Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 57 references

Depth3DLane: Fusing Monocular 3D Lane Detection with Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation

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

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

Pith's one-line read Depth3DLane claims a frozen depth network's point cloud, viewed from above, lifts monocular 3D lane detection F1 by 4.3 points and achieves the lowest lane-depth errors on OpenLane.

desk verdict A practical fusion of self-supervised depth with 3D lane detection that is worth engaging, but the ablation does not isolate depth as the cause of the gain and the intrinsics fitting is under-specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13857 v1 pith:3FMSQVTL submitted 2025-07-18 cs.CV cs.RO

Max van den Hoven , Kishaan Jeeveswaran , Pieter Piscaer , Thijs Wensveen , Elahe Arani , Bahram Zonooz This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords 3Dlanedetectionself-supervisedmonoculardepthbird's-eyeviewfeaturespointcloudanchor-basedcameracalibration-freeautonomousdrivingOpenbenchmark
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 argues that the missing piece in monocular 3D lane detection is explicit spatial structure, and that a self-supervised depth network can supply it without LiDAR or ground-truth depth labels. Depth3DLane runs two parallel pathways: a front view that captures lane semantics, and a bird's-eye view built by back-projecting the depth network's dense predictions into a point cloud in the ego-vehicle frame. A shared set of 3D lane anchors samples features from both pathways to regress lane geometry. On OpenLane, the bird's-eye view pathway raises F1 by 4.3 points over the front-view-only Anchor3DLane baseline and yields the lowest longitudinal (Z) errors among compared methods. The authors further show that camera intrinsics can be learned per frame and stabilized per driving segment, so the pipeline keeps working where camera calibration is infeasible, at some cost in accuracy that they attribute to assuming the two focal lengths are equal ($f_x = f_y$).

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bird's-eye-view pathway built from a frozen self-supervised depth network. The depth network lifts each image into a dense point cloud (ego-vehicle 3D coordinates plus RGB and uv context), PointPillars encodes it into BEV features, and bilinear interpolation of 3D lane anchors samples both BEV and front-view features before prediction heads regress lane geometry, so explicit spatial structure enters exactly where anchor-based methods previously had to infer it. For the calibration-free extension, the mechanism is the per-segment intrinsics fitting procedure: because per-frame learned focal lengths are unstable, the method minimizes the amount by which learned values exceed the theoretical bound on per-frame focal lengths across a driving segment, assuming equal horizontal and vertical focal lengths ($f_x = f_y$) since automotive datasets offer little vertical rotation to constrain one of them.

What would settle it

On a camera whose true horizontal and vertical focal lengths differ by more than a few percent, or on frames with strong uphill and downhill tilt where the paper locates its own failure mode, compare the learned-intrinsics configuration against the ground-truth-intrinsics baseline on F1 and Z errors: a gap that grows well beyond the margins of Table III, where the fitted configuration already loses about three F1 points, would confirm that the calibration-free claim fails under exactly the conditions the authors flag. Separately, replacing the frozen depth network's point cloud with LiDAR-measured depth on the same frames should improve F1 further if metric-scale geometry carries the gain, or show no change if the architecture is the limiting factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Depth3DLane establishes that explicit geometry extracted from self-supervised monocular depth, rather than deeper semantic reasoning, is what current 3D lane detectors lack. A frozen monocular depth network, trained on unlabeled video with a GPS-to-scale term, converts every pixel into a point in the ego-vehicle coordinate frame; a PointPillars encoder turns that point cloud into bird's-eye-view features, and 3D lane anchors sample from both this spatial representation and the front view to regress x/z offsets, visibility, and class. The result is an F1 score of 56.6 on OpenLane-1000 versus 54.3 for Anchor3DLane at comparable resolution, with the best Z near/far errors (0.068 m and 0.105 m) of the compared methods. Extended to unknown cameras, the framework learns focal lengths per frame and refines them per segment by fitting a theoretical bound on per-frame learned focal lengths to observed rotation-focal-length pairs; this recovers a mean focal length close to ground truth and keeps the pipeline operational without an intrinsic calibration step, with the caveat that the equal-focal-length assumption degrades feature alignment when vertical rotation is scarce.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration-free extension assumes the camera's two focal lengths are equal and that the camera's height and tilt above the road are known, and the whole approach assumes the frozen self-supervised depth network returns real-distance point clouds; the paper itself says the equal-focal-length assumption misaligns features when the camera barely tilts up or down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Monocular 3D lane detection can obtain explicit spatial structure from a frozen self-supervised depth network, avoiding LiDAR cost and ground-truth depth collection.
  • The BEV pathway carries the gain: on OpenLane-300, F1 rises from 61.7 without it to 64.3 with the PointPillars-plus-ResNet18 version, while error metrics drop by up to 6.5%.
  • The lowest Z near/far errors on OpenLane-1000 among compared methods (0.068 m and 0.105 m) show the spatial pathway's main payoff is longitudinal accuracy.
  • The per-segment intrinsics fitting recovers a focal length close to ground truth (517 fitted versus 516 true at a 0.03 radian rotation threshold) and keeps the pipeline usable without camera calibration, at the cost of a few F1 points.
  • At matched input resolution, Depth3DLane (64.3 F1) exceeds LATR (63.8) on OpenLane-300 while using fewer parameters (26.9M versus 44.4M).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the ablation attributes nearly all of the gain to the BEV pathway, a direct next test is replacing the predicted depth with LiDAR-measured depth on the same frames: the remaining gap would quantify whether the benefit is bounded by depth quality or by the architecture.
  • The method still needs a metric-scale signal during depth pre-training (here, the GPS-to-scale loss), so the honest framing is 'no depth sensors and no depth labels' rather than 'no calibration signal at all'; a natural variant would use vehicle speed or wheel odometry as the scale source for dashcam logs without GPS.
  • The equal-focal-length assumption confines the calibration-free claim to cameras with square pixels, and suggests a symmetric extension that fits both focal lengths from the horizontal and vertical rotation bounds whenever a dataset offers any vertical rotation.
  • A deployment test for crowdsourced HD mapping would be measuring per-segment focal-length stability across road types: if fitted intrinsics drift more on straight than twisty segments, the fitting objective in Equation (7) could be reweighted by rotation magnitude.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Depth3DLane, a monocular 3D lane detector with two parallel encoders: a ResNet-18 front-view path and a bird's-eye-view path that back-projects the input image with a frozen self-supervised monocular depth network into an 8-channel point cloud (XYZ, color, uv) and encodes it with PointPillars plus ResNet-18. 3D lane anchors sample features from both paths to regress lane coordinates in the ego-vehicle frame. The paper also extends the depth/pose network to predict camera intrinsics per frame and fits a per-segment focal length using a ReLU-based objective motivated by the Gordon et al. theoretical bound. Experiments on OpenLane-1000 and OpenLane-300 report F1 scores of 56.6 and 64.3, lower Z errors than the compared methods, and ablations for the BEV path and learned intrinsics.

Significance. If the mechanism is real, the paper offers a plausible way to provide explicit spatial structure for 3D lane detection without LiDAR or ground-truth depth, which is relevant to HD mapping and low-cost autonomy. The design is straightforward, the depth network is pretrained and frozen in a sensible way, and the paper evaluates on a standard benchmark while disclosing the input-resolution difference with LATR. I do not see a circularity problem: the depth network is trained on unlabeled video and frozen, and the intrinsics fitting uses the Gordon et al. bound rather than lane labels. However, the experimental support for the central claim is not yet conclusive, mainly because the BEV-pathway ablation does not isolate depth information from added network capacity, input features, and the BEV coordinate prior.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-D, Table II] The BEV-pathway ablation does not isolate the contribution of predicted depth. Moving from 'No BEV pathway' to 'BEV pathway (PP+RN18)' adds a PointPillars/ResNet-18 encoder and replaces the front-view-only input with a point cloud that contains XYZ plus per-pixel color and uv coordinates (Section III-C). The 4.3-point F1 gain could therefore come from extra model capacity, the BEV coordinate prior, or the color/uv channels rather than from the depth estimates themselves. To support the paper's central mechanism, please add a control in which the same BEV encoder consumes point clouds with the same color/uv channels but with the 3D coordinates replaced by a constant depth (flat ground) or by depth randomized over the same range; a comparable F1 gain in such a control would undermine the claim that self-supervised depth is the effective ingredient. In addition, no variance estimates are reported, so the effect size is hard to assess.
  2. [Section IV-C, Table I] The comparison with LATR is confounded by input resolution and by selective metrics. The table footnote states that LATR uses 720x960 on OpenLane-1000 while Depth3DLane uses 320x480; the text acknowledges this and then relies on the OpenLane-300 row for a same-resolution comparison. Yet the conclusion says Depth3DLane 'outperforms previous methods, especially in spatial accuracy,' which is not supported by Table I: LATR has better F1 (61.9 vs 56.6) and better X errors (0.219/0.259 vs 0.262/0.300), while Depth3DLane's advantage is limited to Z near/far. Please report LATR at the same 320x480 input resolution on OpenLane-1000, add the depth-based baselines SALAD and M2-3DLaneNet that are discussed in Related Work but absent from the table, and restrict the superiority claim to the settings actually compared.
  3. [Section IV-D and Eq. (2)] The calibration-free claim is overbroad because the framework still assumes known camera extrinsics. The back-projection into the ego-vehicle frame and the anchor sampling in Eq. (2) use the extrinsic transformation T_g->c, and the learned-intrinsics experiments only replace the intrinsics; height and pitch are not learned or inferred. The paper should either formulate the problem with unknown extrinsics or clearly state 'known extrinsics, learned intrinsics.' The paper's own admission that the fx=fy assumption leads to misaligned features, together with the F1 drop from 64.3 to 61.1 in Table III, further indicates that the claim 'can be applied where camera calibration is infeasible' needs to be qualified with an explicit accuracy penalty.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section III-G, Eq. (7)] The fitting objective in Eq. (7) is not derived in the text; please state the exact bound from Gordon et al. that motivates the ReLU term, define the rotation quantities, and clarify that r_min^z in Table III is a validation-selected hyperparameter rather than a fixed part of the proposed procedure.
  2. [Section IV-C] The sentence 'At a similar resolution, our model outperforms LATR on the OpenLane-300 validation dataset' should state the exact input resolution used for both methods in that row, since the superscript dagger is only defined for the OpenLane-1000 row.
  3. [Throughout] The naming of the multi-modal baseline is inconsistent: the text and references use both M2-3DLane and M2-3DLaneNet; please unify the name, and also correct the 'Open Lane' label in Table I to 'OpenLane.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: F1 gains are empirical and the intrinsic fitting rests on an external bound.

full rationale

No load-bearing step in Depth3DLane reduces by construction to its own inputs. The BEV pathway is an empirical fusion of a frozen, self-supervised depth network (trained with photometric loss and the GPS-to-scale loss of Chawla et al.) with an anchor-based 3D lane head; the lane head is trained on OpenLane lane labels, so the improvement in F1 (Table II) is an experimental outcome, not an identity. The per-segment intrinsic fitting (Eq. 7) starts from per-frame learned intrinsics and the Gordon et al. bound; the bound is external to this paper and the fitted focal length is not used to define the lane loss or the metric, so the calibration-free claim is an application of an independent theoretical result rather than a self-citation. The paper does cite the authors' prior MT-SfMLearner and GPS-to-scale work, but these provide architecture and scale supervision whose correctness is established outside the present paper and does not embed the lane-detection result. The admitted f_x = f_y limitation and the absence of a non-depth BEV control are experimental caveats (potential confounds), not circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical entity. The free parameters are limited to the hand-chosen rotation threshold for intrinsics fitting. The central method rests on standard deep learning components and on domain assumptions about extrinsics, metric scale from GPS, and the applicability of the Gordon et al. bound.

free parameters (1)
  • minimum horizontal rotation threshold r_min^z = 0.03 radians (search over 0.01, 0.02, 0.03)
    Table III shows thresholds; 0.03 is chosen because it approximates the mean ground-truth focal length of 516, which amounts to selecting a hyperparameter to match the validation target.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The theoretical bound from Gordon et al. [46] on learned focal lengths applies to the pose network's outputs.
    Used to construct the per-segment intrinsic fitting loss in Eq. 7; no derivation or verification is provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption Camera extrinsics (height and pitch of the camera relative to the ground plane) are known and fixed.
    The BEV pathway back-projects points into ego-vehicle coordinates using extrinsics; the calibration-free claim only removes intrinsics, not extrinsics.
  • domain assumption The self-supervised depth network produces metric-scale depth because it was trained with the GPS-to-scale loss [49].
    Metric scale is required for 3D lane geometry; without GPS supervision the scale ambiguity of monocular depth reappears.
  • ad hoc to paper Focal lengths f_x and f_y are equal for the intrinsic fitting procedure.
    The paper states this assumption is needed because automotive datasets lack vertical rotation; it acknowledges that it causes misaligned features.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Depth3DLane: Fusing Monocular 3D Lane Detection with Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3FMSQVTL

@misc{pith2026250713857,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Depth3DLane: Fusing Monocular 3D Lane Detection with Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3FMSQVTL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13857}
}
read the original abstract

Monocular 3D lane detection is essential for autonomous driving, but challenging due to the inherent lack of explicit spatial information. Multi-modal approaches rely on expensive depth sensors, while methods incorporating fully-supervised depth networks rely on ground-truth depth data that is impractical to collect at scale. Additionally, existing methods assume that camera parameters are available, limiting their applicability in scenarios like crowdsourced high-definition (HD) lane mapping. To address these limitations, we propose Depth3DLane, a novel dual-pathway framework that integrates self-supervised monocular depth estimation to provide explicit structural information, without the need for expensive sensors or additional ground-truth depth data. Leveraging a self-supervised depth network to obtain a point cloud representation of the scene, our bird's-eye view pathway extracts explicit spatial information, while our front view pathway simultaneously extracts rich semantic information. Depth3DLane then uses 3D lane anchors to sample features from both pathways and infer accurate 3D lane geometry. Furthermore, we extend the framework to predict camera parameters on a per-frame basis and introduce a theoretically motivated fitting procedure to enhance stability on a per-segment basis. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Depth3DLane achieves competitive performance on the OpenLane benchmark dataset. Furthermore, experimental results show that using learned parameters instead of ground-truth parameters allows Depth3DLane to be applied in scenarios where camera calibration is infeasible, unlike previous methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13857 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graphical overview of our dual-pathway Depth3DLane framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic overview of the three coordinate systems relevant to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A review of recent advances in lane detection and departure warning system,

    S. P. Narote, P. N. Bhujbal, A. S. Narote, and D. M. Dhane, “A review of recent advances in lane detection and departure warning system,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 73, pp. 216–234, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    High Definition Map for Automated Driving: Overview and Analysis,

    R. Liu, J. Wang, and B. Zhang, “High Definition Map for Automated Driving: Overview and Analysis,” The Journal of Navigation , vol. 73, pp. 324–341, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    AI-Driven Road Maintenance Inspection,

    R. Mukherjee, H. Iqbal, S. Marzban, A. Badar, T. Brouns, S. Gowda, E. Arani, and B. Zonooz, “AI-Driven Road Maintenance Inspection,” ITS World Congress, pp. 11–15, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    AI-Driven Road Maintenance Inspection v2: Reducing Data Dependency & Quantifying Road Damage,

    H. Iqbal, H. Chawla, A. Varma, T. Brouns, A. Badar, E. Arani, and B. Zonooz, “AI-Driven Road Maintenance Inspection v2: Reducing Data Dependency & Quantifying Road Damage,” IRF Global R2T Conference & Exhibition , 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    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,” pp. 1002–1011, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Inverse perspective mapping simplifies optical flow computation and obstacle detection,

    H. A. Mallot, H. H. B ¨ulthoff, J. J. Little, and S. Bohrer, “Inverse perspective mapping simplifies optical flow computation and obstacle detection,” Biological Cybernetics, vol. 64, pp. 177–185, 1991

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    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,” International Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 2921–2930, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Reconstruct from BEV: A 3D Lane Detection Approach based on Geometry Structure Prior,

    C. Li, J. Shi, Y . Wang, and G. Cheng, “Reconstruct from BEV: A 3D Lane Detection Approach based on Geometry Structure Prior,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 4369– 4378, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Anchor3DLane: Learning to Regress 3D Anchors for Monocular 3D Lane Detection,

    S. Huang, Z. Shen, Z. Huang, Z. han Ding, J. Dai, J. Han, N. Wang, and S. Liu, “Anchor3DLane: Learning to Regress 3D Anchors for Monocular 3D Lane Detection,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 17 451–17 460, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    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,” Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 7941–7952, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    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. E. Choe, “Gen-LaneNet: A Generalized and Scalable Approach for 3D Lane Detection,” European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 666– 681, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    M 2-3DLaneNet: Exploring Multi-Modal 3D Lane Detection,

    Y . Luo, X. Yan, C. Zheng, C. Zheng, S. Mei, T. Kun, S. Cui, Z. Li, T. Map, and T. Lab, “M 2-3DLaneNet: Exploring Multi-Modal 3D Lane Detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.05996v3 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Lite-Mono: A Lightweight CNN and Transformer Architecture for Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation,

    N. Zhang, F. Nex, G. V osselman, and N. Kerle, “Lite-Mono: A Lightweight CNN and Transformer Architecture for Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 18 537–18 546, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    ONCE-3DLanes: Building Monocular 3D Lane Detection,

    F. Yan, M. Nie, X. Cai, J. Han, H. Xu, Z. Yang, C. Ye, Y . Fu, M. B. Mi, and L. Zhang, “ONCE-3DLanes: Building Monocular 3D Lane Detection,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 17 143–17 152, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Unsupervised Learning of Depth and Ego-Motion from Video,

    T. Zhou, M. Brown, N. Snavely, and D. G. Lowe, “Unsupervised Learning of Depth and Ego-Motion from Video,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 6612–6621, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Digging Into Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation,

    C. Godard, O. M. Aodha, M. Firman, and G. Brostow, “Digging Into Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation,” International Confer- ence on Computer Vision , pp. 3827–3837, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Monocular 3D lane detection for Autonomous Driving: Recent Achievements, Challenges, and Outlooks,

    F. Ma, W. Qi, G. Zhao, L. Zheng, S. Wang, Y . Liu, and M. Liu, “Monocular 3D lane detection for Autonomous Driving: Recent Achievements, Challenges, and Outlooks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06860v2, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    EL-GAN: Embedding Loss Driven Generative Adversarial Networks for Lane Detection,

    M. Ghafoorian, C. Nugteren, N. Baka, O. Booij, and M. Hofmann, “EL-GAN: Embedding Loss Driven Generative Adversarial Networks for Lane Detection,” European Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 256–272, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Learning Lightweight Lane Detection CNNs by Self Attention Distillation,

    Y . Hou, Z. Ma, C. Liu, and C. C. Loy, “Learning Lightweight Lane Detection CNNs by Self Attention Distillation,” International Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 1013–1021, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    RESA: Recurrent Feature-Shift Aggregator for Lane Detection,

    T. Zheng, H. Fang, Y . Zhang, W. Tang, Z. Yang, H. F. Liu, and D. Cai, “RESA: Recurrent Feature-Shift Aggregator for Lane Detection,” Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 4B, pp. 3547–3554, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Towards End-to-End Lane Detection: an Instance Segmentation Approach,

    D. Neven, B. D. Brabandere, S. Georgoulis, M. Proesmans, and L. V . Gool, “Towards End-to-End Lane Detection: an Instance Segmentation Approach,” Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, pp. 286–291, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Spatial As Deep: Spatial CNN for Traffic Scene Understanding,

    X. Pan, J. Shi, P. Luo, X. Wang, and X. Tang, “Spatial As Deep: Spatial CNN for Traffic Scene Understanding,” Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 7276–7283, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    End-to-end Lane Detection through Differentiable Least- Squares Fitting,

    W. V . Gansbeke, B. D. Brabandere, D. Neven, M. Proesmans, and L. V . Gool, “End-to-end Lane Detection through Differentiable Least- Squares Fitting,” International Conference on Computer Vision Work- shop, pp. 905–913, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    End-to-end Lane Shape Prediction with Transformers,

    R. Liu, Z. Yuan, T. Liu, and Z. Xiong, “End-to-end Lane Shape Prediction with Transformers,” Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp. 3693–3701, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Rethinking Ef- ficient Lane Detection via Curve Modeling,

    Z. Feng, S. Guo, X. Tan, K. Xu, M. Wang, and L. Ma, “Rethinking Ef- ficient Lane Detection via Curve Modeling,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 17 041–17 049, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    GroupLane: End-to-End 3D Lane Detection with Channel- wise Grouping,

    Z. Li, C. Han, Z. Ge, J. Yang, E. Yu, H. Wang, H. Zhao, and X. Zhang, “GroupLane: End-to-End 3D Lane Detection with Channel- wise Grouping,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09472v1 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    End-to-End Lane Marker Detection via Row-wise Classification,

    S. Yoo, H. S. Lee, H. Myeong, S. Yun, H. Park, J. Cho, and D. H. Kim, “End-to-End Lane Marker Detection via Row-wise Classification,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 4335– 4343, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Focus on Local: Detecting Lane Marker from Bottom Up via Key Point,

    Z. Qu, H. Jin, Y . Zhou, Z. Yang, and W. Zhang, “Focus on Local: Detecting Lane Marker from Bottom Up via Key Point,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 14 117–14 125, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    A Keypoint-based Global Association Network for Lane Detection,

    J. Wang, Y . Ma, S. Huang, T. Hui, F. Wang, C. Qian, and T. Zhang, “A Keypoint-based Global Association Network for Lane Detection,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 1382– 1391, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    RCLane: Relay Chain Prediction for Lane Detection,

    S. Xu, X. Cai, B. Zhao, L. Zhang, H. Xu, Y . Fu, and X. Xue, “RCLane: Relay Chain Prediction for Lane Detection,” European Conference on Computer Vision, vol. 13698, pp. 461–477, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Ultra Fast Structure-aware Deep Lane Detection,

    Z. Qin, H. Wang, and X. Li, “Ultra Fast Structure-aware Deep Lane Detection,” European Conference on Computer Vision, vol. 12369, pp. 276–291, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection,

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 779–788, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    SSD: Single Shot MultiBox Detector,

    W. Liu, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, C. Szegedy, S. Reed, C.-Y . Fu, and A. C. Berg, “SSD: Single Shot MultiBox Detector,” European Conference on Computer Vision , vol. 9905, pp. 21–37, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    PointLaneNet: Efficient end-to- end CNNs for accurate real-time lane detection,

    Z. Chen, Q. Liu, and C. Lian, “PointLaneNet: Efficient end-to- end CNNs for accurate real-time lane detection,” Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, pp. 2563–2568, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    CondLaneNet: a Top-to- down Lane Detection Framework Based on Conditional Convolution,

    L. Liu, X. Chen, S. Zhu, and P. Tan, “CondLaneNet: a Top-to- down Lane Detection Framework Based on Conditional Convolution,” International Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 3753–3762, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    CLRNet: Cross Layer Refinement Network for Lane Detection,

    T. Zheng, Y . Huang, Y . Liu, W. Tang, Z. Yang, D. Cai, and X. He, “CLRNet: Cross Layer Refinement Network for Lane Detection,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 888– 897, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Lane- former: Object-aware Row-Column Transformers for Lane Detection,

    J. Han, X. Deng, X. Cai, Z. Yang, H. Xu, C. Xu, and X. Liang, “Lane- former: Object-aware Row-Column Transformers for Lane Detection,” Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 36, pp. 1122–1130, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Line-CNN: End-to-End Traffic Line Detection with Line Proposal Unit,

    X. Li, J. Li, X. Hu, and J. Yang, “Line-CNN: End-to-End Traffic Line Detection with Line Proposal Unit,” Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 21, pp. 248–258, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Keep your Eyes on the Lane: Real-time Attention- guided Lane Detection,

    L. Tabelini, R. Berriel, T. M. Paix ˜ao, C. Badue, A. F. de Souza, and T. Oliveira-Santos, “Keep your Eyes on the Lane: Real-time Attention- guided Lane Detection,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 294–302, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Recent progress in road and lane detection: A survey,

    A. B. Hillel, R. Lerner, D. Levi, and G. Raz, “Recent progress in road and lane detection: A survey,” Machine Vision and Applications, vol. 25, pp. 727–745, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    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 . Qiao, and J. Yan, “PersFormer: 3D Lane Detection via Perspective Transformer and the OpenLane Benchmark,” European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 550–567, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Deformable DETR: Deformable Transformers for End-to-End Object Detection,

    X. Zhu, W. Su, L. Lu, B. Li, X. Wang, and J. Dai, “Deformable DETR: Deformable Transformers for End-to-End Object Detection,” International Conference on Learning Representations , 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby, “An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale,” International Confer- ence on Learning ...

    2020

  36. [44]

    Monocular Vision based Crowdsourced 3D Traffic Sign Positioning with Unknown Cam- era Intrinsics and Distortion Coefficients,

    H. Chawla, M. Jukola, E. Arani, and B. Zonooz, “Monocular Vision based Crowdsourced 3D Traffic Sign Positioning with Unknown Cam- era Intrinsics and Distortion Coefficients,”International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Depth Map Prediction from a Single Image using a Multi-Scale Deep Network,

    D. Eigen, C. Puhrsch, and R. Fergus, “Depth Map Prediction from a Single Image using a Multi-Scale Deep Network,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 3, pp. 2366–2374, 2014

    2014

  38. [46]

    Depth from Videos in the Wild: Unsupervised Monocular Depth Learning from Unknown Cameras,

    A. Gordon, H. Li, R. Jonschkowski, and A. Angelova, “Depth from Videos in the Wild: Unsupervised Monocular Depth Learning from Unknown Cameras,” International Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 8976–8985, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Transformers in Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation with Unknown Camera Intrinsics,

    A. Varma, H. Chawla, B. Zonooz, and E. Arani, “Transformers in Self-Supervised Monocular Depth Estimation with Unknown Camera Intrinsics,” International Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications, pp. 758–769, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Szeliski, Computer Vision, 2022

    R. Szeliski, Computer Vision, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Multimodal Scale Consistency and Awareness for Monocular Self-Supervised Depth Estimation,

    H. Chawla, A. Varma, E. Arani, and B. Zonooz, “Multimodal Scale Consistency and Awareness for Monocular Self-Supervised Depth Estimation,” International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pp. 5140–5146, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Curve- Former: 3D Lane Detection by Curve Propagation with Curve Queries and Attention,

    Y . Bai, Z. Chen, Z. Fu, L. Peng, P. Liang, and E. Cheng, “Curve- Former: 3D Lane Detection by Curve Propagation with Curve Queries and Attention,” International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 7062–7068, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    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:2402.06423v1 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection,

    T. Y . Lin, P. Goyal, R. Girshick, K. He, and P. Dollar, “Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection,” Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 42, pp. 318–327, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    Scalability in Per- ception 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, V . Vasudevan, W. Han, J. Ngiam, H. Zhao, A. Timofeev, S. Ettinger, M. Krivokon, A. Gao, A. Joshi, Y . Zhang, J. Shlens, Z. Chen, and D. Anguelov, “Scalability in Per-...

    2020

  46. [54]

    Decoupled Weight Decay Regulariza- tion,

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled Weight Decay Regulariza- tion,” International Conference on Learning Representations , 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. L. Ba, “Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization,” International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015

    2015

  48. [56]

    Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 770–778, 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    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,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 12 689– 12 697, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

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