Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 80 references

RAF: Reliability-Aware Fusion of Camera, LiDAR, and 4D RADAR for Robust 3D Object Detection in Adverse Weather

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Explicitly supervised per-pixel reliability maps let cameras help LiDAR–4D RADAR detectors in snow and rain instead of hurting them.

desk verdict Solid modular camera-fusion fix for adverse-weather 3D detection; the weak-supervision + CALM combo is the real novelty and the gains look real on two backbones. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.04587 v1 pith:MHC3JGA3 submitted 2026-07-06 cs.CV

Heejun Park , Jaeseok Jeong , Kuk-Jin Yoon This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords Reliability-AwareFusion3Dobjectdetectionadverseweathermulti-sensor4DRADARcamerareliabilitymapBEVCALM
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

Under rain, snow, and fog, LiDAR and 4D RADAR returns become extremely sparse, so detectors need the dense visual cues that cameras still supply. Cameras, however, are themselves degraded by lens occlusion, and simply fusing them can inject noise that cancels any gain. Prior fusion methods learn soft confidence maps only through the final detection loss, which is too indirect. This paper shows that a weakly supervised reliability map, trained from coarse image-level cleanliness labels via cross-modal feature similarity, can identify and gate out the corrupted pixels while keeping the useful ones. The result is a modular camera branch that can be dropped onto frozen LiDAR–RADAR backbones and consistently raises detection accuracy on adverse-weather benchmarks.

What carries the argument

Reliability-Aware Fusion (RAF): a weakly supervised per-pixel reliability map that gates camera features before BEV fusion, trained via sparse pseudo-labels produced by Calibration-Aware Local Matching (CALM) between frozen LiDAR–RADAR voxels and image features.

What would settle it

Re-run the same L4DR and 3D-LRF experiments after replacing the hand-assigned Clean/Mixed/Noisy labels with random or inverted labels; if the AP gains disappear or reverse, the supervision signal is not doing the claimed work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When a per-pixel camera reliability map is given a direct training signal derived from image-level cleanliness labels and cross-modal similarity (with local matching to tolerate calibration error), camera features improve rather than degrade 3D detection under adverse weather, yielding consistent gains of several AP points over strong LiDAR–4D RADAR baselines.

Load-bearing premise

Coarse sequence-level labels that simply mark an image Clean, Mixed, or Noisy are accurate enough, after cross-modal similarity matching, to produce correct pixel-level reliability targets.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Reliability-Aware Fusion (RAF), a modular camera branch for pretrained LiDAR–4D RADAR 3D detectors that predicts a per-pixel reliability map to gate weather-corrupted image features. Because no pixel-level reliability ground truth exists, the authors assign sequence-level Clean/Mixed/Noisy cleanliness labels, train cross-modal projectors so that cosine similarity between projected frozen LiDAR–RADAR voxel features and camera features yields sparse pseudo-labels, and supervise a lightweight CNN reliability estimator with those labels (Sec. 3.2–3.4). Calibration-Aware Local Matching (CALM) selects the max-similarity match inside a local window to tolerate projection misalignment. Only the camera stream, projectors, reliability estimator, BEV fusion encoder, and detection head are trained. On K-Radar, RAF improves two independent LiDAR–RADAR baselines (3D-LRF, L4DR) by up to +6.5 AP_BEV / +7.4 AP_3D, with ablations isolating weak supervision and CALM and visibility splits showing gains under Clean/Mixed and near-baseline under fully Noisy images.

Significance. If the reported gains hold, RAF is a practical and transferable contribution for adverse-weather 3D detection: it converts an otherwise noisy camera stream into a reliability-gated complement of weather-robust LiDAR–RADAR fusion, and the frozen-backbone design makes it easy to attach to existing detectors. Explicit supervision of the reliability map is a clear advance over confidence maps trained only through detection loss; Table 3 shows that unsupervised gating can hurt performance. CALM is parameter-free and ablated. Code is released. The work is therefore of clear interest to multi-sensor perception under rain, snow, and fog, even though the labeling scheme is dataset-specific weak supervision rather than a fully automatic reliability oracle.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. 3.2–3.4 and Sec. 4.1: The central supervision signal rests on hand-assigned sequence-level Clean/Mixed/Noisy labels that generate sparse pseudo-labels via cosine similarity after CALM. The manuscript does not describe the labeling protocol (who labeled, decision criteria for Mixed vs Noisy, inter-annotator agreement) nor any quantitative check that the resulting pseudo-labels align with actual weather occlusion at the pixel level beyond the qualitative maps in Fig. 4. Because this is the paper’s weakest assumption and the only direct learning signal for R, a short protocol description plus at least one validation (e.g., agreement on a held-out subset, or correlation of R with simple image-quality proxies on Mixed frames) is needed to make the claim fully reproducible and to bound how much the gains depend on label quality.
  2. Tables 1–3 and 2: All AP numbers appear to be single-run results with no multi-seed means, standard deviations, or error bars, including on small weather subsets (Sleet, Heavysnow, Noisy). The headline gains (+6.5 AP_BEV / +7.4 AP_3D) and the claim that RAF is “consistently” better than Frozen/Joint would be more convincing with at least 3 seeds or bootstrap intervals on the Total and visibility-split metrics, especially where absolute differences are a few points. This is a load-bearing reporting gap for a journal claim of consistent improvement, not a request for new methods.
minor comments (6)
  1. Abstract and Sec. 4.1 claim evaluation on both K-Radar and VoD, but the main paper reports only K-Radar; VoD is deferred to the supplement. Either move a compact VoD table into the main text or qualify the abstract so the main claims match the main results.
  2. Table 1: Several competing methods are marked † (reimplemented) or ‡ (reproduced with different numbers). Briefly state key reimplementation choices (e.g., discarding 4D RADAR elevation for CRN/RobuRCDet/SAMFusion, LiDAR encoder added to C+R methods) so readers can judge fairness without the supplement.
  3. Eq. (6) and Tab. 4: α is described as retention strength; default α=0.2 is fine, but a one-sentence intuition for why soft retention slightly beats hard gating (α=0) on AP_BEV would help readers who only skim the ablations.
  4. Fig. 1(a) caption notes RADAR points are hard to visualize and deferred to the supplement; a small multi-panel inset with both LiDAR and RADAR sparsity under the same weather would strengthen the motivation in the main text.
  5. Notation: F_vox / F_cam vs E_vox / E_cam and the mixed use of “voxel feature” vs “LiDAR–RADAR fused voxel feature” in Fig. 2/3 could be unified in one place (e.g., a short symbol table) to ease reading of Sec. 3.2–3.3.
  6. Related Work Sec. 2.3 correctly contrasts RAF with RobuRCDet’s unsupervised confidence map; a brief note that scalar modality weighting [7,9,22] is coarser than per-pixel R would further clarify the granularity claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No definitional or fitted circularity; only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation to the authors' prior 3D-LRF detector as one of two frozen baselines.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 4.3 / Tab. 1 and citation [5]]
    "3D-LRF‡ (Baseline) [5] L+R ... 3D-LRF (RAF) C+L+R ... L4DR (Baseline) [21] ... L4DR (RAF)"

    One of the two primary LiDAR–RADAR baselines (3D-LRF) is prior work co-authored by the senior author. This is ordinary self-citation of a baseline rather than a load-bearing uniqueness or derivation step; identical modular gains are shown on the fully independent L4DR backbone, so the reported AP improvements do not reduce to the self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical detection improvement (+AP) obtained by adding a weakly-supervised camera reliability branch on top of frozen LiDAR–RADAR backbones. Image-level Clean/Mixed/Noisy labels (Sec. 4.1) supervise cross-modal cosine similarity (Eqs. 2–3) that yields sparse pseudo-labels for the reliability map (Eq. 5); the map then gates camera features (Eq. 6) before BEV fusion and detection loss. None of these steps is definitional: the pseudo-labels are not the final metric, the reliability estimator is trained separately from L_det, and AP is measured on held-out sequences under the official K-Radar protocol. Ablations (Tab. 3) explicitly show that unsupervised gating harms performance, confirming the supervision is not vacuous. The only self-reference is the use of 3D-LRF (co-authored by Yoon) as one frozen backbone; gains of comparable magnitude are also reported on the independent L4DR baseline, so the self-citation is not load-bearing for the claim. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggled via citation, or fitted parameter renamed as prediction appears. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of free hyperparameters chosen by ablation, standard multi-modal fusion assumptions, and one invented module (the reliability map) whose only evidence is the detection improvement itself. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • reliability retention strength α = 0.2
    Controls how aggressively unreliable pixels are suppressed (Eq. 6); default 0.2 chosen by ablation on K-Radar (Tab. 4).
  • CALM window size w = 5
    Local search radius for calibration-tolerant matching (Eq. 4); default 5 chosen by ablation (Tab. 5).
  • loss weights β, γ = 0.25
    Balance detection, similarity and reliability losses (Eq. 7); default 0.25 each chosen by ablation (Tab. 7).
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Cosine similarity between projected LiDAR–RADAR voxel features and camera features is a valid proxy for pixel-level visual reliability under weather occlusion.
    Core of the weak-supervision pipeline (Sec. 3.2–3.3); not independently validated outside the detection task.
  • domain assumption Image-level Clean/Mixed/Noisy labels assigned by visual inspection of sequences correctly capture the degree of camera occlusion.
    Defined in Sec. 4.1 and used to supervise the projectors; no inter-annotator agreement or automatic verification is reported.
  • domain assumption Freezing a pretrained LiDAR–RADAR backbone and training only the camera stream, fusion encoder and head is sufficient to obtain reliable multi-modal gains.
    Design choice stated in Sec. 3.1 and validated by the Frozen vs Joint comparison.
  • standard math Standard BEV fusion and Lift-Splat-Shoot view transformation preserve the geometric correspondence needed for the reliability gate.
    Inherited from prior multi-modal detectors (LSS, BEVFusion-style fusion).
invented entities (2)
  • per-pixel reliability map R supervised by cross-modal similarity pseudo-labels
    purpose: Gate camera features so that weather-corrupted regions are suppressed before BEV fusion.
    The map is the central new object; its only external evidence is the observed AP improvement and qualitative visualizations.
  • Calibration-Aware Local Matching (CALM)
    purpose: Absorb small extrinsic calibration errors when projecting voxels onto the image plane.
    Parameter-free max-similarity search inside a w×w window; introduced specifically for this pipeline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RAF: Reliability-Aware Fusion of Camera, LiDAR, and 4D RADAR for Robust 3D Object Detection in Adverse Weather." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MHC3JGA3

@misc{pith2026260704587,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RAF: Reliability-Aware Fusion of Camera, LiDAR, and 4D RADAR for Robust 3D Object Detection in Adverse Weather},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MHC3JGA3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.04587}
}
abstract

Robust 3D object detection in adverse weather conditions is challenging due to sensor limitations. Although combining complementary modalities such as LiDAR and 4D RADAR has shown promise, the sparsity of these sensors becomes apparent in adverse weather with reduced reflections, leading to objects with few or no point cloud returns. To address this limitation, camera sensors provide visual cues even when LiDAR and RADAR signals are weakened. However, cameras themselves are also vulnerable to adverse weather, where some regions become unreliable due to snow or rain occluding the camera lens. While some camera-fusion methods designed for adverse weather learn to weigh image regions via confidence maps, these maps receive no direct supervision and are learned solely through the detection loss. We introduce Reliability-Aware Fusion (RAF), which explicitly supervises per-pixel reliability estimation and provides a direct learning signal for identifying and suppressing unreliable visual cues. Our framework leverages pretrained LiDAR-RADAR networks, keeping their backbones frozen while only training the added camera branch, BEV fusion encoder, and detection head. Extensive experiments on the K-Radar and VoD datasets demonstrate that integrating RAF consistently improves detection accuracy over LiDAR-RADAR baselines, achieving up to +6.5 $AP_{BEV}$ and +7.4 $AP_{3D}$ gains. Code is available at https://github.com/parkie0517/RAF.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04587 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) LiDAR and RADAR points become highly sparse in adverse weather. Only LiDAR returns are projected, since RADAR points are difficult to visualize and are instead shown in the supplementary material. (b) Weather-induced noise appears in spatially uneven patterns across camera images. Our Reliability-Aware Fusion (RAF) estimates per-pixel reliability and effectively identifies unreliable image regions (red). Single-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline of our method. Voxel features are extracted from a pretrained LiDAR–RADAR backbone, and camera features are modulated based on predicted reliability. 3 Proposed Method 3.1 Overview As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the training pipeline for reliability estimation. The top part (Sec. 3.2) computes cross-modal similarity between voxel and camera features. The middle part (Sec. 3.3) applies CALM to select the best match within a local window. The bottom part (Sec. 3.4) constructs sparse pseudo labels from the similarity scores and supervises the reliability estimator. The Cam Projector is introduced in Sec. 3.2 and re… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results under varying camera visibility. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems20(10), 3782–3795 (2019)

    Arnold, E., Al-Jarrah, O.Y., Dianati, M., Fallah, S., Oxtoby, D., Mouzakitis, A.: A survey on 3d object detection methods for autonomous driving applications. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems20(10), 3782–3795 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

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

    2022

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Bijelic, M., Gruber, T., Mannan, F., Kraus, F., Ritter, W., Dietmayer, K., Heide, F.: Seeing through fog without seeing fog: Deep multimodal sensor fusion in un- seen adverse weather. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 11682–11692 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Caesar, H., Bankiti, V., Lang, A.H., Vora, S., Liong, V.E., Xu, Q., Krishnan, A., Pan, Y., Baldan, G., Beijbom, O.: nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 11621–11631 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    In: CVPR

    Chae, Y., Kim, H., Yoon, K.J.: Towards robust 3d object detection with lidar and 4d radar fusion in various weather conditions. In: CVPR. pp. 15162–15172 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision

    Chae, Y., Park, H., Kim, H., Yoon, K.J.: Doppler-aware lidar-radar fusion for weather-robust 3d detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision. pp. 27197–27208 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion Conference

    Chen,L.,Wang,J.,Mortlock,T.,Khargonekar,P.,AlFaruque,M.A.:Hyperdimen- sional uncertainty quantification for multimodal uncertainty fusion in autonomous vehicles perception. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion Conference. pp. 22306–22316 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Chen, Y., Liu, J., Zhang, X., Qi, X., Jia, J.: Voxelnext: Fully sparse voxelnet for 3d object detection and tracking. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 21674–21683 (2023)

    2023

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2025)

    Cho, M., Cao, Y., Sun, J., Zhang, Q., Pavone, M., Park, J.J., Yang, H., Mao, Z.M.: Cocoon: Robust multi-modal perception with uncertainty-aware sensor fusion. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Chu, X., Deng, J., You, G., Duan, Y., Li, H., Zhang, Y.: Racformer: Towards high- quality 3d object detection via query-based radar-camera fusion. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 17081–17091 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Dong, Y., Kang, C., Zhang, J., Zhu, Z., Wang, Y., Yang, X., Su, H., Wei, X., Zhu, J.: Benchmarking robustness of 3d object detection to common corruptions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 1022–1032 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020) 16 H

    Dosovitskiy, A.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recogni- tion at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020) 16 H. Park et al

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Sensors20(15), 4220 (2020)

    Fayyad,J.,Jaradat,M.A.,Gruyer,D.,Najjaran,H.:Deeplearningsensorfusionfor autonomous vehicle perception and localization: A review. Sensors20(15), 4220 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    The international journal of robotics research32(11), 1231–1237 (2013)

    Geiger, A., Lenz, P., Stiller, C., Urtasun, R.: Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset. The international journal of robotics research32(11), 1231–1237 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    In: 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

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

    2012

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Hahner, M., Sakaridis, C., Bijelic, M., Heide, F., Yu, F., Dai, D., Van Gool, L.: Lidar snowfall simulation for robust 3d object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 16364– 16374 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Hahner, M., Sakaridis, C., Dai, D., Van Gool, L.: Fog simulation on real lidar point clouds for 3d object detection in adverse weather. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 15283–15292 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    IEEE (2023)

    Harley, A.W., Fang, Z., Li, J., Ambrus, R., Fragkiadaki, K.: Simple-bev: What really matters for multi-sensor bev perception? In: 2023 IEEE International Con- ference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11790 (2021)

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

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.02703 (2022)

    Huang, K., Shi, B., Li, X., Li, X., Huang, S., Li, Y.: Multi-modal sensor fusion for auto driving perception: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.02703 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    In: AAAI

    Huang, X., Xu, Z., Wu, H., Wang, J., Xia, Q., Xia, Y., Li, J., Gao, K., Wen, C., Wang, C.: L4dr: Lidar-4dradar fusion for weather-robust 3d object detection. In: AAAI. vol. 39, pp. 3806–3814 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Remote sensing15(16), 3992 (2023)

    Kim, T.L., Arshad, S., Park, T.H.: Adaptive feature attention module for robust visual–lidar fusion-based object detection in adverse weather conditions. Remote sensing15(16), 3992 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    Kim, Y., Kim, S., Choi, J.W., Kum, D.: Craft: Camera-radar 3d object detection with spatio-contextual fusion transformer. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 37, pp. 1160–1168 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Kim, Y., Shin, J., Kim, S., Lee, I.J., Choi, J.W., Kum, D.: Crn: Camera radar net for accurate, robust, efficient 3d perception. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 17615–17626 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Kong, L., Liu, Y., Li, X., Chen, R., Zhang, W., Ren, J., Pan, L., Chen, K., Liu, Z.: Robo3d: Towards robust and reliable 3d perception against corruptions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 19994–20006 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (2024)

    Kong, S.H., Paek, D.H., Lee, S.: Rtnh+: Enhanced 4d radar object detection net- work using two-level preprocessing and vertical encoding. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Lang, A.H., Vora, S., Caesar, H., Zhou, L., Yang, J., Beijbom, O.: Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 12697–12705 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04629 (2024)

    Le, D.T., Shi, H., Cai, J., Rezatofighi, H.: Diffuser: Diffusion model for robust multi-sensor fusion in 3d object detection and bev segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04629 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Li, K., Zhang, T., Peng, K.C., Wang, G.: Pf3det: A prompted foundation fea- ture assisted visual lidar 3d detector. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 3778–3787 (2025) RAF 17

    2025

  22. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Li, X., Fan, B., Tian, J., Fan, H.: Gafusion: Adaptive fusing lidar and camera with multiple guidance for 3d object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 21209–21218 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Li, Y., Kong, L., Hu, H., Xu, X., Huang, X.: Is your lidar placement optimized for 3d scene understanding? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 34980–35017 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Li, Y., Yu, A.W., Meng, T., Caine, B., Ngiam, J., Peng, D., Shen, J., Lu, Y., Zhou, D., Le, Q.V., et al.: Deepfusion: Lidar-camera deep fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 17182–...

    2022

  25. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

    Li, Y., Ge, Z., Yu, G., Yang, J., Wang, Z., Shi, Y., Sun, J., Li, Z.: Bevdepth: Acquisition of reliable depth for multi-view 3d object detection. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. vol. 37, pp. 1477–1485 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    In: ICASSP 2023- 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

    Li, Y.J., O’Toole, M., Kitani, K.: St-mvdnet++: Improve vehicle detection with lidar-radar geometrical augmentation via self-training. In: ICASSP 2023- 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). pp. 1–5. IEEE (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    In: proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Li, Y.J., Park, J., O’Toole, M., Kitani, K.: Modality-agnostic learning for radar- lidar fusion in vehicle detection. In: proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 918–927 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Li, Z., Wang, F., Wang, N.: Lidar r-cnn: An efficient and universal 3d object detector. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 7546–7555 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    In: European conference on computer vision

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

    2022

  30. [38]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 10421–10434 (2022)

    Liang, T., Xie, H., Yu, K., Xia, Z., Lin, Z., Wang, Y., Tang, T., Wang, B., Tang, Z.: Bevfusion: A simple and robust lidar-camera fusion framework. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 10421–10434 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    IEEE Sensors Journal 22(16), 16276–16292 (2022)

    Lin, J., Yin, H., Yan, J., Ge, W., Zhang, H., Rigoll, G.: Improved 3d object detector under snowfall weather condition based on lidar point cloud. IEEE Sensors Journal 22(16), 16276–16292 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Lin, T.Y., Dollár, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Hariharan, B., Belongie, S.: Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 2117–2125 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Lin, Z., Liu, Z., Xia, Z., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Qi, S., Dong, Y., Dong, N., Zhang, L., Zhu, C.: Rcbevdet: Radar-camera fusion in bird’s eye view for 3d object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 14928–14937 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Liu, Y., Wang, T., Zhang, X., Sun, J.: Petr: Position embedding transformation for multi-view 3d object detection. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 531–548. Springer (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Liu, Z., Lin, Y., Cao, Y., Hu, H., Wei, Y., Zhang, Z., Lin, S., Guo, B.: Swin transformer:Hierarchicalvisiontransformerusingshiftedwindows.In:Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 10012–10022 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.13542 (2022) 18 H

    Liu, Z., Tang, H., Amini, A., Yang, X., Mao, H., Rus, D., Han, S.: Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.13542 (2022) 18 H. Park et al

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    International Journal of Computer Vision131(8), 1909– 1963 (2023)

    Mao, J., Shi, S., Wang, X., Li, H.: 3d object detection for autonomous driving: A comprehensive survey. International Journal of Computer Vision131(8), 1909– 1963 (2023)

    1909

  38. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision

    Nabati, R., Qi, H.: Centerfusion: Center-based radar and camera fusion for 3d ob- ject detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision. pp. 1527–1536 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07029 (2025)

    Paek, D.H., Kong, S.H.: Availability-aware sensor fusion via unified canonical space for 4d radar, lidar, and camera. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07029 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 3819–3829 (2022)

    Paek, D.H., Kong, S.H., Wijaya, K.T.: K-radar: 4d radar object detection for au- tonomous driving in various weather conditions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 3819–3829 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    IEEE Robotics and Au- tomation Letters7(2), 4961–4968 (2022)

    Palffy, A., Pool, E., Baratam, S., Kooij, J.F., Gavrila, D.M.: Multi-class road user detection with 3+ 1d radar in the view-of-delft dataset. IEEE Robotics and Au- tomation Letters7(2), 4961–4968 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    In: Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision

    Palladin, E., Dietze, R., Narayanan, P., Bijelic, M., Heide, F.: Samfusion: Sensor- adaptive multimodal fusion for 3d object detection in adverse weather. In: Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 484–503. Springer (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Park, J., Lee, H., Kang, I., Shim, H.: No thing, nothing: Highlighting safety-critical classes for robust lidar semantic segmentation in adverse weather. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 6690–6699 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Park, K., Kim, Y., Kim, D., Choi, J.W.: Resilient sensor fusion under adverse sensor failures via multi-modal expert fusion. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 6720–6729 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Philion, J., Fidler, S.: Lift, splat, shoot: Encoding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly unprojecting to 3d. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 194–210. Springer (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Qian, K., Zhu, S., Zhang, X., Li, L.E.: Robust multimodal vehicle detection in foggy weather using complementary lidar and radar signals. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 444–453 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Pattern Recognition130, 108796 (2022)

    Qian, R., Lai, X., Li, X.: 3d object detection for autonomous driving: A survey. Pattern Recognition130, 108796 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems174, 104630 (2024)

    Reda, M., Onsy, A., Haikal, A.Y., Ghanbari, A.: Path planning algorithms in the autonomous driving system: A comprehensive review. Robotics and Autonomous Systems174, 104630 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Shi, S., Guo, C., Jiang, L., Wang, Z., Shi, J., Wang, X., Li, H.: Pv-rcnn: Point-voxel feature set abstraction for 3d object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 10529–10538 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Song, J., Zhao, L., Skinner, K.A.: Lirafusion: Deep adaptive lidar-radar fusion for 3d object detection. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 18250–18257. IEEE (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Song, Z., Yang, L., Xu, S., Liu, L., Xu, D., Jia, C., Jia, F., Wang, L.: Graphbev: Towards robust bev feature alignment for multi-modal 3d object detection. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 347–366. Springer (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

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

    2020

  53. [61]

    In: 2024 IEEE in- telligent vehicles symposium (IV)

    Sural, S., Sahu, N., Rajkumar, R.R.: Contextualfusion: Context-based multi-sensor fusion for 3d object detection in adverse operating conditions. In: 2024 IEEE in- telligent vehicles symposium (IV). pp. 1534–1541. IEEE (2024) RAF 19

    2024

  54. [62]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles8(6), 3692–3711 (2023)

    Teng, S., Hu, X., Deng, P., Li, B., Li, Y., Ai, Y., Yang, D., Li, L., Xuanyuan, Z., Zhu, F., et al.: Motion planning for autonomous driving: The state of the art and future perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles8(6), 3692–3711 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles8(7), 3781–3798 (2023)

    Wang, L., Zhang, X., Song, Z., Bi, J., Zhang, G., Wei, H., Tang, L., Yang, L., Li, J., Jia, C., et al.: Multi-modal 3d object detection in autonomous driving: A survey and taxonomy. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles8(7), 3781–3798 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    In: 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Wang, L., Zhang, X., Xv, B., Zhang, J., Fu, R., Wang, X., Zhu, L., Ren, H., Lu, P., Li, J., et al.: Interfusion: Interaction-based 4d radar and lidar fusion for 3d object detection. In: 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 12247–...

    2022

  57. [65]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems25(2), 1148–1165 (2023)

    Wang, X., Li, K., Chehri, A.: Multi-sensor fusion technology for 3d object detection in autonomous driving: A review. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems25(2), 1148–1165 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Wang, Y., Deng, J., Li, Y., Hu, J., Liu, C., Zhang, Y., Ji, J., Ouyang, W., Zhang, Y.: Bi-lrfusion: Bi-directional lidar-radar fusion for 3d dynamic object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 13394–13403 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    International Journal of Computer Vision131(8), 2122–2152 (2023)

    Wang, Y., Mao, Q., Zhu, H., Deng, J., Zhang, Y., Ji, J., Li, H., Zhang, Y.: Multi- modal 3d object detection in autonomous driving: a survey. International Journal of Computer Vision131(8), 2122–2152 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    In: Conference on robot learning

    Wang, Y., Guizilini, V.C., Zhang, T., Wang, Y., Zhao, H., Solomon, J.: Detr3d: 3d object detection from multi-view images via 3d-to-2d queries. In: Conference on robot learning. pp. 180–191. PMLR (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00493 (2023)

    Wilson, B., Qi, W., Agarwal, T., Lambert, J., Singh, J., Khandelwal, S., Pan, B., Kumar, R., Hartnett, A., Pontes, J.K., et al.: Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self-driving perception and forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00493 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Information Fusion114, 102671 (2025)

    Xu, H., Chen, J., Meng, S., Wang, Y., Chau, L.P.: A survey on occupancy per- ception for autonomous driving: The information fusion perspective. Information Fusion114, 102671 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Sen- sors18(10), 3337 (2018)

    Yan, Y., Mao, Y., Li, B.: Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection. Sen- sors18(10), 3337 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Yang, Z., Yu, Z., Choy, C., Wang, R., Anandkumar, A., Alvarez, J.M.: Improv- ing distant 3d object detection using 2d box supervision. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 14853– 14863 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Sensors21(6), 2140 (2021)

    Yeong, D.J., Velasco-Hernandez, G., Barry, J., Walsh, J.: Sensor and sensor fusion technology in autonomous vehicles: A review. Sensors21(6), 2140 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Yin, J., Shen, J., Chen, R., Li, W., Yang, R., Frossard, P., Wang, W.: Is-fusion: Instance-scenecollaborativefusionformultimodal3dobjectdetection.In:Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 14905–14915 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Yin, T., Zhou, X., Krahenbuhl, P.: Center-based 3d object detection and track- ing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 11784–11793 (2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2026)

    Yue, J., Lin, Z., Lin, X., Zhou, X., Li, X., Qi, L., Wang, Y., Yang, M.H.: Robur- cdet: Enhancing robustness of radar-camera fusion in bird’s eye view for 3d object detection. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2026)

    2026

  69. [77]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Zhang, H., Liang, L., Zeng, P., Song, X., Wang, Z.: Sparselif: High-performance sparse lidar-camera fusion for 3d object detection. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 109–128. Springer (2024) 20 H. Park et al

    2024

  70. [78]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Zhao, L., Song, J., Skinner, K.A.: Crkd: Enhanced camera-radar object detec- tion with cross-modality knowledge distillation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 15470–15480 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement72, 1–14 (2023)

    Zheng, L., Li, S., Tan, B., Yang, L., Chen, S., Huang, L., Bai, J., Zhu, X., Ma, Z.: Rcfusion: Fusing 4-d radar and camera with bird’s-eye view features for 3-d object detection. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement72, 1–14 (2023)

    2023

  72. [80]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

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

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.