regress the camera rotation error from a sequence of such flow fields. The authors report mean rotation errors of 0.6313 degrees (std 0.3211) on V2X-Seq for initial deviations up to ±20 degrees, and 0.267 degrees on TUMTraf-V2X for ±5 degrees, outperforming LCCNet and a zero-training baseline. The paper claims to be the first targetless V2X-based roadside camera calibration method and provides code.

Significance. If the geometric consistency issue described below is resolved, the paper makes a practical contribution: it offers a deployable, targetless calibration approach that exploits existing vehicle infrastructure perception data, with code, real-world evaluations on two datasets, and thorough ablations showing the value of temporal fusion and iterative refinement. The Mamba-based temporal aggregation is a technically sensible design for handling sparse, time-varying depth maps in V2X settings. However, the central quantitative claims currently rest on an underspecified and potentially incorrect coordinate-frame bookkeeping, which must be fixed before the results can be considered meaningful.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (1)-(3)] The manuscript defines the source coordinate system A as the vehicle LiDAR coordinate system and states that TLC is the transformation from the current LiDAR coordinate system to the camera coordinate system. Since the LiDAR is on a moving vehicle while the camera is fixed, TLC is necessarily time-dependent: TLC(t) = T_cam_world * T_world_veh(t) * T_veh_lidar. The paper never specifies whether each point cloud is first transformed into a common world frame using the vehicle pose before projection with Tinit. The sentence in Sec. 3.1 that data is 'aligned to a unified coordinate system' is too vague to establish the bookkeeping. If a constant Tinit is applied directly to raw scans, the resulting depth maps are not valid projections of the static scene; the calibration flow would then confound vehicle ego-motion with camera rotation error, invalidating the reported mean errors and standard deviations. If pose compensation is in fact applied, Eqs. (1)-(3) and the surrounding text must be rewritten to make the per-frame transform explicit. This is the load-bearing geometric assumption of the entire method.
  2. [Sec. 3.5, Eq. (11)] The point-cloud loss Lp = (1/N) sum_i || T_LC^{-1} T_pred^{-1} T_init P_i - P_i ||^2 uses a single ground-truth LiDAR-camera extrinsic matrix T_LC for all points P_i. If the vehicle moves during data collection, this loss is only correct if every P_i has been transformed into a common world frame before the loss is computed. The paper does not state how P_i are obtained or accumulated, and the notation suggests that all points are in the same LiDAR frame at a single time instant. This is the same frame-bookkeeping issue as in Sec. 3.1, but it directly affects the training objective: if the loss is computed in the raw vehicle LiDAR frame, it does not measure what the paper claims. The authors must clarify the coordinate frame of P_i in Eq. (11) and provide the corresponding per-frame transforms.
  3. [Sec. 4.2 and Sec. 4.3] The network is trained by sampling random perturbations Delta_T from a given range and applying them to TLC to generate Tinit, and then evaluated on the same perturbation distribution. This is a standard supervised protocol for learning-based calibration, but the paper's robustness claims would be stronger if the authors reported performance on perturbation ranges not seen during training (e.g., train on ±10 degrees, test on ±20 degrees, or vice versa). Without such experiments, the reported standard deviations only demonstrate within-distribution stability, not generalization to larger or differently distributed initial errors. The distance filtering introduced in Sec. 4.3 also means that the reported numbers apply only to the filtered subset; reporting unfiltered results or a distance sweep would give a more complete picture.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.3] The text refers to 'Appendix 4.3' but the paper does not contain a numbered appendix; please fix the cross-reference.
  2. [Table 1] The rows for Calib-anything are entirely dashes; the caption says it 'fails,' but the table would be clearer if the failure were briefly described (e.g., 'diverges and produces unusable results') in the caption or a footnote.
  3. [Table 2] The row '3D feature matching [21]' uses dashes for the temporal, iteration, and correlation-volume columns, which is ambiguous; clarify that this row replaces the entire matching module with LCCNet's 3D matching layer.
  4. [Sec. 3.6, Eq. (13)] The notation T0, T1, ... Tn in Eq. (13) is not precisely defined; state whether these are the outputs of successive network passes, and how the chain is initialized and terminated.
  5. [Sec. 3.2] The image encoder uses a 'pre-trained ResNet-18'; please specify the pre-training dataset (e.g., ImageNet) and whether the depth encoder is trained from scratch, as this affects reproducibility.
  6. [Sec. 4.5] The argument for ignoring translation noise is supported by Fig. 5, but the corresponding experiment in the appendix is only mentioned in passing; include the quantitative result or a reference to the appendix section where it appears.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the network is trained and evaluated against independently defined synthetic rotation perturbations, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central pipeline is a supervised deep regression from multi-frame LiDAR depth maps and roadside images to a rotational mis-calibration. The target is defined externally: the dataset supplies ground-truth TLC, and the initial extrinsic is generated as Tinit = ΔT · TLC with ΔT sampled randomly (Sec. 4.1). The network regresses ΔT and is evaluated by comparing its estimate to that injected perturbation. This is a standard supervised calibration benchmark, not a case where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction or where the target is defined in terms of the network output. The point-cloud loss in Eq. 11 algebraically reduces to zero exactly when the predicted correction equals the injected ΔT, so the supervision signal and the metric measure the same intended quantity, but that is the definition of the task rather than a circular reduction. The method is also evaluated against external real-world datasets and baselines such as LCCNet, so the headline quantitative claim is not sustained by self-citation. There are genuine concerns about the paper, but they are correctness and generalization risks rather than circularity: the LiDAR-to-camera transform is treated as a fixed matrix even though the vehicle moves (Eqs. 1-3), and the evaluation distribution matches the training noise distribution, so robustness to out-of-distribution or temporally inconsistent geometry is not established. Neither concern makes the derivation equivalent to its inputs. No load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling citation was found; the cited Mamba, RAFT, and LCCNet results are independent external prior work. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or physical entities. Mamba and 4D correlation volumes are existing techniques. The free parameters are mostly standard hyperparameters plus a distance threshold that the authors tune to improve accuracy. The main unstated premise is the fixed LiDAR-to-camera transform for a moving vehicle.

free parameters (3)
  • Distance filtering threshold = 50 m (training), variable d (evaluation)
    Sec 4.2 and 4.3 restrict calibration to vehicles within a horizontal distance; Fig 6 shows error rises with distance, so the threshold materially affects reported accuracy.
  • Loss weights lambda_r, lambda_p = not reported
    Eq. 10 weights the rotation and point-cloud losses; values are not stated in the paper.
  • Iteration count for calibration flow = 10 at inference
    Sec 4.4 says 10 iterations are used; the ablation shows fewer iterations reduce performance.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Camera intrinsics K and the translational part of the initial extrinsic are known and stable
    Sec 3.1 assumes K_init and t_init are stable and only rotation R changes.
  • domain assumption Translational shifts of the roadside camera are negligible compared to rotational shifts
    Sec 4.5 argues cm-scale translation has negligible projection impact, justifying rotation-only estimation.
  • ad hoc to paper The vehicle LiDAR-to-camera transform can be treated as fixed for projection
    Sec 3.1 uses a single TLC without describing ego-motion compensation for the moving vehicle; this is a critical unstated premise.
  • domain assumption Vehicle LiDAR and roadside camera frames are time-synchronized
    Sec 4.6 states the method imposes higher requirements on time synchronization.
  • domain assumption Synthetic random perturbations to extrinsics represent real miscalibration
    Sec 4.1 generates data by adding random noise; the evaluation inherits this distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MamV2XCalib: V2X-based Target-less Infrastructure Camera Calibration with State Space Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5BMDO2HM

@misc{pith2026250723595,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MamV2XCalib: V2X-based Target-less Infrastructure Camera Calibration with State Space Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5BMDO2HM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23595}
}
read the original abstract

As cooperative systems that leverage roadside cameras to assist autonomous vehicle perception become increasingly widespread, large-scale precise calibration of infrastructure cameras has become a critical issue. Traditional manual calibration methods are often time-consuming, labor-intensive, and may require road closures. This paper proposes MamV2XCalib, the first V2X-based infrastructure camera calibration method with the assistance of vehicle-side LiDAR. MamV2XCalib only requires autonomous vehicles equipped with LiDAR to drive near the cameras to be calibrated in the infrastructure, without the need for specific reference objects or manual intervention. We also introduce a new targetless LiDAR-camera calibration method, which combines multi-scale features and a 4D correlation volume to estimate the correlation between vehicle-side point clouds and roadside images. We model the temporal information and estimate the rotation angles with Mamba, effectively addressing calibration failures in V2X scenarios caused by defects in the vehicle-side data (such as occlusions) and large differences in viewpoint. We evaluate MamV2XCalib on the V2X-Seq and TUMTraf-V2X real-world datasets, demonstrating the effectiveness and robustness of our V2X-based automatic calibration approach. Compared to previous LiDAR-camera methods designed for calibration on one car, our approach achieves better and more stable calibration performance in V2X scenarios with fewer parameters. The code is available at https://github.com/zhuyaoye/MamV2XCalib.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23595 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of roadside camera calibration methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall framework of MamV2XCalib. Initially, the point clouds are projected into the camera view using inaccurate initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative reprojection results. First row: On V2X-Seq dataset, within the initial large deflection range of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ground Truth (Left). Calib-Anything [20] (Middle) fails to calibrate within (-20°, +20°), while ours (Right) succeeds. Deviation Method Mean (◦ ) Std (◦ ) (−5 ◦ , +5◦ ) LCCNet [21] 0.389 0.608 (−5 ◦ , +5◦ ) Ours 0.267 0.280 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The impact of extrinsic noise. Ground Truth (Left). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Calibration result on V2X-Seq dataset [37] after filtering vehicle point cloud data with a horizontal distance between the vehicle and roadside camera of distance < d. flexibility, and large-scale deployment, it also introduces vehicle-to-infrastructure information int…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vivit: A video vision transformer

    Anurag Arnab, Mostafa Dehghani, Georg Heigold, Chen Sun, Mario Lu ˇci´c, and Cordelia Schmid. Vivit: A video vision transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 6836–6846,

    work page

  2. [2]

    Calibration of non-overlapping cameras using an external slam system

    Esra Ataer-Cansizoglu, Yuichi Taguchi, Srikumar Rama- lingam, and Yohei Miki. Calibration of non-overlapping cameras using an external slam system. In2014 2nd Interna- tional Conference on 3D Vision, pages 509–516. IEEE, 2014. 2

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding? In ICML, page 4, 2021

    Gedas Bertasius, Heng Wang, and Lorenzo Torresani. Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding? In ICML, page 4, 2021. 7

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Automatic single-view calibration and rectification from parallel pla- nar curves

    Eduardo R Corral-Soto and James H Elder. Automatic single-view calibration and rectification from parallel pla- nar curves. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th Eu- ropean Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part IV 13 , pages 813–827. Springer,

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

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

    Jiaxun Cui, Hang Qiu, Dian Chen, Peter Stone, and Yuke Zhu. Coopernaut: End-to-end driving with cooperative perception for networked vehicles. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17252–17262, 2022. 1

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Automated camera calibration via homography estimation with gnns

    Giacomo D’Amicantonio, Egor Bondarev, et al. Automated camera calibration via homography estimation with gnns. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Appli- cations of Computer Vision, pages 5876–5883, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Fully automatic roadside camera calibration for traf- fic surveillance

    Mark ´eta Dubsk´a, Adam Herout, Roman Jur ´anek, and Jakub Sochor. Fully automatic roadside camera calibration for traf- fic surveillance. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, 16(3):1162–1171, 2014. 2

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces

    Albert Gu and Tri Dao. Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752, 2023. 3, 7

    arXiv 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces

    Albert Gu, Karan Goel, and Christopher R ´e. Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00396, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Rd-yolo: An effective and efficient object detector for roadside perception system.Sen- sors, 22(21):8097, 2022

    Lei Huang and Wenzhun Huang. Rd-yolo: An effective and efficient object detector for roadside perception system.Sen- sors, 22(21):8097, 2022. 1

    2022

  3. [11]

    Calibnet: Geometrically supervised extrinsic calibration using 3d spatial transformer networks

    Ganesh Iyer, R Karnik Ram, J Krishna Murthy, and K Mad- hava Krishna. Calibnet: Geometrically supervised extrinsic calibration using 3d spatial transformer networks. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 1110–1117. IEEE, 2018. 3

    2018

  4. [12]

    Traffic camera cali- bration via vehicle vanishing point detection

    Viktor Kocur and Milan Ft ´aˇcnik. Traffic camera cali- bration via vehicle vanishing point detection. In Artifi- cial Neural Networks and Machine Learning–ICANN 2021: 30th International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, Bratislava, Slovakia, September 14–17, 2021, Pro...

    2021

  5. [13]

    General, single-shot, target-less, and automatic lidar- camera extrinsic calibration toolbox

    Kenji Koide, Shuji Oishi, Masashi Yokozuka, and Atsuhiko Banno. General, single-shot, target-less, and automatic lidar- camera extrinsic calibration toolbox. In 2023 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 11301–11307. IEEE, 2023. 7

    2023

  6. [14]

    Lccraft: Lidar and cam- era calibration using recurrent all-pairs field transforms with- out precise initial guess

    Yu-Chen Lee and Kuan-Wen Chen. Lccraft: Lidar and cam- era calibration using recurrent all-pairs field transforms with- out precise initial guess. In 2024 IEEE International Con- ference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 16669– 16675. IEEE, 2024. 3

    2024

  7. [15]

    Videomamba: State space model for efficient video understanding

    Kunchang Li, Xinhao Li, Yi Wang, Yinan He, Yali Wang, Limin Wang, and Yu Qiao. Videomamba: State space model for efficient video understanding. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 237–255. Springer, 2025. 3, 5

    2025

  8. [16]

    Automatic targetless lidar– camera calibration: a survey

    Xingchen Li, Yuxuan Xiao, Beibei Wang, Haojie Ren, Yany- ong Zhang, and Jianmin Ji. Automatic targetless lidar– camera calibration: a survey. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(9):9949–9987, 2023. 3

    2023

  9. [17]

    Deep learning for camera calibration and beyond: A survey

    Kang Liao, Lang Nie, Shujuan Huang, Chunyu Lin, Jing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Moncef Gabbouj, and Dacheng Tao. Deep learning for camera calibration and beyond: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10559, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Feature pyra- mid networks for object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Piotr Doll ´ar, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Hariharan, and Serge Belongie. Feature pyra- mid networks for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 2117–2125, 2017. 2

    2017

  11. [19]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021. 3

    2021

  12. [20]

    Calib- anything: Zero-training lidar-camera extrinsic calibra- tion method using segment anything

    Zhaotong Luo, Guohang Yan, and Yikang Li. Calib- anything: Zero-training lidar-camera extrinsic calibra- tion method using segment anything. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02656, 2023. 6, 7

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Lccnet: Lidar and camera self-calibration using cost volume network

    Xudong Lv, Boya Wang, Ziwen Dou, Dong Ye, and Shuo Wang. Lccnet: Lidar and camera self-calibration using cost volume network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2894–2901, 2021. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2021

  14. [22]

    Long range language modeling via gated state spaces

    Harsh Mehta, Ankit Gupta, Ashok Cutkosky, and Behnam Neyshabur. Long range language modeling via gated state spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.13947, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    End-to-end lidar-camera self-calibration for autonomous vehicles

    Arya Rachman, J ¨urgen Seiler, and Andr´e Kaup. End-to-end lidar-camera self-calibration for autonomous vehicles. In 2023 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) , pages 1–6. IEEE, 2023. 3

    2023

  16. [24]

    An introduction to dis- tributed smart cameras

    Bernhard Rinner and Wayne Wolf. An introduction to dis- tributed smart cameras. Proceedings of the IEEE , 96(10): 1565–1575, 2008. 1

    2008

  17. [25]

    Regnet: Multimodal sensor registration using deep neural networks

    Nick Schneider, Florian Piewak, Christoph Stiller, and Uwe Franke. Regnet: Multimodal sensor registration using deep neural networks. In 2017 IEEE intelligent vehicles sympo- sium (IV), pages 1803–1810. IEEE, 2017. 3

    2017

  18. [26]

    Targetless rotational auto-calibration of radar and camera for intelligent transportation systems

    Christoph Sch ¨oller, Maximilian Schnettler, Annkathrin Kr¨ammer, Gereon Hinz, Maida Bakovic, M ¨uge G ¨uzet, and Alois Knoll. Targetless rotational auto-calibration of radar and camera for intelligent transportation systems. In 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Con...

    2019

  19. [27]

    Simplified state space layers for sequence modeling

    Jimmy TH Smith, Andrew Warrington, and Scott W Linder- man. Simplified state space layers for sequence modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.04933, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Traffic surveillance camera calibration by 3d model bounding box alignment for accurate vehicle speed measurement

    Jakub Sochor, Roman Jur ´anek, and Adam Herout. Traffic surveillance camera calibration by 3d model bounding box alignment for accurate vehicle speed measurement. Com- puter Vision and Image Understanding, 161:87–98, 2017. 2

    2017

  21. [29]

    Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23– 28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16, pages 402–419. Springer,

    2020

  22. [30]

    Automated static camera calibration with intelligent vehicles

    Alexander Tsaregorodtsev, Adrian Holzbock, Jan Strohbeck, Michael Buchholz, and Vasileios Belagiannis. Automated static camera calibration with intelligent vehicles. In 2023 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pages 1–7. IEEE,

    2023

  23. [31]

    Toward planet-wide traffic camera cali- bration

    Khiem Vuong, Robert Tamburo, and Srinivasa G Narasimhan. Toward planet-wide traffic camera cali- bration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 8553–8562,

  24. [32]

    Research on lane-marking line based camera calibration

    Kunfeng Wang, Hua Huang, Yuantao Li, and Fei-Yue Wang. Research on lane-marking line based camera calibration. In 2007 IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electron- ics and Safety, pages 1–6. IEEE, 2007. 1

    2007

  25. [33]

    Sea-raft: Simple, efficient, accurate raft for optical flow

    Yihan Wang, Lahav Lipson, and Jia Deng. Sea-raft: Simple, efficient, accurate raft for optical flow. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision, pages 36–54. Springer, 2025. 2

    2025

  26. [34]

    Calibformer: A transformer- based automatic lidar-camera calibration network

    Yuxuan Xiao, Yao Li, Chengzhen Meng, Xingchen Li, Jian- min Ji, and Yanyong Zhang. Calibformer: A transformer- based automatic lidar-camera calibration network. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 16714–16720. IEEE, 2024. 3

    2024

  27. [35]

    Bevheight: A robust framework for vision-based roadside 3d object detection

    Lei Yang, Kaicheng Yu, Tao Tang, Jun Li, Kun Yuan, Li Wang, Xinyu Zhang, and Peng Chen. Bevheight: A robust framework for vision-based roadside 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 21611–21620, 2023. 2, 7

    2023

  28. [36]

    Robust extrinsic calibra- tion for lidar-camera systems via depth and height comple- mentary supervision network

    Chen Yaqing and Wang Huaming. Robust extrinsic calibra- tion for lidar-camera systems via depth and height comple- mentary supervision network. IEEE Access, 2025. 2

    2025

  29. [37]

    V2x-seq: A large-scale sequential dataset for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception and forecast- ing

    Haibao Yu, Wenxian Yang, Hongzhi Ruan, Zhenwei Yang, Yingjuan Tang, Xu Gao, Xin Hao, Yifeng Shi, Yifeng Pan, Ning Sun, et al. V2x-seq: A large-scale sequential dataset for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception and forecast- ing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conferenc...

  30. [38]

    Coopera- tive visual-lidar extrinsic calibration technology for inter- section vehicle-infrastructure: A review

    Xinyu Zhang, Yijin Xiong, Qianxin Qu, Renjie Wang, Xin Gao, Jing Liu, Shichun Guo, and Jun Li. Coopera- tive visual-lidar extrinsic calibration technology for inter- section vehicle-infrastructure: A review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10132, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A flexible new technique for camera cali- bration

    Zhengyou Zhang. A flexible new technique for camera cali- bration. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 22(11):1330–1334, 2000. 1, 2

    2000

  32. [40]

    Graph matching-based spatiotemporal calibra- tion of roadside sensors in cooperative vehicle-infrastructure systems

    Cong Zhao, Delong Ding, Yupeng Shi, Yuxiong Ji, and Yuchuan Du. Graph matching-based spatiotemporal calibra- tion of roadside sensors in cooperative vehicle-infrastructure systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2024. 2

    2024

  33. [41]

    Calibdepth: Uni- fying depth map representation for iterative lidar-camera on- line calibration

    Jiangtong Zhu, Jianru Xue, and Pu Zhang. Calibdepth: Uni- fying depth map representation for iterative lidar-camera on- line calibration. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 726–733. IEEE,

    2023

  34. [42]

    Vision mamba: Efficient visual representation learning with bidirectional state space model

    Lianghui Zhu, Bencheng Liao, Qian Zhang, Xinlong Wang, Wenyu Liu, and Xinggang Wang. Vision mamba: Efficient visual representation learning with bidirectional state space model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09417, 2024. 3, 5

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Tum- traf v2x cooperative perception dataset

    Walter Zimmer, Gerhard Arya Wardana, Suren Sritharan, Xingcheng Zhou, Rui Song, and Alois C Knoll. Tum- traf v2x cooperative perception dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22668–22677, 2024. 2, 5, 6, 7

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.