3D Lane Detection with Odometry for High-Speed Vehicle Racing

John Subosits; Marcus Greiff; Omoruyi Atekha

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

3D Lane Detection with Odometry for High-Speed Vehicle Racing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fusing IMU and wheel odometry with multi-camera lane detectors lifts racing lane-detection accuracy past F1 0.9 while running above 290 Hz.

desk verdict The dataset and 290 Hz system are real contributions, but the headline 3-point F1 / 30% MAE gain is confounded by different ground-truth protocols for baseline vs. ensemble. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14248 v1 pith:GQOUPEAS submitted 2026-07-15 cs.CV eess.IV

Omoruyi Atekha , John Subosits , Marcus Greiff This is my paper

classification cs.CVeess.IV

keywords 3Dlanedetectionvehicleracingodometrypre-integrationmulti-cameraensembleinertialmeasurementunitBéziercurveregressionbird's-eyeviewRacedataset

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

Racing moves a car through geometries—sharp curves, elevation changes, lanes that double back—that break lane detectors tuned for city streets. This paper argues that the missing ingredient is not a bigger network but a signal cars already carry: inertial and wheel odometry. Its method, EnsembleLanes, runs one fast 3D lane detector per camera, clusters the predictions, and then regresses a shared Bézier-curve model of each lane over the most recent frames, using IMU and wheel-speed measurements to align all predictions into the current road frame. On a new racing dataset (RaceLane, over 250k images from a closed circuit), the approach reports F1 above 0.9, near-vehicle lateral errors below 0.18 m, and inference above 290 Hz on a single GPU—about three F1 points and over 30 percent better near-vehicle error than a single-camera baseline. If these numbers hold, 3D lane detection can be both accurate and fast enough for planning at racing speeds, in conditions closer to dangerous rural roads than to urban benchmarks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a chain of odometry transforms: short-interval IMU and wheel-speed measurements are integrated via the exponential map of SE(3) into T_k transforms that map the road frame at one time into the road frame at another (Eqs. 7 and 21), stored in a circular buffer. Each new clustered lane prediction is pushed through this chain into the current road frame, so predictions from four asynchronous cameras and the last eight frames become one point cloud per lane. The second mechanism is regression of these points to a Bézier curve—a parametric curve defined by control points—using weighted least squares with a convex total-variation regularizer; because Bézier control point

What would settle it

Recompute the single-camera metrics using the same protocol as the ensemble—matching each single-camera prediction against the union of all lane boundaries visible in any camera over the 8-frame buffer—and compare F1 and near-MAE to the ensemble numbers; if the single-camera figures rise to the ensemble's level, the claimed gain from odometry and ensembling is an artifact of differing ground truth rather than of the fusion itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that 3D lane detection in racing is a temporal multi-camera fusion problem, not a single-image problem. Treating each camera frame independently throws away information that is cheaply available: the car knows how it moved between frames. By pre-integrating IMU and wheel-speed measurements into SE(3) transforms that relate the road frame at different times (Eqs. 7 and 21), the method projects clustered lane predictions from all four cameras and the previous eight frames into the current road frame and regresses a single 5th-order Bézier curve per lane with a convex total-variation regularizer. This regressed ensemble is what achieves F1 >0.9 and lat

Load-bearing premise

The comparison that produces the headline gains assumes that scoring the ensemble against the union of visible lane boundaries across all cameras and the 8-frame buffer is equivalent to scoring single-camera baselines against the labels each camera can see; if those protocols are not equivalent, the reported 3-point F1 and over 30% near-MAE improvements are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

3D lane detection can operate at racing-relevant rates: over 290 Hz sequential inference on a single GPU with F1 above 0.9, removing the frame-drop bottleneck that has kept 3D detectors out of high-speed control loops.
Odometry pre-integration turns asynchronous camera feeds into one temporally aligned lane estimate, so cameras no longer need tight synchronization for fusion.
The gain is not tied to one detector: EnsembleLanes is agnostic to the underlying 3D lane predictor, so improvements should transfer to newer models as they appear.
The method relies only on IMU and wheel-speed signals, which the paper notes are ubiquitous in modern vehicles, so the recipe should transfer widely.
The dataset and ablations suggest grayscale, high-frame-rate cameras plus inertial data is a viable, bandwidth-efficient sensor suite for racing autonomy.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: The reported 3-point F1 gain and over 30% near-MAE reduction might shrink if the single-camera baselines were scored against the same union of visible lane labels across all cameras and the 8-frame buffer used for the ensemble; a symmetric evaluation would isolate the true fusion gain.
Editorial inference: Because the method relies on the racing-specific prior that at most two lane boundaries are visible, transferring it to multi-lane highways would require extending the PCA clustering to variable cluster counts; the closed-form Bézier regression itself carries over unchanged.
Editorial inference: The closed-form bias expression for the total-variation regularizer (Eq. 18) suggests a cheap online correction: one could subtract the expected bias from the estimate to remove regularizer bias, which may matter at longer horizons where odometry drift accumulates.
Editorial inference: The paper's speculation that the approach helps regular driving could be tested by adding IMU and wheel channels to an existing urban 3D-lane benchmark and retraining the same per-camera ensemble; this is a direct experiment the current dataset cannot answer.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a genuine engineering contribution — a new racing 3D lane dataset with IMU/wheel odometry, and a system that runs at 290 Hz with plausible deployment numbers. But the headline comparison, 3-point F1 and >30% near-MAE improvement over BevLaneDet, is not cleanly supported because the baseline and the ensemble are scored against different ground-truth definitions. Read the system tables; treat the headline gain as conditional.

What's actually new: RaceLane appears to be the first racing dataset with 3D lane labels plus inertial/wheel data, 250K images from four grayscale cameras on a closed circuit. The ensemble method is a sensible combination of known pieces — BEV-LaneDet per camera, PCA clustering, SE(3) pre-integration, and Bézier regression over an 8-frame buffer. The speed optimization is credible: half-precision and PTQ give >3x speedup, PCA clustering is >20x faster, and the full pipeline at >290 Hz is well supported by Tab. III. The grayscale Apollo ablation is a useful sanity check for the monochrome choice.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the evaluation-protocol mismatch. Sec. V says that when combining cameras/time, the ground truth is a union of visible boundaries. Tab. IV reports single-camera predictions scored against per-camera labels; Tab. V reports the ensemble scored against the union across all cameras and the 8-frame buffer. That gives the ensemble credit for lanes a single camera physically cannot see, and the union also supplies more near-vehicle points, which directly inflates the near-MAE improvement. The paper even says 'The multi-camera regression has an averaging effect, partly explaining the improvements.' That is an acknowledgment that the comparison is confounded, not an ablation. There is no odometry-on/off ablation isolating the pre-integration from multi-camera averaging.

Second, several important knobs are tuned on the evaluation data: the per-run OxTS elevation bias, the z-rotation bias between sensor and road frames, β3/β4 regularizer weights, buffer length, confidence thresholds. The elevation bias in particular is 'tuned away' using the same runs later used for evaluation, which weakens the deployment claim. Third, the dataset is not released, so the benchmark value cannot be independently checked.

On the math: the Bézier/SE(3) material is standard and correctly derived; no load-bearing fitting is presented as prediction. The citation pattern is fine. The paper's own limitations section is honest about the single track and lack of LiDAR.

Who should read this: anyone working on lane detection or sensor fusion for racing. The dataset, if released, would be valuable. The paper deserves a serious referee — it should not be desk-rejected — but the authors need to rerun the comparison with identical GT protocol and add a real ablation of the odometry. As is, I would not cite the 3-point/30% numbers.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces RaceLane, a new multi-camera 3D lane-detection dataset for vehicle racing containing over 250k grayscale images, IMU data at 500 Hz, and wheel odometry at 62.5 Hz, collected on a closed circuit. On this dataset the authors adapt existing monocular 3D lane detectors (BevLaneDet, LATR, AnchorLane, PersFormer) to the racing setting through road-frame alignment, visibility truncation, a fast PCA-based clustering method, and TensorRT half-precision/PTQ optimization. They then propose ENSEMBLELANES, a late-fusion method that regresses a single Bézier lane representation from a buffer of per-camera cluster predictions linked by SE(3) pre-integrated IMU/wheel transforms. The paper reports inference rates exceeding 290 Hz and claims that adding odometry and ensemble predictions improves F1 by 3 points and reduces near-vehicle lateral MAE by more than 30% relative to single-camera BevLaneDet, with F1 above 0.9 and lateral MAE below 0.18 m in vehicle deployments.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are supported, this is a valuable contribution: RaceLane appears to be the first racing-specific 3D lane dataset with synchronized IMU and wheel odometry, and the ENSEMBLELANES pipeline is a sensible use of ubiquitous proprioceptive sensors for temporal/multi-camera lane fusion. The adapted detection pipeline is also a useful engineering result, with concrete speed measurements on real hardware and a reproducible closed-form regression formulation based on Bézier curves and convex regularizers. The dataset alone could enable follow-up work in high-dynamic-range driving scenarios. However, the headline performance gain is not yet established because the baseline and ensemble are scored under different ground-truth visibility protocols, and the contribution of odometry is not isolated from the averaging effect of multiple cameras.

major comments (4)

[Sec. V-B, Tabs. IV/V] The abstract's central claim ('improves the F1 score by 3 points and reduces near-vehicle MAEs by >30%') compares single-camera predictions in Tab. IV with ensemble predictions in Tab. V, but the two tables are scored against different ground-truth definitions. Sec. V states: 'When done across cameras and/or time, the ground truth is a union of the visible lane boundaries across cameras and/or time.' Tab. IV is evaluated per-camera against the labels visible in that camera, while Tab. V is evaluated against the union of labels visible from any camera plus the 8-frame buffer. A single-camera baseline is structurally unable to recall a lane visible only from another camera or only in a past frame, and the union adds extra near-field ground-truth points that directly lower the near MAE and inflate recall. The reported 3-point F1 / >30% near-MAE gain is therefore not attributable to the meth
[Sec. V-B, Tabs. IV/V] No ablation isolates odometry from the multi-camera averaging effect. The paper itself states: 'The multi-camera regression has an averaging effect, partly explaining the improvements in Tab. V.' Without comparing (a) a single camera, (b) a multi-camera current-frame regression without temporal fusion, and (c) the full temporal odometry-fused ensemble — all scored against the same ground truth — one cannot conclude that 'adding odometry and ensemble predictions' is what produces the gain. The 3-point F1 and >30% near-MAE improvement could largely be due to averaging four independent predictions rather than to IMU/velocity pre-integration. Please add ablations that separate these effects.
[Appendix (Dataset creation)] The appendix reports per-run calibration biases: an OxTS elevation bias of up to 30 cm and a small z-rotation bias between {S} and {R}, both 'tuned away' using an alignment of the projected 3D ground-truth lane map into image space. If this tuning uses the same annotations that are later used to compute the reported MAEs (including on the hold-out set), the evaluation is not fully independent of the labels. Please state explicitly whether the bias correction consumes ground-truth lane labels, and if so, quantify the sensitivity of the reported absolute numbers (e.g., Table V: F1>0.9, Y-near <0.18 m) to this per-run correction. The current description undermines the claim that the hold-out set provides an unbiased evaluation of accuracy.
[Abstract / Sec. V-B] The abstract claims 'F1 scores >0.9 and lateral MAEs of <0.18m in vehicle deployments,' but the nominal ENSEMBLELANES configuration defined in Sec. V-B (half-precision, PTQ, PCA clustering, N_buff=8, 5th-order Bézier, beta3=beta4=1e-3) yields F1=89.25 and Y(near)=0.18 in Tab. V. The F1 is below 0.9 and the Y-near MAE is not strictly below 0.18 for that configuration. The >0.9 F1 appears only for the non-PTQ variant (HP only + PCA, F1=90.90), which is not the configuration described as nominal. Please align the abstract and conclusions with the actual numbers for the stated nominal method, or specify which configuration the '>0.9' claim refers to.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. IV-B and Appendix (Metrics)] The symbol epsilon is used both for the confidence threshold in Eq. (2) and for the distance tolerance in the F1 metric (epsilon = 1.5 m) in the appendix. Please disambiguate these two uses.
[Eq. (3) / Fig. 5] The eigenvalues are written as \bar{\lambda} and \underline{\lambda} in the text and figure, but the condition in Eq. (3) uses \bar{\lambda} \ge \zeta \bar{\lambda}, which is confusing because the two symbols are visually similar. Use distinct notations such as \lambda_1 and \lambda_2.
[Throughout] The name 'Bézier' is frequently misspelled as 'Beziér'; please correct the spelling.
[Sec. V-C] Typo: 'occation' should be 'occasion' in the Limitations section.
[Table VII] Some entries in Table VII are written without the leading zero (e.g., 0.955 appears as 0.955 but elsewhere 0.059 is used); please format consistently with a leading zero for all values less than 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fusion pipeline is an empirical system whose outputs are not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The core predictive component is a supervised monocular 3D lane detector (BevLaneDet) whose outputs are clustered and then fitted, via the regularized weighted least-squares problem in Eq. (6), to a Bézier curve; the closed-form estimator in Eq. (15) fits control points to CNN cluster predictions, not to ground-truth labels. The odometry pre-integration in Eqs. (7) and (21) is standard SE(3) odometry, and the Bézier equivariance/convexity properties are explicitly derived in Appendix A. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the regularizer weights β3=β4=1e-3 are selected from an ablation on an evaluation run (Tab. IX), which is a model-selection concern but not a circular derivation. The self-citations [2,4,5] appear only as contextual references on localization, planning, and road mapping; they are not load-bearing for the lane-detection claim. The closest concern is the evaluation protocol in Sec. V, where the ground truth for cross-camera/time fusion is defined as a union of visible lane boundaries, while single-camera baselines are scored per-camera (Appendix E). This is a real validity limitation for the headline 3-point F1 / >30% near-MAE comparison, but it is a benchmarking confound, not a case where the prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The ensemble still must actually detect the union labels; the metric does not force the reported scores. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The empirical claims rest mainly on dataset-construction and evaluation choices rather than on new mathematical axioms. The key ad hoc choices are the label truncation (removing curved-back visible lanes), the union ground-truth protocol for ensemble scoring, and per-run bias tuning. The method also assumes a static environment, at most two lanes, and short-horizon constant-motion odometry. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)

Per-run OxTS elevation bias = up to ~30 cm
Appendix: 'the elevation estimate from the OxTS was biased by up to 30cm... for each run, we tune away this bias... based on an alignment of the projected 3D ground truth lanes into distorted image space.' This per-run adjustment shapes the labels that all metrics are computed against.
Per-run z-rotation bias between {S} and {R} = a few degrees
Appendix: '{S}->{R} is known down to a small rotation about the z-axis. This slight bias is estimated and removed, usually corresponding to a rotation of a few degrees.' Calibration parameter affecting label projection.
Regularizer weights β3, β4 = 1e-3 each
Sec. V-B: nominal method uses β3=β4=1e-3, β_i=0 otherwise; selected after ablation over powers of 10 in Tab. IX on an evaluation run.
Cluster buffer length Nbuff = 8
Sec. V-B: 'buffer of length Nbuff=8'; chosen without reported sensitivity ablation.
Confidence threshold ε and eigen-ratio threshold ζ = not reported
Sec. IV-B Eq. (2)-(3) define clustering via thresholds ε>0 and ζ>0; values are not given, and metrics depend on them.
Bézier degree n = 5
Sec. V-B: '5th order Bézier curves'; chosen by the authors, no ablation.
BEV grid geometry = x∈[0,100], y∈[-12,12], 0.5 m cells
Appendix: BEV perspective in {R} with these ranges; output tensor 9600 cells; affects all downstream predictions.
Label visibility radius dmax = 80 m
Appendix: 'A distance of dmax = 80m is chosen as the lane labels approach the vanishing point in image space at this distance.' This truncates the labeled lane extent and affects metrics.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption At most two lane boundaries are visible in any prediction (racing prior)
Used in Sec. IV-B to justify O(|X|) PCA clustering via eigen-ratio threshold; paper notes special cases occur in ≲0.1% of predictions, so assumption is approximate.
domain assumption Static environment: no time-varying or dynamic observations
Stated in Sec. V-C as a limitation; lane boundaries fixed in the road frame.
domain assumption Vehicle motion between IMU/wheel samples is well approximated by constant ω and v over short intervals, with no IMU bias correction
Eq. (7) integrates T_k = exp(...) using v_k and ω_k per interval; the entire temporal ensemble alignment rests on this.
domain assumption The OxTS/GNSS ground-truth map projection is cm-level accurate and the calibrated transform chain {G}->{R}->{S}->{C_i} is correct
All labels and evaluation metrics derive from this chain; Appendix states calibration before each run and per-run bias tuning, so errors propagate into labels.
ad hoc to paper Removing visible lane portions that curve back toward the car is a valid problem reduction
Sec. IV-B/Fig. 4: 'we augment the visibility to remove visible portions of the lane that curve back towards the car'; this changes the training and evaluation target relative to standard datasets.
ad hoc to paper Scoring ensemble predictions against the union of visible lane boundaries across cameras/time is a fair way to compare with per-camera single-prediction baselines
Sec. V: 'When done across cameras and/or time, the ground truth is a union of the visible lane boundaries across cameras and/or time.' This protocol confounds the reported improvement.

invented entities (1)

RaceLane dataset
purpose: Benchmark and training data for 3D lane detection in racing with IMU/wheel odometry
No URL, checksum, or release mechanism is given in the paper; despite being the empirical foundation, it cannot be independently inspected or downloaded.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D Lane Detection with Odometry for High-Speed Vehicle Racing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQOUPEAS

@misc{pith2026260714248,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D Lane Detection with Odometry for High-Speed Vehicle Racing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQOUPEAS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14248}
}

abstract

Lane boundary detection is a critical component in autonomous driving systems and has been rigorously studied in regular driving scenarios. However, it is less explored in vehicle racing, where the car moves at higher speeds across more extreme road geometries. To study this problem, we introduce a new dataset for 3D lane detection in racing, featuring >$250$k images from multiple camera feeds and inertial measurements taken with a Lexus LC 500 driving on a closed circuit. With this dataset, we compare various approaches to 3D lane detection and propose modifications that permit frames to be processed at rates of almost 300Hz while retaining high predictive performance in the racing application. This facilitates a multi-camera ensemble approach that is validated on hardware. We show that sensing modalities such as inertial measurements can be leveraged for pre-integration to regress road geometries over both cameras and time, yielding improvements in key metrics. Compared to methods such as BevLaneDet, adding odometry and ensemble predictions improves the F1 score by 3 points and reduces near-vehicle mean absolute errors (MAEs) by $>30 \%$. We show F1 scores $>$0.9 and lateral MAEs of $<$0.18m in vehicle deployments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14248 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Top view of car with the coordinate frames used in RaceLane. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Illustration of ENSEMBLELANES with BEV-LANEDET for the monocular prediction in the ensemble, using odometry to regress the lanes over cameras and time (blue to red). Each gray box is a model with a clustering algorithm, and the ensemble of models is used to generate a regressed output. Mout Nout BEV cell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Left: Output space before (red) and after (green) the road-frame alignment. Right: Truncation of visible lane boundary (blue) in a BEV perspective, only the green part is used for training. IV. METHODOLOGY To infer the lane boundaries in the racing context using RaceLa…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A bimodal cluster in a Dout = 2-dimensional embedding head. Here, λ/¯ ¯ λ ≫ 1 indicates that the prediction contains two lane boundaries. If detecting a single lane boundary, λ/¯ ¯ λ ≈ 1. the predictor (see conversion step in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: BEV predictions (red, corresponding with Tab. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Visualization of the racetrack and labels. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Empirical distributions of labels in RaceLane (camera 0, training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Variability between the runs in RaceLane: brightness (green), sun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Predictions with the modified BEV-LANEDET. Left: Typical bimodal cluster with P i ci ≈ P i (1 − ci). Right: Long-tail event with a bimodal cluster whereP i ci ≪ P i (1−ci), handled by line 9 in Alg. 1. The top subplots correspond to the bottom subplots, shown in a BEV…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: F1 classification score when training camera 1 on increasingly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Qualitative example of PersFormer, LATR, and BevLaneDet with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Views of a regressed output with significant elevation changes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

[1]

Vision-based approach towards lane line detection and vehicle localization,

X. Du and K. K. Tan, “Vision-based approach towards lane line detection and vehicle localization,”Machine Vision and Applications, vol. 27, pp. 175–191, 2016

2016
[2]

Bayesian sensor fusion of gnss and camera with outlier adaptation for vehicle positioning,

K. Berntorp, M. Greiff, and S. Di Cairano, “Bayesian sensor fusion of gnss and camera with outlier adaptation for vehicle positioning,” in Int. Conf. on Information Fusion (FUSION), 2022

2022
[3]

A hierarchical adaptive nonlinear model predictive control approach for maximizing tire force usage in autonomous vehicles,

J. Dallas, M. Thompson, J. Y . Goh, and A. Balachandran, “A hierarchical adaptive nonlinear model predictive control approach for maximizing tire force usage in autonomous vehicles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12263, 2023

arXiv 2023
[4]

Risk-averse model predictive control for racing in adverse conditions,

T. Lew, M. Greiff, F. Djeumou, M. Suminaka, M. Thompson, and J. Subosits, “Risk-averse model predictive control for racing in adverse conditions,” 2024

2024
[5]

A framework for joint vehicle localization and road mapping using onboard sensors,

K. Berntorp and M. Greiff, “A framework for joint vehicle localization and road mapping using onboard sensors,”Control Engineering Practice, vol. 153, p. 106112, 2024

2024
[6]

Monocular 3d lane detection for autonomous driving: Recent achievements, challenges, and outlooks,

F. Ma, W. Qi, G. Zhao, L. Zheng, S. Wang, and M. Liu, “Monocular 3d lane detection for autonomous driving: Recent achievements, challenges, and outlooks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06860, 2024

arXiv 2024
[7]

Federal and state efforts to address rural road safety challenges,

H. Safety, “Federal and state efforts to address rural road safety challenges,”United States General Accounting Office, pp. 49–51, 2004

2004
[8]

Real time detection of lane markers in urban streets,

M. Aly, “Real time detection of lane markers in urban streets,” in2008 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium. IEEE, 2008, pp. 7–12

2008

Show all 59 references

[9]

A novel lane detection system with efficient ground truth generation,

A. Borkar, M. Hayes, and M. T. Smith, “A novel lane detection system with efficient ground truth generation,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 365–374, 2011

2011
[10]

A random finite set approach to multiple lane detection,

H. Deusch, J. Wiest, S. Reuter, M. Szczot, M. Konrad, and K. Diet- mayer, “A random finite set approach to multiple lane detection,” in 2012 15th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems. IEEE, 2012, pp. 270–275

2012
[11]

Multi-lane detection in urban driving environments using conditional random fields,

J. Hur, S.-N. Kang, and S.-W. Seo, “Multi-lane detection in urban driving environments using conditional random fields,” in2013 IEEE Intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, 2013, pp. 1297–1302

2013
[12]

Towards end-to-end lane detection: an instance segmen- tation approach,

D. Neven, B. De Brabandere, S. Georgoulis, M. Proesmans, and L. Van Gool, “Towards end-to-end lane detection: an instance segmen- tation approach,” in2018 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, 2018, pp. 286–291

2018
[13]

Anchor3dlane: Learning to regress 3d anchors for monocular 3d lane detection,

S. Huang, Z. Shen, Z. Huang, Z.-h. Ding, J. Dai, J. Han, N. Wang, and S. Liu, “Anchor3dlane: Learning to regress 3d anchors for monocular 3d lane detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 17 451–17 460

2023
[14]

Bev-lanedet: An efficient 3d lane detection based on virtual camera via key-points,

R. Wang, J. Qin, K. Li, Y . Li, D. Cao, and J. Xu, “Bev-lanedet: An efficient 3d lane detection based on virtual camera via key-points,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 1002–1011

2023
[15]

Gen-lanenet: A generalized and scalable approach for 3d lane detection,

Y . Guo, G. Chen, P. Zhao, W. Zhang, J. Miao, J. Wang, and T. Eun Choe, “Gen-lanenet: A generalized and scalable approach for 3d lane detection,” 2020

2020
[16]

Latr: 3d lane detection from monocular images with transformer,

Y . Luo, C. Zheng, X. Yan, T. Kun, C. Zheng, S. Cui, and Z. Li, “Latr: 3d lane detection from monocular images with transformer,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 7941–7952

2023
[17]

Lanecpp: Continuous 3d lane detection using physical priors,

M. Pittner, J. Janai, and A. P. Condurache, “Lanecpp: Continuous 3d lane detection using physical priors,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 10 639–10 648

2024
[18]

The apolloscape open dataset for autonomous driving and its application,

X. Huang, P. Wang, X. Cheng, D. Zhou, Q. Geng, and R. Yang, “The apolloscape open dataset for autonomous driving and its application,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 42, no. 10, p. 2702–2719, Oct. 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.o...

2020
[19]

Once-3dlanes: Building monocular 3d lane detection,

F. Yan, M. Nie, X. Cai, J. Han, H. Xu, Z. Yang, C. Ye, Y . Fu, B. M. Michael, and L. Zhang, “Once-3dlanes: Building monocular 3d lane detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022

2022
[20]

Persformer: 3d lane detection via perspective transformer and the openlane benchmark,

L. Chen, C. Sima, Y . Li, Z. Zheng, J. Xu, X. Geng, H. Li, C. He, J. Shi, Y . Qiaoet al., “Persformer: 3d lane detection via perspective transformer and the openlane benchmark,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 550–567

2022
[21]

Curveformer++: 3d lane detection by curve propagation with temporal curve queries and attention,

Y . Bai, Z. Chen, P. Liang, and E. Cheng, “Curveformer++: 3d lane detection by curve propagation with temporal curve queries and attention,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06423, 2024

2024 arXiv
[22]

An efficient transformer for simultaneous learning of bev and lane representations in 3d lane detection,

Z. Chen, K. Smith-Miles, B. Du, G. Qian, and M. Gong, “An efficient transformer for simultaneous learning of bev and lane representations in 3d lane detection,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04927, 2023

2023 arXiv
[23]

3d-lanenet: end-to-end 3d multiple lane detection,

N. Garnett, R. Cohen, T. Pe’er, R. Lahav, and D. Levi, “3d-lanenet: end-to-end 3d multiple lane detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 2921–2930

2019
[24]

3d-lanenet+: Anchor free lane detection using a semi-local representation,

N. Efrat, M. Bluvstein, S. Oron, D. Levi, N. Garnett, and B. E. Shlomo, “3d-lanenet+: Anchor free lane detection using a semi-local representation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01535, 2020

2011 arXiv
[25]

Spatial transformer networks,

M. Jaderberg, K. Simonyan, A. Zissermanet al., “Spatial transformer networks,”NeurIPS, vol. 28, 2015

2015
[26]

Reconstruct from top view: A 3d lane detection approach based on geometry structure prior,

C. Li, J. Shi, Y . Wang, and G. Cheng, “Reconstruct from top view: A 3d lane detection approach based on geometry structure prior,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 4370–4379

2022
[27]

Curveformer: 3d lane detection by curve propagation with curve queries and attention,

Y . Bai, Z. Chen, Z. Fu, L. Peng, P. Liang, and E. Cheng, “Curveformer: 3d lane detection by curve propagation with curve queries and attention,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 7062–7068

2023
[28]

Pvalane: Prior-guided 3d lane detection with view-agnostic feature alignment,

Z. Zheng, X. Zhang, Y . Mou, X. Gao, C. Li, G. Huang, C.-M. Pun, and X. Yuan, “Pvalane: Prior-guided 3d lane detection with view-agnostic feature alignment,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 7, 2024, pp. 7597–7604

2024
[29]

A sim2real deep learning approach for the transformation of images from multiple vehicle- mounted cameras to a semantically segmented image in bird’s eye view,

L. Reiher, B. Lampe, and L. Eckstein, “A sim2real deep learning approach for the transformation of images from multiple vehicle- mounted cameras to a semantically segmented image in bird’s eye view,” in2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Syste...

2020
[30]

Cross-view semantic segmentation for sensing surroundings,

B. Pan, J. Sun, H. Y . T. Leung, A. Andonian, and B. Zhou, “Cross-view semantic segmentation for sensing surroundings,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4867–4873, 2020

2020
[31]

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,” inEuropean conference on computer vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 1–18

2022
[32]

Polylanenet: Lane estimation via deep polyno- mial regression,

L. Tabelini, R. Berriel, T. M. Paixao, C. Badue, A. F. De Souza, and T. Oliveira-Santos, “Polylanenet: Lane estimation via deep polyno- mial regression,” in2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). IEEE, 2021, pp. 6150–6156

2021
[33]

Digging into self-supervised monocular depth estimation,

C. Godard, O. Mac Aodha, M. Firman, and G. J. Brostow, “Digging into self-supervised monocular depth estimation,” inInternational conference on computer vision (ICCV), 2019, pp. 3828–3838

2019
[34]

Sparselanestp: Leveraging spatio-temporal priors with sparse transformers for 3d lane detection,

M. Pittner, J. Janai, M. Faigle, and A. P. Condurache, “Sparselanestp: Leveraging spatio-temporal priors with sparse transformers for 3d lane detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2025, pp. 29 099–29 109

2025
[35]

Petrv2: A unified framework for 3d perception from multi-camera images,

Y . Liu, J. Yan, F. Jia, S. Li, A. Gao, T. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Petrv2: A unified framework for 3d perception from multi-camera images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 3262–3272

2023
[36]

Lidar–camera fusion for road detection using fully convolutional neural networks,

L. Caltagirone, M. Bellone, L. Svensson, and M. Wahde, “Lidar–camera fusion for road detection using fully convolutional neural networks,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 111, pp. 125–131, 2019

2019
[37]

Deep multi-sensor lane detection,

M. Bai, G. Mattyus, N. Homayounfar, S. Wang, S. K. Lakshmikanth, and R. Urtasun, “Deep multi-sensor lane detection,” in2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 3102–3109

2018
[38]

Channel attention in lidar-camera fusion for lane line segmentation,

X. Zhang, Z. Li, X. Gao, D. Jin, and J. Li, “Channel attention in lidar-camera fusion for lane line segmentation,”Pattern Recognition, vol. 118, p. 108020, 2021

2021
[39]

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,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 1090–1099

2022
[40]

Advancements in 3d lane detection using lidar point clouds: From data collection to model development,

R. Zhao, Y . Heng, H. Wang, Y . Gao, S. Liu, C. Yao, J. Chen, and W. Cai, “Advancements in 3d lane detection using lidar point clouds: From data collection to model development,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.13596

2024 arXiv
[41]

Sparsefusion: Efficient sparse multi-modal fusion framework for long-range 3d perception,

Y . Li, H. Li, Z. Huang, H. Chang, and N. Wang, “Sparsefusion: Efficient sparse multi-modal fusion framework for long-range 3d perception,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10036, 2024

2024 arXiv
[42]

Lanecmkt: Boosting monocular 3d lane detection with cross-modal knowledge transfer,

R. Zhao, H. Wang, and W. Cai, “Lanecmkt: Boosting monocular 3d lane detection with cross-modal knowledge transfer,” inProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2024, pp. 4283–4291

2024
[43]

Imu preinte- gration on manifold for efficient visual-inertial maximum-a-posteriori estimation,

C. Forster, L. Carlone, F. Dellaert, and D. Scaramuzza, “Imu preinte- gration on manifold for efficient visual-inertial maximum-a-posteriori estimation,” inRobotics: Science and Systems XI, 2015

2015
[44]

On-manifold preintegration for real-time visual–inertial odome- try,

——, “On-manifold preintegration for real-time visual–inertial odome- try,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2016

2016
[45]

Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual– inertial, and multimap slam,

C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodríguez, J. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tardós, “Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual– inertial, and multimap slam,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1874–1890, 2021

2021
[46]

Curvelane-nas: Unifying lane-sensitive architecture search and adaptive point blending,

H. Xu, S. Wang, X. Cai, W. Zhang, X. Liang, and Z. Li, “Curvelane-nas: Unifying lane-sensitive architecture search and adaptive point blending,” inComputer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XV 16. Springer, 2020, pp. 689–704

2020
[47]

Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,

A. Geiger, P. Lenz, C. Stiller, and R. Urtasun, “Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1231–1237, 2013

2013
[48]

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,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 11 621–11 631

2020
[49]

RT3000 Product Page,

OxTS, “RT3000 Product Page,” 2024, last accessed 05/20/2024. [Online]. Available: www.oxts.com/products/rt3000-v3

2024
[50]

Deep residual learning for image recognition,

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778

2016
[51]

Feature pyramid networks for object detection,

T.-Y . Lin, P. Dollár, R. Girshick, K. He, B. Hariharan, and S. Belongie, “Feature pyramid networks for object detection,” inConf. on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 2117–2125

2017
[52]

Unified temporal and spatial calibration for multi-sensor systems,

P. Furgale, J. Rehder, and R. Siegwart, “Unified temporal and spatial calibration for multi-sensor systems,” inInternational Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2013, pp. 1280–1286

2013
[53]

Extending kalibr: Calibrating the extrinsics of multiple imus and of individual axes,

J. Rehder, J. Nikolic, T. Schneider, T. Hinzmann, and R. Siegwart, “Extending kalibr: Calibrating the extrinsics of multiple imus and of individual axes,” in2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2016, pp. 4304–4311

2016
[54]

A generic camera model and calibration method for conventional, wide-angle, and fish-eye lenses,

J. Kannala and S. S. Brandt, “A generic camera model and calibration method for conventional, wide-angle, and fish-eye lenses,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1335–1340, 2006

2006
[55]

KNN model- based approach in classification,

G. Guo, H. Wang, D. Bell, Y . Bi, and K. Greer, “KNN model- based approach in classification,” inOTM Confederated International Conferences" On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems". Springer, 2003, pp. 986–996

2003
[56]

A white paper on neural network quantization,

M. Nagel, M. Fournarakis, R. A. Amjad, Y . Bondarenko, M. Van Baalen, and T. Blankevoort, “A white paper on neural network quantization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08295, 2021

2021 arXiv
[57]

Ultra fast structure-aware deep lane detection,

Z. Qin, H. Wang, and X. Li, “Ultra fast structure-aware deep lane detection,” inComputer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXIV 16. Springer, 2020, pp. 276–291

2020
[58]

De Boor,A practical guide to splines: Revised Version

C. De Boor,A practical guide to splines: Revised Version. Springer- verlag New York, 2001, vol. 27, ISBN: 0-387-95366-3

2001
[59]

disagree

R. M. Murray, Z. Li, and S. S. Sastry,A mathematical introduction to robotic manipulation. CRC press, 2017. APPENDIX RaceLane consists of a set of “runs”, each corresponding to one or two laps on the racetrack. To generate a consistent temporal alignment of the camera and IMU ...

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Vision-based approach towards lane line detection and vehicle localization,

X. Du and K. K. Tan, “Vision-based approach towards lane line detection and vehicle localization,”Machine Vision and Applications, vol. 27, pp. 175–191, 2016

2016

[2] [2]

Bayesian sensor fusion of gnss and camera with outlier adaptation for vehicle positioning,

K. Berntorp, M. Greiff, and S. Di Cairano, “Bayesian sensor fusion of gnss and camera with outlier adaptation for vehicle positioning,” in Int. Conf. on Information Fusion (FUSION), 2022

2022

[3] [3]

A hierarchical adaptive nonlinear model predictive control approach for maximizing tire force usage in autonomous vehicles,

J. Dallas, M. Thompson, J. Y . Goh, and A. Balachandran, “A hierarchical adaptive nonlinear model predictive control approach for maximizing tire force usage in autonomous vehicles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12263, 2023

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

Risk-averse model predictive control for racing in adverse conditions,

T. Lew, M. Greiff, F. Djeumou, M. Suminaka, M. Thompson, and J. Subosits, “Risk-averse model predictive control for racing in adverse conditions,” 2024

2024

[5] [5]

A framework for joint vehicle localization and road mapping using onboard sensors,

K. Berntorp and M. Greiff, “A framework for joint vehicle localization and road mapping using onboard sensors,”Control Engineering Practice, vol. 153, p. 106112, 2024

2024

[6] [6]

Monocular 3d lane detection for autonomous driving: Recent achievements, challenges, and outlooks,

F. Ma, W. Qi, G. Zhao, L. Zheng, S. Wang, and M. Liu, “Monocular 3d lane detection for autonomous driving: Recent achievements, challenges, and outlooks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06860, 2024

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Federal and state efforts to address rural road safety challenges,

H. Safety, “Federal and state efforts to address rural road safety challenges,”United States General Accounting Office, pp. 49–51, 2004

2004

[8] [8]

Real time detection of lane markers in urban streets,

M. Aly, “Real time detection of lane markers in urban streets,” in2008 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium. IEEE, 2008, pp. 7–12

2008