Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 68 references

CMF-IoU: Multi-Stage Cross-Modal Fusion 3D Object Detection with IoU Joint Prediction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CMF-IoU claims that fusing camera and LiDAR at every pipeline stage, then ranking refined boxes by a joint IoU-classification score, beats prior single-stage fusion detectors on KITTI, nuScenes, and Waymo.

desk verdict The fusion backbone is a credible engineering contribution with broad empirical support, but the paper's second headline claim—IoU joint prediction—is underspecified and internally inconsistent, so the paper needs major revision before its SOTA claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.12917 v1 pith:BSLRRATK submitted 2025-08-18 cs.CV

Zhiwei Ning , Zhaojiang Liu , Xuanang Gao , Yifan Zuo , Jie Yang , Yuming Fang , Wei Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dobjectdetectionmulti-modalfusionLiDAR-cameradepthcompletionpseudopointsIoUjointpredictionnon-maximumsuppressionautonomousdriving
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 a camera-LiDAR 3D object detector called CMF-IoU and argues that fusion must happen at every stage of the detection pipeline, not just one. The authors convert camera pixels into 3D pseudo points with a depth completion network, encode raw LiDAR and pseudo points in a two-branch backbone, fuse voxel and point features during iterative proposal refinement, and finally rank boxes by a combined IoU and classification confidence. They report top results on the KITTI, nuScenes, and Waymo benchmarks and show the gains are largest for small, distant, and hard objects. A reader should care because the recipe addresses the known failure modes of camera-LiDAR fusion, namely depth bias in pseudo points, sparse distant LiDAR, and using classification scores that do not match the IoU-based evaluation metric.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a bilateral cross-view backbone with an IoU-classification balanced confidence. The S2D branch is an encoder-decoder that enlarges the receptive field over sparse raw LiDAR voxels, which is what carries the gains on objects beyond 40 meters. The ResVC branch applies residual submanifold 3D convolutions followed by sparse 2D convolutions in the image plane, re-aligning features whose depth values are corrupted near object boundaries. In the refinement stage, iterative voxel-point aware pooling aggregates raw and pseudo voxel features plus point features sampled by farthest point sampling, with cross-attention across iterations. The IoU joint prediction branch trains on uniformly distributed proposals generated from ground-truth boxes and produces a final score that is the combination of the IoU prediction and classification score, which is what changes the NMS ordering.

What would settle it

Measure the correlation between the IoU branch's predicted score and the true IoU on held-out RPN proposals per difficulty level on KITTI validation; if the correlation is weak on hard-level proposals, the reported gains of the IoU joint prediction branch would not transfer. A direct check is to replace the learned joint score with oracle NMS using ground-truth IoU: if oracle ranking does not beat the learned ranking, the branch is not actually learning IoU.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that multi-stage cross-modal fusion combined with IoU-joint NMS is a better recipe for LiDAR-camera 3D detection than the prevalent single-stage or partial-stage fusion designs. Concretely, CMF-IoU unifies the two modalities early by projecting image pixels into 3D via a depth completion network, encodes raw LiDAR points with a sparse-to-distant (S2D) branch and pseudo points with a residual view-consistency (ResVC) branch whose 3D-to-2D convolutions compensate for depth noise, and refines proposals with an iterative voxel-point aware pooling module. In the head, a new proposal generation procedure samples ground-truth boxes to create a uniform IoU distribution, training an IoU branch whose score is combined with the classification score for final NMS. On the KITTI test set the method reports 91.92/85.14/80.63 3D AP for easy/moderate/hard car, and on nuScenes test it reports 69.8 mAP and 72.6 NDS, with improvements concentrated on small classes such as pedestrians and traffic cones.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that an IoU predictor trained on boxes synthetically generated from ground-truth boxes with a uniform IoU distribution will generalize to the RPN's real proposals at inference; the paper itself flags the domain gap when all 160 RoIs are generated and hard-level AP declines.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fusion recipe is transferable: on nuScenes validation, replacing the backbones and heads of VoxelNeXt, CenterPoint, and SAFDNet with the CMF modules raises mAP by 1.3 to 5.5 points and NDS by 1.3 to 4.1 points.
  • Ranking proposals by the joint IoU-classification score changes which boxes survive NMS: after refinement, the surviving set has a higher proportion of high-IoU boxes than with classification-only NMS.
  • The S2D branch specifically targets distant objects: far-distance cyclist 3D AP improves by 7.97 points (moderate) and 7.49 points (hard), compared with about 1 point at nearby distances.
  • The ResVC branch makes the detector less sensitive to sensor noise: under 5 percent point noise, CMF-IoU's mAP drops 3.14 points versus 5.03 points for the compared VirConv method.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The GT-based uniform proposal generation is a plug-in training technique that could be lifted into any two-stage detector whose NMS still ranks purely by classification score; the paper demonstrates it only inside CMF-IoU.
  • The ResVC principle, that depth-completion noise concentrates at object boundaries and can be compensated by re-projecting into the 2D image plane, suggests that boundary-aware noise models would benefit other pseudo-point fusion pipelines.
  • Because the reported gains concentrate on small, distant, and hard instances, the practical payoff is likely largest for long-range highway perception where LiDAR returns per object are scarce and camera texture carries most of the evidence.
  • A natural stress test the paper does not run is ablating the three refinement iterations against one or two while holding the IoU branch fixed, to see whether the cross-attention refinement or the uniform proposal sampling is doing the heavy lifting.
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 CMF-IoU, a two-stage camera-LiDAR 3D object detector. Images are converted into pseudo point clouds with a depth completion network; a bilateral backbone with a sparse-to-distant (S2D) branch and a residual view consistency (ResVC) branch encodes raw LiDAR and pseudo points; an iterative voxel-point aware pooling module refines proposals; and an IoU prediction branch, trained with ground-truth-based proposals, is used together with classification scores for NMS ranking. The authors report state-of-the-art results on KITTI, nuScenes, and Waymo validation/test sets, with module-level ablations and robustness experiments against point noise and calibration errors. The central claim is that multi-stage fusion combined with IoU-classification balanced NMS outperforms single- or partial-stage fusion detectors.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the paper provides a useful empirical recipe for multi-modal 3D detection and demonstrates concrete gains from early, middle, and late stage fusion. The strengths are the breadth of the evaluation (three public benchmarks), the module-by-module ablation structure, the robustness experiments, and the public code release. However, the significance is currently undercut by unresolved internal inconsistencies in the ablation tables and by the absence of a defined rule for combining IoU and classification scores, which together prevent the reader from verifying the second claimed contribution and the exact source of the reported improvements.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III-C and §IV-D-9] The IoU-classification balanced metric is never specified. Section III-C states that the predicted IoU score "is then combined with the classification score to form the final confidence score," and Section IV-B says the balanced metric is used for NMS, but no equation, weighting, normalization, or algorithm is given anywhere in the paper. Table XVI compares only vanilla NMS, adaptive NMS threshold, and multi-hypothesis tracking; the proposed metric is not even included in its own post-processing comparison. Since a central part of the claimed SOTA is attributed to this branch, the missing definition leaves the second contribution unreproducible. Please provide the exact combination formula, the score normalization, the NMS pseudo-code, and an ablation row that varies the combination against the alternatives in Table XVI.
  2. [Tables VI, VII, VIII, and II] The same configuration appears with inconsistent numbers on the KITTI validation car benchmark. The VoxelRCNN baseline is 92.10/86.40/84.39 in Table VI, 92.38/85.29/82.86 in Tables II and VII, and 94.78/88.45/85.99 in Table VIII. The full CMF-IoU model is 96.01/88.97/88.31 in Tables VII and VIII but 95.52/89.01/87.21 in Table II. The IoU-branch-only ablation is 93.40/87.23/85.50 in Table VI versus 93.68/86.12/83.97 in Table VII, with moderate and hard AP differing by 1.11 and 1.53 points. These are not minor fluctuations, and because the paper's central claim is comparative, the discrepancies make it impossible to verify the claimed gains. Please rerun all ablations under one consistent protocol and report the actual evaluation settings, or clearly explain any legitimate differences (e.g., proposal generation count, iterations, or training schedule) in the text.
  3. [§IV-D-6 and Table XIII] The paper's own sensitivity analysis indicates that the default proposal count Nsp=100 lies on a peak: hard AP is 86.51 at Nsp=10, rises to 88.31 at Nsp=100, and falls back to 86.66 at Nsp=160, with the drop attributed to a "domain gap between the generated RoIs during the training and the predicted RoIs during the validation." This is an explicit admission that the uniform-proposal assumption behind the IoU branch is fragile, and it also shows that the reported final numbers depend on a hyperparameter tuned on the validation set. Please provide additional evidence that the benefit is stable out of the validation distribution, for example by reporting the Nsp sweep over multiple seeds with standard deviations or on a held-out split, and clarify which other hyperparameters were likewise selected on the validation set.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table V] The method is called "CMF-IOU" in Table V but "CMF-IoU" throughout the rest of the manuscript; please unify the notation.
  2. [§IV-A-1 and §IV-B] The text says the method is trained on all 7,481 KITTI images for testing, but the implementation details describe a 3,712/3,769 training/validation split and the validation results in Tables II and VI–VIII are presumably from that split; please clarify which protocol produced each table.
  3. [Table VII] The table header says "40% recall" but the KITTI protocol uses 40 recall positions (R40); please correct the wording.
  4. [Table XV] The sentence "the distinct between the CIoU and vanilla IoU is relatively minor" is ungrammatical; also state whether the differences between CIoU and IoU are within expected run-to-run noise, since Table XV does not report variances.
  5. [Fig. 6] The caption should define what "+generation" means and how it relates to the IoU joint prediction branch, since Fig. 6 appears to conflate the proposal generation strategy with the IoU prediction branch.
  6. [Table XVI] The post-processing comparison does not include the proposed IoU-classification balanced metric; please add it so that Section IV-D-9 directly evaluates the claimed contribution rather than only alternative NMS schemes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims rest on held-out benchmark evaluation and a supervised IoU branch, not on self-referential derivations.

full rationale

This is an empirical architecture paper rather than a derivation chain, so the standard circularity failure modes do not arise. The central claims are benchmark numbers on held-out KITTI, nuScenes, and Waymo test or validation sets (Tables I, II, III, IV), which are external evaluations against fixed ground-truth annotations. The IoU joint prediction branch is trained to predict the IoU between proposals and ground-truth boxes; that IoU is computed directly from the annotated boxes and the proposals, making it a supervised auxiliary task rather than a prediction of the final evaluation metric from the same quantity used to define that metric. The paper's own caveat in Section IV-D-6 that the generated-RoI training distribution differs from the RPN-RoI inference distribution is a stated limitation, not a circular step. The choice of Nsp=100 and the IoU threshold schedule is hyperparameter selection on the validation set, which is standard model selection rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction scheme. The undefined 'IoU-classification balanced metric' in Section III-C and the inconsistent ablation numbers between Table VI and Table VII are reproducibility and specification concerns, but they do not constitute circular reasoning because no claimed result is shown to reduce by construction to its own input. There is also no load-bearing self-citation chain: the cited baselines and components are external prior works, and the method is not justified by an author-imported uniqueness theorem. Overall, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or citations, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard deep-learning engineering assumptions rather than mathematical axioms. The main hand-chosen quantities are hyperparameters (T, w1, w2, k, Nsp, IoU schedule) and two undisclosed counts (n, s). The depth-completion and calibration assumptions are domain-specific and are partially stress-tested in Tables IX and X.

free parameters (9)
  • Refinement iterations T = 3
    Number of refinement iterations; chosen for trade-off between computation and efficiency, with no ablation shown for T.
  • Generated proposals per scene Nsp = 100
    Number of GT-generated proposals sampled per scene; selected from Table XIII as the best hard-level AP setting.
  • IoU threshold schedule = [0.5,1.0), [0.6,1.0), [0.7,1.0)
    Lower bounds for proposal generation in the three refinement iterations; selected from Table XIV as the best moderate/hard setting.
  • Loss weights w1, w2 = 0.5, 0.5
    Weights for voxel-aware and pool-aware losses; predefined without ablation.
  • Neighbor grid sizes k = 3, 5, 7
    Sizes of local neighborhoods in point-aware pooling; no ablation shown.
  • GT proposal noise distribution = not specified
    Section III-C adds random noise to GT boxes but never defines the noise type or scale, so the training proposal generation cannot be reproduced.
  • Generated proposals per GT Ng = not specified
    Section III-C defines Ng but does not give its value; only Nsp=100 is set per scene.
  • Number of ResNR/DOFE blocks n = not specified
    Depth of the bilateral backbone; value n is introduced in Section III-A but never given, so reproduction requires contacting authors.
  • Sampled points per proposal s = not specified
    FPS sample count in point-aware pooling; value not disclosed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Calibration matrix M = [R|T] between LiDAR and camera is known and fixed during inference.
    The ResVC branch projects 3D voxel coordinates into the 2D image plane via M (Section III-A, Eq. 2). Errors in M are tested in Table X, showing degradation, so accuracy of M is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption The depth completion networks (PENet and MVP) produce pseudo points whose depth errors are confined mostly to object boundaries and are compensable by 2D convolution.
    This is stated in Section I and III-A as motivation for the ResVC design; if depth errors were not boundary-concentrated, the 2D edge-consistency assumption would fail.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth annotations in KITTI, nuScenes, and Waymo are correct and consistent for training the IoU prediction branch.
    All losses and the GT-based proposal generation (Section III-C) rely on these labels.
  • domain assumption The baseline detectors (VoxelRCNN, PV-RCNN, VoxelNeXt, CenterPoint, SAFDNet) are representative and correctly reimplemented.
    Ablations in Tables V and VI measure gains over these baselines; one reproduced baseline is marked with '*', others are taken from original papers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CMF-IoU: Multi-Stage Cross-Modal Fusion 3D Object Detection with IoU Joint Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BSLRRATK

@misc{pith2026250812917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CMF-IoU: Multi-Stage Cross-Modal Fusion 3D Object Detection with IoU Joint Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BSLRRATK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.12917}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-modal methods based on camera and LiDAR sensors have garnered significant attention in the field of 3D detection. However, many prevalent works focus on single or partial stage fusion, leading to insufficient feature extraction and suboptimal performance. In this paper, we introduce a multi-stage cross-modal fusion 3D detection framework, termed CMF-IOU, to effectively address the challenge of aligning 3D spatial and 2D semantic information. Specifically, we first project the pixel information into 3D space via a depth completion network to get the pseudo points, which unifies the representation of the LiDAR and camera information. Then, a bilateral cross-view enhancement 3D backbone is designed to encode LiDAR points and pseudo points. The first sparse-to-distant (S2D) branch utilizes an encoder-decoder structure to reinforce the representation of sparse LiDAR points. The second residual view consistency (ResVC) branch is proposed to mitigate the influence of inaccurate pseudo points via both the 3D and 2D convolution processes. Subsequently, we introduce an iterative voxel-point aware fine grained pooling module, which captures the spatial information from LiDAR points and textural information from pseudo points in the proposal refinement stage. To achieve more precise refinement during iteration, an intersection over union (IoU) joint prediction branch integrated with a novel proposals generation technique is designed to preserve the bounding boxes with both high IoU and classification scores. Extensive experiments show the superior performance of our method on the KITTI, nuScenes and Waymo datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.12917 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our CMF-IOU framework. We estimate the pseudo points by a depth completion network and integrate them with the LiDAR points as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of the residual noise removal (ResNR) block. The block [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Architecture of the distant object features enhancement (DOFE) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of uniform proposals generation with IoU values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Improvement in APs across nearby, middle, and far distances. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Number of predicted proposals in different IoU intervals. “raw [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative visualization results on the KITTI dataset. The upper rows show 3D detection results in image viewpoint, and the bottom rows show 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    3d object detection for autonomous driving: A comprehensive survey,

    J. Mao, S. Shi, X. Wang, and H. Li, “3d object detection for autonomous driving: A comprehensive survey,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 131, no. 8, pp. 1909–1963, 2023

    1909

  2. [2]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 652–660

    2017

  3. [3]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,

    C. R. Qi, L. Yi, H. Su, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    Pointmamba: A simple state space model for point cloud analysis,

    D. Liang, X. Zhou, X. Wang, X. Zhu, W. Xu, Z. Zou, X. Ye, and X. Bai, “Pointmamba: A simple state space model for point cloud analysis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10739 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    V oxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection,

    Y . Zhou and O. Tuzel, “V oxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 4490–4499

    2018

  6. [6]

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

    S. Shi, C. Guo, L. Jiang, Z. Wang, J. Shi, X. Wang, and H. 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, 2020, pp. 10 529–10 538

    2020

  7. [7]

    Multi-view 3d object detection network for autonomous driving,

    X. Chen, H. Ma, J. Wan, B. Li, and T. Xia, “Multi-view 3d object detection network for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2017, pp. 1907–1915

    2017

  8. [8]

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

    Z. Li, W. Wang, H. Li, E. Xie, C. Sima, T. Lu, Y . Qiao, and J. Dai, “Bevformer: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotemporal transformers,” in European conference on computer vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 1–18

    2022

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

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

    Y . Wang, V . C. Guizilini, T. Zhang, Y . Wang, H. Zhao, and J. Solomon, “Detr3d: 3d object detection from multi-view images via 3d-to-2d queries,” in Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 180–191

    2022

  2. [10]

    Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view representation,

    Z. Liu, H. Tang, A. Amini, X. Yang, H. Mao, D. L. Rus, and S. Han, “Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view representation,” in 2023 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2774–2781

    2023

  3. [11]

    Bevfusion: A simple and robust lidar-camera fusion frame- work,

    T. Liang, H. Xie, K. Yu, Z. Xia, Z. Lin, Y . Wang, T. Tang, B. Wang, and Z. Tang, “Bevfusion: A simple and robust lidar-camera fusion frame- work,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 10 421–10 434, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Virtual sparse convolution for multimodal 3d object detection,

    H. Wu, C. Wen, S. Shi, X. Li, and C. Wang, “Virtual sparse convolution for multimodal 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 21 653–21 662. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHN...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Transfusion: Robust lidar-camera fusion for 3d object detection with transformers,

    X. Bai, Z. Hu, X. Zhu, Q. Huang, Y . Chen, H. Fu, and C.-L. Tai, “Transfusion: Robust lidar-camera fusion for 3d object detection with transformers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 1090–1099

    2022

  6. [14]

    Cross modal transformer: Towards fast and robust 3d object detection,

    J. Yan, Y . Liu, J. Sun, F. Jia, S. Li, T. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Cross modal transformer: Towards fast and robust 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 18 268–18 278

    2023

  7. [15]

    Pointpainting: Se- quential fusion for 3d object detection,

    S. V ora, A. H. Lang, B. Helou, and O. Beijbom, “Pointpainting: Se- quential fusion for 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 4604– 4612

    2020

  8. [16]

    Epnet: Enhancing point features with image semantics for 3d object detection,

    T. Huang, Z. Liu, X. Chen, and X. Bai, “Epnet: 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 . Springer, 2020, pp. 35–52

    2020

  9. [17]

    Multimodal virtual point 3d detection,

    T. Yin, X. Zhou, and P. Kr ¨ahenb¨uhl, “Multimodal virtual point 3d detection,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 16 494–16 507, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Sparse fuse dense: Towards high quality 3d detection with depth completion,

    X. Wu, L. Peng, H. Yang, L. Xie, C. Huang, C. Deng, H. Liu, and D. Cai, “Sparse fuse dense: Towards high quality 3d detection with depth completion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 5418–5427

    2022

  11. [19]

    V oxel r- cnn: Towards high performance voxel-based 3d object detection,

    J. Deng, S. Shi, P. Li, W. Zhou, Y . Zhang, and H. Li, “V oxel r- cnn: Towards high performance voxel-based 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 35, no. 2, 2021, pp. 1201–1209

    2021

  12. [20]

    Spatial information enhancement network for 3d object detection from point cloud,

    Z. Li, Y . Yao, Z. Quan, J. Xie, and W. Yang, “Spatial information enhancement network for 3d object detection from point cloud,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 128, p. 108684, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    3d iou-net: Iou guided 3d object detector for point clouds,

    J. Li, S. Luo, Z. Zhu, H. Dai, A. S. Krylov, Y . Ding, and L. Shao, “3d iou-net: Iou guided 3d object detector for point clouds,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04962, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Iou-uniform r-cnn: Breaking through the limitations of rpn,

    L. Zhu, Z. Xie, L. Liu, B. Tao, and W. Tao, “Iou-uniform r-cnn: Breaking through the limitations of rpn,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 112, p. 107816, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Local-to-global semantic learning for multi-view 3d object detection from point cloud,

    R. Qiao, H. Ji, Z. Zhu, and W. Zhang, “Local-to-global semantic learning for multi-view 3d object detection from point cloud,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Pointrcnn: 3d object proposal generation and detection from point cloud,

    S. Shi, X. Wang, and H. Li, “Pointrcnn: 3d object proposal generation and detection from point cloud,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 770– 779

    2019

  17. [25]

    Medoidsformer: A strong 3d object detection backbone by exploiting interaction with adjacent medoid tokens,

    X. Tian, M. Yang, Q. Yu, J. Yong, and D. Xu, “Medoidsformer: A strong 3d object detection backbone by exploiting interaction with adjacent medoid tokens,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 5844–5854, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

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

    S. Shi, Z. Wang, J. Shi, X. Wang, and H. Li, “From points to parts: 3d object detection from point cloud with part-aware and part-aggregation network,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 2647–2664, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Improving 3d object detection with channel-wise transformer,

    H. Sheng, S. Cai, Y . Liu, B. Deng, J. Huang, X.-S. Hua, and M.-J. Zhao, “Improving 3d object detection with channel-wise transformer,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 2743–2752

    2021

  20. [28]

    Long-short range adaptive transformer with dynamic sampling for 3d object detec- tion,

    C. Wang, J. Deng, J. He, T. Zhang, Z. Zhang, and Y . Zhang, “Long-short range adaptive transformer with dynamic sampling for 3d object detec- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 7616–7629, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    M3dssd: Monocular 3d single stage object detector,

    S. Luo, H. Dai, L. Shao, and Y . Ding, “M3dssd: Monocular 3d single stage object detector,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2021, pp. 6145–6154

    2021

  22. [30]

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

    Y . Huang, W. Zheng, Y . Zhang, J. Zhou, and J. Lu, “Tri-perspective view for vision-based 3d semantic occupancy prediction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2023, pp. 9223–9232

    2023

  23. [31]

    Esgn: Efficient stereo geometry network for fast 3d object detection,

    A. Gao, Y . Pang, J. Nie, Z. Shao, J. Cao, Y . Guo, and X. Li, “Esgn: Efficient stereo geometry network for fast 3d object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

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

    J. Huang, G. Huang, Z. Zhu, Y . Ye, and D. Du, “Bevdet: High- performance multi-camera 3d object detection in bird-eye-view,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11790, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

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

    J. Philion and S. Fidler, “Lift, splat, shoot: Encoding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly unprojecting to 3d,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XIV 16 . Springer, 2020, pp. 194–210

    2020

  26. [34]

    Sts: Surround-view temporal stereo for multi-view 3d detection,

    Z. Wang, C. Min, Z. Ge, Y . Li, Z. Li, H. Yang, and D. Huang, “Sts: Surround-view temporal stereo for multi-view 3d detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.10145, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Graphalign: Enhancing accurate feature alignment by graph matching for multi-modal 3d object detection,

    Z. Song, H. Wei, L. Bai, L. Yang, and C. Jia, “Graphalign: Enhancing accurate feature alignment by graph matching for multi-modal 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 3358–3369

    2023

  28. [36]

    Acquisition of localization confidence for accurate object detection,

    B. Jiang, R. Luo, J. Mao, T. Xiao, and Y . Jiang, “Acquisition of localization confidence for accurate object detection,” in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , 2018, pp. 784– 799

    2018

  29. [37]

    From voxel to point: Iou-guided 3d object detection for point cloud with voxel-to-point decoder,

    J. Li, H. Dai, L. Shao, and Y . Ding, “From voxel to point: Iou-guided 3d object detection for point cloud with voxel-to-point decoder,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2021, pp. 4622–4631

    2021

  30. [38]

    Casa: A cascade attention network for 3-d object detection from lidar point clouds,

    H. Wu, J. Deng, C. Wen, X. Li, C. Wang, and J. Li, “Casa: A cascade attention network for 3-d object detection from lidar point clouds,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–11, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Fast statistical outlier removal based method for large 3d point clouds of outdoor environments,

    H. Balta, J. Velagic, W. Bosschaerts, G. De Cubber, and B. Siciliano, “Fast statistical outlier removal based method for large 3d point clouds of outdoor environments,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 51, no. 22, pp. 348– 353, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

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

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

    2012

  33. [41]

    nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,

    H. Caesar, V . Bankiti, A. H. Lang, S. V ora, V . E. Liong, Q. Xu, A. Krishnan, Y . Pan, G. Baldan, and O. Beijbom, “nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 11 621–11 631

    2020

  34. [42]

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,

    P. Sun, H. Kretzschmar, X. Dotiwalla, A. Chouard, V . Patnaik, P. Tsui, J. Guo, Y . Zhou, Y . Chai, B. Caine et al. , “Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2...

    2020

  35. [43]

    Penet: Towards precise and efficient image guided depth completion,

    M. Hu, S. Wang, B. Li, S. Ning, L. Fan, and X. Gong, “Penet: Towards precise and efficient image guided depth completion,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 13 656–13 662

    2021

  36. [44]

    V oxelnext: Fully sparse voxelnet for 3d object detection and tracking,

    Y . Chen, J. Liu, X. Zhang, X. Qi, and J. Jia, “V oxelnext: Fully sparse voxelnet for 3d object detection and tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 21 674–21 683

    2023

  37. [45]

    SAFDNet: A simple and effective network for fully sparse 3d object detection,

    G. Zhang, J. Chen, G. Gao, J. Li, S. Liu, and X. Hu, “SAFDNet: A simple and effective network for fully sparse 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2024, pp. 14 477–14 486

    2024

  38. [46]

    Center-based 3d object detection and tracking,

    T. Yin, X. Zhou, and P. Krahenbuhl, “Center-based 3d object detection and tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 11 784–11 793

    2021

  39. [47]

    Dsgn: Deep stereo geometry network for 3d object detection,

    Y . Chen, S. Liu, X. Shen, and J. Jia, “Dsgn: Deep stereo geometry network for 3d object detection,” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Yolostereo3d: A step back to 2d for efficient stereo 3d detection,

    Y . Liu, L. Wang, and M. Liu, “Yolostereo3d: A step back to 2d for efficient stereo 3d detection,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2021, pp. 13 018–13 024

    2021

  41. [49]

    Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds,

    A. H. Lang, S. V ora, H. Caesar, L. Zhou, J. Yang, and O. Beijbom, “Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 12 697–12 705

    2019

  42. [50]

    V opifnet: V oxel-pixel fusion network for multi-class 3d object detection,

    C.-H. Wang, H.-W. Chen, Y . Chen, P.-Y . Hsiao, and L.-C. Fu, “V opifnet: V oxel-pixel fusion network for multi-class 3d object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Graphalign++: An accurate feature alignment by graph matching for multi-modal 3d object detection,

    Z. Song, C. Jia, L. Yang, H. Wei, and L. Liu, “Graphalign++: An accurate feature alignment by graph matching for multi-modal 3d object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 2619–2632, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Logonet: Towards accurate 3d object detection with local-to-global cross-modal fusion,

    X. Li, T. Ma, Y . Hou, B. Shi, Y . Yang, Y . Liu, X. Wu, Q. Chen, Y . Li, Y . Qiao et al. , “Logonet: Towards accurate 3d object detection with local-to-global cross-modal fusion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp....

    2023

  45. [53]

    Transformation- equivariant 3d object detection for autonomous driving,

    H. Wu, C. Wen, W. Li, X. Li, R. Yang, and C. Wang, “Transformation- equivariant 3d object detection for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 37, no. 3, 2023, pp. 2795–2802. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VI...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Boosting 3d object de- tection by simulating multimodality on point clouds,

    W. Zheng, M. Hong, L. Jiang, and C.-W. Fu, “Boosting 3d object de- tection by simulating multimodality on point clouds,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 13 638–13 647

    2022

  47. [55]

    Afdetv2: Rethinking the necessity of the second stage for object detection from point clouds,

    Y . Hu, Z. Ding, R. Ge, W. Shao, L. Huang, K. Li, and Q. Liu, “Afdetv2: Rethinking the necessity of the second stage for object detection from point clouds,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36, no. 1, 2022, pp. 969–979

    2022

  48. [56]

    Vista: Boosting 3d object detection via dual cross-view spatial attention,

    S. Deng, Z. Liang, L. Sun, and K. Jia, “Vista: Boosting 3d object detection via dual cross-view spatial attention,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 8448–8457

    2022

  49. [57]

    Autoalign: Pixel-instance feature aggregation for multi-modal 3d object detection,

    Z. Chen, Z. Li, S. Zhang, L. Fang, Q. Jiang, F. Zhao, B. Zhou, and H. Zhao, “Autoalign: Pixel-instance feature aggregation for multi-modal 3d object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.06493 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Focal sparse convolutional networks for 3d object detection,

    Y . Chen, Y . Li, X. Zhang, J. Sun, and J. Jia, “Focal sparse convolutional networks for 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 5428–5437

    2022

  51. [59]

    Focalformer3d: Focusing on hard instance for 3d object detection,

    Y . Chen, Z. Yu, Y . Chen, S. Lan, A. Anandkumar, J. Jia, and J. M. Alvarez, “Focalformer3d: Focusing on hard instance for 3d object detection,” 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Dsvt: Dynamic sparse voxel transformer with rotated sets,

    H. Wang, C. Shi, S. Shi, M. Lei, S. Wang, D. He, B. Schiele, and L. Wang, “Dsvt: Dynamic sparse voxel transformer with rotated sets,” in CVPR, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    HEDNet: A hierarchical encoder-decoder network for 3d object detection in point clouds,

    G. Zhang, J. Chen, G. Gao, J. Li, and X. Hu, “HEDNet: A hierarchical encoder-decoder network for 3d object detection in point clouds,” in Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Futr3d: A unified sensor fusion framework for 3d detection,

    X. Chen, T. Zhang, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, and H. Zhao, “Futr3d: A unified sensor fusion framework for 3d detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10642, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Generalized intersection over union: A metric and a loss for bounding box regression,

    H. Rezatofighi, N. Tsoi, J. Gwak, A. Sadeghian, I. Reid, and S. Savarese, “Generalized intersection over union: A metric and a loss for bounding box regression,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 658–666

    2019

  56. [64]

    Distance-iou loss: Faster and better learning for bounding box regression,

    Z. Zheng, P. Wang, W. Liu, J. Li, R. Ye, and D. Ren, “Distance-iou loss: Faster and better learning for bounding box regression,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 34, no. 07, 2020, pp. 12 993–13 000

    2020

  57. [65]

    Adaptive nms: Refining pedestrian detection in a crowd,

    S. Liu, D. Huang, and Y . Wang, “Adaptive nms: Refining pedestrian detection in a crowd,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 6459–6468

    2019

  58. [66]

    Multi-class object detection us- ing adaptive non-maximum suppression in dense images,

    Y . LEE, S. Makonin, and K. Noh, “Multi-class object detection us- ing adaptive non-maximum suppression in dense images,” Authorea Preprints, 2023

    2023

  59. [67]

    Multiple hypothesis tracking revisited,

    C. Kim, F. Li, A. Ciptadi, and J. M. Rehg, “Multiple hypothesis tracking revisited,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2015, pp. 4696–4704

    2015

  60. [68]

    Itera- tive multiple hypothesis tracking with tracklet-level association,

    H. Sheng, J. Chen, Y . Zhang, W. Ke, Z. Xiong, and J. Yu, “Itera- tive multiple hypothesis tracking with tracklet-level association,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 3660–3672, 2018. Zhiwei Ning received his B.S. degree in ...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.