Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

The ATLAS of Traffic Lights: A Reliable Perception Framework for Autonomous Driving

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims its modular camera-and-map traffic light perception framework recognizes and decides signal states with no erroneous state changes within 120 meters and an average 184 ms reaction time.

desk verdict The ATLAS dataset is a real contribution; the reliability claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19722 v1 pith:7GED2CQH submitted 2025-04-28 cs.CV cs.LG

Rupert Polley , Nikolai Polley , Dominik Heid , Marc Heinrich , Sven Ochs , J. Marius Zöllner This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords trafficlightperceptionautonomousdrivingATLASdatasetobjectdetectionHDmapassociationHungarianalgorithmcircularbufferreal-timedecisionmodule
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 aims to establish that camera-based traffic light perception can be made dependable enough to drive through urban intersections autonomously. The authors propose a complete framework: a detector finds traffic lights, an association stage matches detections to 3D positions stored in an HD map, and a decision module buffers recent detections to produce stable signal states. They also release ATLAS, a new annotated dataset covering pictograms, weather conditions, and multi-camera views, and show that training on it improves detection accuracy. The payoff is that an autonomous vehicle gets a concrete, measurable basis for stopping or proceeding: no erroneous state changes within 120 meters and 184 ms average latency.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the association-plus-decision chain. Each detected bounding box is turned into a 3D ray using camera intrinsics and extrinsics, and the distance from each ray to each mapped traffic light reference point is computed over a 180-meter region; the assignment of detections to mapped lights is then solved as a weighted complete bipartite graph with the Hungarian algorithm, with edge costs capped at 10 meters and success requiring a matched edge under 2 meters. After association, every traffic light keeps a circular buffer of recent detections, weighted by detector confidence, linearly decayed over three seconds, and halved when the predicted pictogram (the direction arrows on the light face, such as straight, left, or right) does not match the map's pictogram; the final state is the highest cumulative weight in the buffer, and for a signal group—a set of lights that jointly control one movement and must show the same state—the highest-confidence member decides. This buffered voting is what prevents flicker and suppresses single-frame misdetections.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to repeat the 10-minute annotated evaluation on a route where the HD-map traffic light positions are intentionally shifted by 2 to 5 meters relative to the camera localization. If the association module starts pairing detections with the wrong mapped lights or produces erroneous state changes within 120 meters, the claimed reliability depends on map accuracy rather than on the matching and buffering design. A second check is to hand-annotate all 230 minutes of the autonomous drive; any erroneous state change inside 120 meters would contradict the stated accuracy bound directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a perception stack built from three stages—a YOLO-family detector, a ray-to-map association solved as a minimum-cost bipartite matching, and a per-traffic-light circular-buffer decision module—is reliable enough for an autonomous vehicle to act on traffic light states in real urban traffic. The authors report that during 230 minutes of fully autonomous driving in Karlsruhe the safety driver never had to override the decision module, and that in a hand-annotated 10-minute segment no erroneous state change occurred within 120 meters of an intersection, with a calculated accuracy of 99.33% inside that range. They further report an average end-to-end signal-change reaction time of 184 ms and a first-detection association distance averaging 169.5 meters, and they attribute the stability to the buffered decision logic rather than to any single detector.

Load-bearing premise

The whole reliability argument assumes an HD map with accurate 3D traffic light positions, pictogram labels, and signal groups is available for every route the vehicle drives; without those priors, the association and decision modules cannot identify which detected light is relevant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the framework is as reliable as reported, autonomous vehicles can plan smooth braking rather than emergency stops, since red lights are recognized early enough at 120 meters and beyond (average first association at 169.5 meters).
  • The end-to-end 184 ms reaction time to a signal change is comfortably inside human perception-brake times, so the decision module itself is not the bottleneck for intersection safety.
  • Combining ATLAS with an existing dataset raises detector mAP50 on ATLAS from roughly 0.53 to 0.70–0.72 across several YOLO variants, which suggests dataset coverage, not architecture choice, is the limiting factor.
  • Because the decision module reasons over signal groups, a single momentarily misclassified or missed light can be outvoted by another light in the same group, making the system robust to occlusions that hide one signal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test of the framework's generality is to run it in a city with a differently annotated HD map, or with map positions deliberately perturbed; the association threshold of 2 meters and the 10-meter cost cap would have to absorb those errors, and the reported reliability would only transfer if they do.
  • The same association method could be applied to other 2D-to-3D landmark tasks, such as attaching detected signs or lane markings to a map under localization drift.
  • The circular-buffer weighting scheme is detector-agnostic and could be paired with any future traffic-light detector, so the reported stability may outlive the specific YOLO models used here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ATLAS, a publicly released traffic-light dataset with 25 pictogram-state classes, multi-camera fields of view, and rain annotations, totaling 33,044 images and 72,998 bounding boxes. The authors train several YOLO variants on ATLAS combined with DTLD and report improved mAP on the ATLAS test split. They then present a modular perception framework consisting of a camera-based detector, a ray-projection and Hungarian-algorithm association module that links detections to HD-map traffic-light positions, and a circular-buffer decision module that aggregates weighted detector outputs over time to reach a stable signal-group state. The framework is deployed in an autonomous vehicle and evaluated during 230 minutes of autonomous driving with no safety-driver override, plus a 10-minute hand-annotated autonomous drive reporting 99.33% accuracy within 120 meters, no erroneous state changes within that range, an average end-to-end reaction time of 184 ms, and an average first-detection distance of 169.5 meters.

Significance. If the system-level results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: ATLAS fills concrete gaps in public traffic-light data (rare pictogram-state combinations, rain, multiple FOVs), and the deployment study provides a rare full-stack evaluation with a breakdown of latency sources. The authors also compare fairly against prior map-based association work and openly report the 230-minute no-override record and the 10-minute annotated evaluation. However, the headline reliability claims rest on a very small statistical base: one 10-minute segment from one vehicle in one city, no reported counts of intersections or state transitions, point estimates without variance, and decision-module hyperparameters that may have been tuned on the same evaluation segment. These issues are load-bearing for the central claim that the framework is reliable, stable, and capable of long-range detection.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V, Fig. 6b] The fine-grained reliability evidence is a single 10-minute annotated segment from one vehicle in Karlsruhe, and the 230-minute no-override record is reported without the number of traffic-light-controlled intersections, signal-group state transitions, unique mapped traffic lights, or weather and time-of-day conditions encountered. As a result, the headline numbers "no erroneous state changes were detected within a range of 120 meters" and "99.33% accuracy" have no statistical denominator and cannot, on their own, support the general reliability claim stated in Section V. Please report the counts of transitions, intersections, and frames used to compute these figures, and provide per-intersection results or a confidence interval for the accuracy and latency estimates.
  2. [§IV.B.4] The decision-module hyperparameters (circular buffer size 9, linear weight decay to zero over three seconds, and halving the weight for mismatched pictograms) are described as optimal "in our experiments" without a held-out split or sensitivity analysis. If the same 10-minute annotated drive used in Section V was also used to select these parameters, the reported 103 ms state-change latency and 99.33% accuracy are optimistically biased. Please specify the tuning protocol, state explicitly whether the evaluation segment was excluded from tuning, and report how the system-level metrics vary with buffer size, decay time, and pictogram mismatch factor.
  3. [§V, criteria A and C] The metric definitions need to be reconciled: the paper reports "no erroneous state changes were detected within a range of 120 meters" yet also reports a 0.67% accuracy loss within that range, which is attributed entirely to latency. Clarify whether delayed state transitions are counted as erroneous state changes, define the exact frame-level counting rule used for the 99.33% figure, and report the number of state-change events from which the average 103 ms latency is computed. Without this, it is not possible to judge whether the 0.67% discrepancy is a stable property of the system or an artifact of a short recording with few transitions.
  4. [§IV.B.1 and §V] The association and decision modules require an HD map with accurate 3D traffic-light positions, pictogram labels, and signal groups for every operated route, and the evaluation is limited to such mapped routes. The concluding claims in Section V, and the abstract's statement of a "reliable perception framework," should be explicitly scoped to map-based operation. If map creation effort, map errors, or localization failures were measured, that information should be reported, since it bears directly on how broadly the reliability result can be expected to generalize.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV.B.2, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) as typeset contains a malformed normalization term, with a stray "r" before the square-root expression; the formula should be corrected so that the ray equation can be verified.
  2. [Table I] Table I would benefit from a legend or footnote explaining the checkmark encoding; the single long row of checkmarks makes it difficult to see which classes are missing for each dataset, especially for the less common pictograms.
  3. [Table III] Table III reports single-run mAP values without variance or the number of random seeds; a short statement on training reproducibility would help assess whether the reported differences among YOLO variants are meaningful.
  4. [Fig. 6b] Figure 6b is difficult to read at the printed size; a zoomed excerpt around the two reported exceptions near 30 and 220 seconds would make it easier for a reader to verify the "no erroneous state changes within 120 m" claim.
  5. [§III.B] The annotation protocol labels pictograms of far-away traffic lights using later recorded images or Google Street View; this should be stated explicitly in the dataset documentation, since it means the long-distance pictogram labels are not always derived from the pixels in the annotated frame.
  6. [§V, latency comparison] The statement that the 381 ms worst-case latency is "still faster than human drivers" compares a perception-only latency with a full human perception-brake reaction time; the comparison should be qualified to avoid overstating the system-level margin.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The paper is an empirical systems paper with no derivation chain that reduces to its inputs; the detector and dataset are benchmarked externally, and the reliability claim rests on measured deployment behavior rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper makes empirical claims (detector mAP on ATLAS/DTLD test splits, 184 ms end-to-end latency, 99.33% accuracy, and a 230-minute no-override run) rather than deriving a quantity from an input. The detector from prior work [9] is re-used but is independently benchmarked in this paper on both DTLD and ATLAS test splits, so no load-bearing premise rests solely on a self-citation. The ATLAS dataset is constructed with a self-supervised iterative labeling loop, but the final annotations are human-reviewed, the dataset is public, and the evaluation uses separate train/test splits; this is a data-collection methodology rather than a circular derivation. The decision-module hyperparameters (buffer size 9, 3 s decay, 0.5 pictogram mismatch weight) are described as optimal 'in our experiments' without an explicit held-out split, which is a reproducibility limitation, but the paper does not present those values as predicted results, and no equation or evaluation metric is defined in terms of the same fitted values. Therefore, there is no demonstrated step where a predicted output is equivalent by construction to an input. The external-validity concerns (unknown intersection and transition counts, route-specific HD-map dependence, and potential tuning-set overlap) are correctness-risk issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three groups of assumptions: standard camera geometry and assignment math; availability and accuracy of an HD map with traffic light positions, pictograms, and signal groups; and representativeness of the Karlsruhe evaluation. The free parameters are operational thresholds and decision-module hyperparameters, several of which were tuned to observed performance without a disclosed held-out split. No new physical or abstract entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • association cost cap = 10 meters
    Chosen to constrain the bipartite optimization and prevent large costs from dominating; no sensitivity analysis is reported in Section IV.B.3.
  • association threshold = 2 meters
    A detection is associated only if the edge cost is below 2 meters; hand-set threshold in Section IV.B.3.
  • circular buffer size = 9
    Decision module buffer length; the authors state this yielded optimal performance without reporting a search procedure or a held-out split in Section IV.B.4.
  • weight decay time = 3 seconds
    Linear decay of detection weight over time; tuned for the detector frequency and latency in Section IV.B.4.
  • mismatched pictogram weight factor = 0.5
    Weight is halved when the predicted pictogram does not match the HD map pictogram; tuned parameter in Section IV.B.4.
  • camera switch distance = 10 meters
    Operational parameter controlling when the second stream switches from tele to wide camera; chosen by design in Section IV.A.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Pinhole camera projection (Equation 1) and Hungarian minimum-cost matching are valid for this setting.
    Section IV.B.2 and IV.B.3 rely on standard camera geometry and the Hungarian algorithm; the paper assumes calibrated intrinsics, extrinsics, and localization.
  • domain assumption An HD map with accurate 3D traffic-light positions, pictogram labels, and signal groups exists for the deployment area.
    Section IV.B.1 states positions are manually or automatically annotated; Section IV.B.3 uses these positions for association, and Section IV.B.4 uses pictograms and signal groups for the final decision.
  • domain assumption All traffic lights in a signal group always display the same state and pictogram.
    Section IV.B.4 lets the highest-confidence traffic light set the signal-group state based on this consistency property; rare hardware faults or contradictory lights would break it.
  • domain assumption The Karlsruhe evaluation drives are representative of the intended deployment domain.
    Section V evaluates one vehicle and one city, and ATLAS data was also collected in Karlsruhe with the same cameras; the framework may not generalize to other cities or camera setups.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ATLAS of Traffic Lights: A Reliable Perception Framework for Autonomous Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7GED2CQH

@misc{pith2026250419722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ATLAS of Traffic Lights: A Reliable Perception Framework for Autonomous Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7GED2CQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19722}
}
read the original abstract

Traffic light perception is an essential component of the camera-based perception system for autonomous vehicles, enabling accurate detection and interpretation of traffic lights to ensure safe navigation through complex urban environments. In this work, we propose a modularized perception framework that integrates state-of-the-art detection models with a novel real-time association and decision framework, enabling seamless deployment into an autonomous driving stack. To address the limitations of existing public datasets, we introduce the ATLAS dataset, which provides comprehensive annotations of traffic light states and pictograms across diverse environmental conditions and camera setups. This dataset is publicly available at https://url.fzi.de/ATLAS. We train and evaluate several state-of-the-art traffic light detection architectures on ATLAS, demonstrating significant performance improvements in both accuracy and robustness. Finally, we evaluate the framework in real-world scenarios by deploying it in an autonomous vehicle to make decisions at traffic light-controlled intersections, highlighting its reliability and effectiveness for real-time operation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19722 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Annotated images from ATLAS. The top image captures a scene recorded in rain, featuring a traffic light in the red-yellow state. The bottom left image shows multiple red traffic lights with distinct pictograms differentiated by color. The bottom right image demonstrates the necessity of a wide FOV, as the on-demand traffic light is not visible within a standard camera’s field of view. To tackle these challenges, we … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We start annotating traffic lights with two-pixel width. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Overview of our proposed traffic light perception framework. An autonomous vehicle approaches an intersection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CoCar NextGen, positioned in a right-turn lane, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A Vision-Based Traffic Light Detection System at Intersections,

    Y .-C. Chung, J.-M. Wang, and S.-W. Chen, “A Vision-Based Traffic Light Detection System at Intersections,” Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Mathematics, Science and Technology , 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Real time visual traffic lights recognition based on Spot Light Detection and adaptive traffic lights templates,

    R. De Charette and F. Nashashibi, “Real time visual traffic lights recognition based on Spot Light Detection and adaptive traffic lights templates,” in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Robust recognition of traffic signals,

    F. Lindner, U. Kressel, and S. Kaelberer, “Robust recognition of traffic signals,” in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Visual state estimation of traffic lights using hidden Markov models,

    D. Nienh ¨user, M. Drescher, and J. M. Z ¨ollner, “Visual state estimation of traffic lights using hidden Markov models,” in International Con- ference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . IEEE, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Traffic Light Recognition using Convolutional Neural Networks: A Survey,

    S. Pavlitska, N. Lambing, A. K. Bangaru, and J. M. Z ¨ollner, “Traffic Light Recognition using Convolutional Neural Networks: A Survey,” in International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Traffic Light Recog- nition Using Deep Learning and Prior Maps for Autonomous Cars,

    L. C. Possatti, R. Guidolini, V . Cardoso, et al., “Traffic Light Recog- nition Using Deep Learning and Prior Maps for Autonomous Cars,” in International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Traffic Light Detection and Recognition using Ensemble Learning with Color-Based Data Augmentation,

    Y .-C. Chen and H.-Y . Lin, “Traffic Light Detection and Recognition using Ensemble Learning with Color-Based Data Augmentation,” in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    YOLO by Ultralytics (Version 8.0.0) [Computer software],

    G. Jocher, A. Chaurasia, and J. Qiu, “YOLO by Ultralytics (Version 8.0.0) [Computer software],” https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    TLD-READY: Traffic Light Detection - Relevance Estimation and Deployment Analysis,

    N. Polley, S. Pavlitska, Y . Boualili, P. Rohrbeck, P. Stiller, A. K. Bangaru, and J. M. Z ¨ollner, “TLD-READY: Traffic Light Detection - Relevance Estimation and Deployment Analysis,” in International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) , 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Are we ready for Autonomous Driving? The KITTI Vision Benchmark Suite,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, and R. Urtasun, “Are we ready for Autonomous Driving? The KITTI Vision Benchmark Suite,” in Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    nuScenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,

    H. Caesar, V . Bankiti, A. H. Lang, S. V ora, V . E. Liong, Q. Xu, A. Kr- ishnan, Y . Pan, G. Baldan, and O. Beijbom, “nuScenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,” in Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    LaRA french traffic lights recognition (tlr) public benchmarks,

    R. de Charette, “LaRA french traffic lights recognition (tlr) public benchmarks,” 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Accurate Automatic 3D Annotation of Traffic Lights and Signs for Autonomous Driving,

    S. Kuns ´agi-M´at´e, L. Pet ˝o, L. Seres, and T. Matuszka, “Accurate Automatic 3D Annotation of Traffic Lights and Signs for Autonomous Driving,” European Conference on Computer Vision 2024 Workshop on Vision-Centric Autonomous Driving

    2024

  6. [14]

    A deep learning approach to traffic lights: Detection, tracking, and classification,

    K. Behrendt, L. Novak, and R. Botros, “A deep learning approach to traffic lights: Detection, tracking, and classification,” in International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Vision for Looking at Traffic Lights: Issues, Survey, and Perspectives,

    M. B. Jensen, M. P. Philipsen, A. Møgelmose, T. B. Moeslund, and M. M. Trivedi, “Vision for Looking at Traffic Lights: Issues, Survey, and Perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    The DriveU traf- fic light dataset: Introduction and comparison with existing datasets,

    A. Fregin, J. Mueller, U. Kreßel, and K. Dietmayer, “The DriveU traf- fic light dataset: Introduction and comparison with existing datasets,” in International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Traffic Light Recognition for Complex Scene With Fusion Detections,

    X. Li, H. Ma, X. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Traffic Light Recognition for Complex Scene With Fusion Detections,” International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) , 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Deep Metadata Fusion for Traffic Light to Lane Assignment,

    T. Langenberg, T. L ¨uddecke, and F. W¨org¨otter, “Deep Metadata Fusion for Traffic Light to Lane Assignment,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Traffic light mapping and detection,

    N. Fairfield and C. Urmson, “Traffic light mapping and detection,” in International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    CoCar NextGen: A Multi-Purpose Platform for Connected Autonomous Driving Research,

    M. Heinrich, M. Zipfl, M. Uecker, S. Ochs, M. Gontscharow, T. Fleck, J. Doll, P. Sch¨orner, C. Hubschneider, M. R. Zofka, A. Viehl, and J. M. Z¨ollner, “CoCar NextGen: A Multi-Purpose Platform for Connected Autonomous Driving Research,” in International Conference on Intel- li...

    2024

  13. [21]

    DeepPrivacy2: Towards Realistic Full- Body Anonymization,

    H. Hukkel ˚as and F. Lindseth, “DeepPrivacy2: Towards Realistic Full- Body Anonymization,” in Winter Conference on Applications of Com- puter Vision (WACV), 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    EgoBlur: Responsible Innovation in Aria,

    N. Raina, G. Somasundaram, K. Zheng, S. Miglani, S. Saarinen, J. Meissner, M. Schwesinger et al., “EgoBlur: Responsible Innovation in Aria,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13093 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    YOLOv9: Learning What You Want to Learn Using Programmable Gradient Information,

    C.-Y . Wang, I.-H. Yeh, and H.-Y . Mark Liao, “YOLOv9: Learning What You Want to Learn Using Programmable Gradient Information,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). Springer, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    YOLOv10: Real-Time End-to-End Object Detection,

    A. Wang, H. Chen, L. Liu, K. Chen, Z. Lin, J. Han, and G. Ding, “YOLOv10: Real-Time End-to-End Object Detection,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) , 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Ultralytics YOLO11,

    G. Jocher and J. Qiu, “Ultralytics YOLO11,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

    2025

  18. [26]

    YOLOv12: Attention-Centric Real- Time Object Detectors,

    Y . Tian, Q. Ye, and D. Doermann, “YOLOv12: Attention-Centric Real- Time Object Detectors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12524 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A Chefs KISS–Utilizing semantic information in both ICP and SLAM framework,

    S. Ochs, M. Heinrich, P. Sch ¨orner, M. R. Zofka, and J. M. Z ¨ollner, “A Chefs KISS–Utilizing semantic information in both ICP and SLAM framework,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02086 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The Hungarian method for the assignment problem,

    H. W. Kuhn, “The Hungarian method for the assignment problem,” Naval research logistics quarterly , 1955

    1955

  21. [29]

    One Stack to Rule them All: To Drive Automated Vehicles, and Reach for the 4th level,

    S. Ochs, J. Doll, D. Grimm, T. Fleck, M. Heinrich, S. Orf, A. Schotschneider, H. Gremmelmaier, R. Polley, S. Pavlitska et al. , “One Stack to Rule them All: To Drive Automated Vehicles, and Reach for the 4th level,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02645 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Towards Large Scale Urban Traffic Reference Data: Smart Infrastructure in the Test Area Autonomous Driving Baden-W ¨urttemberg,

    T. Fleck, K. Daaboul, M. Weber, P. Sch ¨orner, M. Wehmer, J. Doll, S. Orf, N. Sußmann, C. Hubschneider, M. R. Zofka et al., “Towards Large Scale Urban Traffic Reference Data: Smart Infrastructure in the Test Area Autonomous Driving Baden-W ¨urttemberg,” in Intelligent Autonomo...

    2019

  23. [31]

    ”How long does it take to stop?

    M. Green, “”How long does it take to stop?” Methodological analysis of driver perception-brake times,” Transportation Human Factors, Volume 2, Issue 3 , 2000

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.