Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 22 references

CaR1 shows camera-radar fusion can reach state-of-the-art BEV vehicle segmentation without LiDAR, scoring 57.6 IoU on nuScenes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

CaR1 achieves 57.6 IoU on nuScenes BEV vehicle segmentation by fusing camera features with grid-scattered radar features via adaptive weighting.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection An honest, reproducible camera-radar BEV segmentation baseline whose 'on par with SOTA' claim is plausible but rests on a comparison table that needs verification. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.10139 v1 pith:AQ52LFA7 submitted 2025-09-12 cs.RO

CaR1: A Multi-Modal Baseline for BEV Vehicle Segmentation via Camera-Radar Fusion

Santiago Montiel-Mar\'in , Angel Llamazares , Miguel Antunes-Garc\'ia , Fabio S\'anchez-Garc\'ia , Luis M. Bergasa This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords BEV vehicle segmentationcamera-radar fusionnuScenesbird's-eye viewadaptive fusionradar point cloudPoint Transformer V3autonomous driving
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes CaR1, a camera-radar fusion architecture for bird's-eye-view (BEV) vehicle segmentation in autonomous driving. The authors claim it reaches 57.6 IoU on the nuScenes validation set, matching published state-of-the-art camera-radar results while beating camera-only baselines by 10.2 IoU. The work matters because it shows a cheaper, weather-robust sensor set — cameras plus radar — can approach the perception quality of LiDAR-based systems. The key to the result is a grid-wise radar encoding that converts sparse radar points into structured BEV features, combined with an adaptive fusion mechanism that learns to weight each sensor's contribution. If the claims hold, CaR1 provides a strong baseline for radar-camera fusion research.

Core claim

CaR1's central claim is that camera-radar fusion, built on a BEVFusion-style framework, can achieve competitive BEV vehicle segmentation without LiDAR. Specifically, the authors report 57.6 IoU on the nuScenes validation split, on par with published methods (SimpleBEV 55.7, BEVCar 58.4, CRN 58.8, BEVGuide 59.2) and +10.2 IoU over camera-only. The design's contribution is twofold: a grid-wise radar encoding (Point Transformer V3 plus scatter addition and pyramid aggregation) that preserves the strengths of point-based networks in BEV space, and an adaptive fusion mechanism with attention-based modality weighting and Squeeze-and-Excite recalibration. The ablation study attributes the improveme

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a grid-wise radar encoding: radar point clouds are processed by Point Transformer V3 (a point-based transformer), then scattered into a BEV grid via differentiable scatter addition, and refined by a pyramid aggregation network for multi-scale context. The camera branch uses EfficientViT-L2 with multi-scale deformable attention and geometric lifting to BEV. The two BEV feature maps are combined by an adaptive fuser that learns per-modality attention weights, followed by Squeeze-and-Excite channel recalibration. An Attention U-Net decoder then refines the fused features before the segmentation head.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of being on par with SOTA rests on the assumption that the published IoU values for SimpleBEV, BEVCar, CRN, and BEVGuide were computed under the same evaluation protocol — same validation split, same exclusion of vehicles with less than 40% visibility, and same 0.5 threshold — which the paper does not verify.

What would settle it

Re-running SimpleBEV, BEVCar, CRN, and BEVGuide under CaR1's exact protocol (nuScenes validation, exclude <40% visible vehicles, threshold 0.5, batch size 1) and checking whether any of them scores above 57.6 by more than 1.9; if so, the 'on par with SOTA' claim is falsified. Alternatively, fixing the fusion weights to a constant average and retraining: if IoU does not drop, the adaptive fusion mechanism is not load-bearing.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Radar measurements contribute a substantial +10.2 IoU over camera-only, making fusion worthwhile for BEV segmentation.
  • The grid-wise radar encoder is an effective way to bring point-based radar processing into a BEV framework.
  • The adaptive fusion mechanism with attention weighting and Squeeze-and-Excite recalibration improves robustness when one modality is less informative.
  • End-to-end training with a combined BCE and Dice loss, plus image and BEV-space augmentation, yields the reported 57.6 IoU.
  • Stacking six design changes (image resolution, EfficientViT-L2, self-attention, radar encoder, Attention U-Net, augmentation) raises IoU from 35.6 to 57.6.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • (Editorial inference) The ablation suggests most of the +22.0 IoU gain comes from the radar encoder (+8.0) and decoder swap (+4.0), which makes the adaptive fusion's specific contribution less certain — the paper does not ablate it separately.
  • (Editorial inference) A direct test of the adaptive fusion would be to degrade radar quality (e.g., fewer accumulated sweeps or artificially noised points) and see whether the learned weights rebalance; this stress test is not reported.
  • (Editorial inference) The same grid-wise radar encoding and adaptive fusion could transfer to other sparse sensor modalities or related tasks such as BEV semantic map prediction and occupancy estimation.
  • (Editorial inference) Because the SOTA comparison relies on numbers with the same 40% visibility filter and 0.5 threshold, a unified re-evaluation of all methods under one protocol would make the 'on par' claim fully verifiable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CaR1, a camera-radar fusion architecture for BEV vehicle segmentation built on BEVFusion. The two main technical contributions are a grid-wise radar encoding that scatter-aggregates Point Transformer V3 features into a BEV grid with pyramid aggregation, and an adaptive fusion mechanism in BEV space with a Squeeze-and-Excitation recalibration. The decoder is an Attention U-Net. On the nuScenes validation set the method reports 57.6 IoU, which the authors describe as "on par with state-of-the-art" and 10.2 IoU above the best camera-only architecture. An ablation study attributes incremental gains to image resolution, image encoder choice, self-attention, the radar encoder, the decoder, and data augmentation, with a total improvement from 35.6 to 57.6 IoU.

Significance. If the central comparison were fully verified, CaR1 would be a useful and reproducible baseline for camera-radar BEV segmentation. The feasibility of the design is plausible, the ablations show large and coherent gains from radar fusion, and the code is publicly released. However, the headline claim "on par with SOTA" rests on Table I, and the current manuscript does not establish that the numbers for CRN and BEVGuide were produced under the same evaluation protocol. One of those rows appears to be mislabeled as camera-radar when the cited work is camera-LiDAR. The adaptive fusion weight mechanism is also under-specified. These are load-bearing issues for the main claim, so they require correction and additional evidence before the paper can be recommended for publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-C, Table I] The "on par with SOTA" claim depends on apples-to-apples comparison, but the two closest entries, CRN (58.8) and BEVGuide (59.2), are not from references [6] and [14] listed for the evaluation protocol. The manuscript states that vehicles with <40% visibility are excluded, predictions are thresholded at 0.5, and batch size is 1, but gives no evidence that CRN or BEVGuide use the same validation split, visibility exclusion, threshold, metric implementation, or BEV range/grid. Since CaR1 trails these methods by 0.8 and 1.2 IoU, a small protocol difference could reverse the ranking. Please either re-evaluate these methods under the stated protocol or report the exact protocol used in their original papers and confirm it matches.
  2. [Table I, BEVGuide row] The BEVGuide row is listed as mode C+R with radar encoder SECOND, citing reference [7] (Man et al., CVPR 2023). The cited BEVGuide paper is a camera-LiDAR fusion method, not a camera-radar method, and SECOND is a LiDAR-oriented encoder. If this is correct, one of the SOTA numbers in Table I is not a camera-radar result, and the comparison to camera-radar methods reduces to BEVCar and CRN, both of which score above CaR1. This needs to be corrected or the row removed, and the wording of the SOTA claim should be adjusted accordingly.
  3. [Section III-C, Eq. (1)] The adaptive fusion mechanism is one of the two central contributions, but the manuscript never defines how the weights ω_i are computed. Eq. (1) shows a weighted sum followed by a Squeeze-and-Excitation operation, but it is unclear whether ω_i are learned scalar parameters, feature-dependent attention weights, or outputs of a softmax over modalities. There is also no ablation that removes or freezes the adaptive fusion to demonstrate its contribution; the +8.0 IoU row in Table II combines the radar encoder and fusion, so the specific benefit of the adaptivity is not isolated. Please specify the weight computation and add an ablation that compares against fixed/equal weighting or concatenation.
  4. [Section IV-D, Table II] All results are reported for a single run with no error bars or multiple seeds. This weakens the central quantitative claim because the differences against SOTA are small (e.g., 0.8–1.2 IoU) and even the ablation gains of +0.6 and +0.7 IoU are within the typical run-to-run variability of such models. Please report at least the mean and standard deviation over multiple seeds, or explicitly state if the reported numbers are the best of several runs, and justify that the comparison is still meaningful.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-D, Table II] The text says the improvements took the method from 35.6 to 57.6 IoU, an increase of +22.0, but Table II lists the baseline as 35.0 and the first increment as +0.6 to 35.6. The correct total improvement from the actual baseline is 57.6−35.0 = 22.6. Please reconcile the baseline number and the reported gain.
  2. [Introduction and Section III-C] There are typos and awkward phrasings, e.g., "heteregeneous" and "dinamically". Also, the title in the PDF shows "V ehicle". A careful proofread would improve presentation.
  3. [Section IV-B] The implementation details say radar sweeps are "encoded using ordinal or one-hot representations", but it is not stated which representation is used in the final model. Please clarify.
  4. [Related Work, Reference [7]] BEVGuide is listed in Table I but is not discussed in the Related Work section. If it is to be included in the comparison, it should be described and its sensor modality clearly identified.
  5. [Figure 1] The caption says predictions are shown "by colour: correct, missing and wrong", but the figure does not include a legend. Adding a small legend would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: CaR1 is an empirical architecture paper whose central claim is an externally benchmarked IoU score, with no derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance number (57.6 IoU) on the nuScenes validation split, obtained by training a concrete multi-modal architecture. The claimed contributions—grid-wise radar encoding and adaptive fusion—are architectural choices implemented and evaluated, not quantities derived from the benchmark by construction. The adaptive fusion weights in Eq. (1) are learned parameters during standard end-to-end training, which is not a fitted input masquerading as a prediction. The ablation study (Table II) is a post-hoc attribution of gains to design changes, not a derivation of the final result from those changes. The SOTA comparison in Table I relies on numbers reported in external papers; any protocol mismatch is a correctness/comparability concern, not circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations: all cited methods (BEVFusion, SimpleBEV, BEVCar, CRN, BEVGuide) are by other research groups, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Mislabeling BEVGuide's sensor mode as C+R is a factual/table error that affects the comparison's strength but does not make the derivation circular. Therefore the paper is self-contained as an empirical benchmark contribution.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities. Its free parameters are standard training and evaluation choices (loss weights, threshold, radar sweep count, grid resolution). The main domain assumptions concern label quality, the validity of the BEVFusion lifting, and the comparability of prior SOTA results, the last of which is a direct load-bearing premise for the headline claim.

free parameters (4)
  • Loss weight alpha_2 (auxiliary BCE) = 0.4
    Hand-set in Section III-F (Eq. 2); affects the optimization of the auxiliary head and therefore the final IoU.
  • Prediction threshold = 0.5
    Used for binarizing predictions when computing IoU (Section IV-C); chosen following prior work, but directly affects the reported metric.
  • Number of accumulated radar sweeps = 7
    Set in Data Preprocessing (Section IV-B); influences radar feature density and segmentation quality.
  • BEV grid internal resolution = 0.4 m internal, 0.5 m output
    Chosen in Implementation Details (Section IV-B); affects spatial discretization and the final metric.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption nuScenes 3D bounding box annotations, when projected to BEV, produce correct vehicle segmentation ground truth.
    Supervision is generated by projecting all vehicle-like boxes into a unified vehicle category (Section III-F). Accuracy of the segmentation labels depends on annotation quality and projection correctness.
  • domain assumption The geometric camera-to-BEV projection used by BEVFusion is a valid and sufficient feature lifting mechanism.
    Section III-A adopts this pipeline; if the lifting is lossy, the camera branch underperforms, but the method still relies on it.
  • domain assumption The evaluation protocol for compared SOTA methods is identical to the protocol used here (40% visibility filter, 0.5 threshold, same validation split).
    Section IV-C states the protocol follows [6] and [14] but does not confirm CRN, BEVGuide, and BEVCar used identical settings; the 'on par with SOTA' claim rests on this.
  • standard math Standard deep learning training assumptions: gradients, backpropagation, and learned fusion weights converge appropriately under AdamW with BCE and Dice losses.
    Implicit in end-to-end training as described in Section IV-B.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CaR1: A Multi-Modal Baseline for BEV Vehicle Segmentation via Camera-Radar Fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AQ52LFA7

@misc{pith2026250910139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CaR1: A Multi-Modal Baseline for BEV Vehicle Segmentation via Camera-Radar Fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AQ52LFA7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10139}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Camera-radar fusion offers a robust and cost-effective alternative to LiDAR-based autonomous driving systems by combining complementary sensing capabilities: cameras provide rich semantic cues but unreliable depth, while radar delivers sparse yet reliable position and motion information. We introduce CaR1, a novel camera-radar fusion architecture for BEV vehicle segmentation. Built upon BEVFusion, our approach incorporates a grid-wise radar encoding that discretizes point clouds into structured BEV features and an adaptive fusion mechanism that dynamically balances sensor contributions. Experiments on nuScenes demonstrate competitive segmentation performance (57.6 IoU), on par with state-of-the-art methods. Code is publicly available \href{https://www.github.com/santimontiel/car1}{online}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10139 by Angel Llamazares, Fabio S\'anchez-Garc\'ia, Luis M. Bergasa, Miguel Antunes-Garc\'ia, Santiago Montiel-Mar\'in.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Our proposed method, CaR1, uses multi-view camera images and radar point clouds to predict a BEV vehicle segmentation map. Predictions are shown by colour: correct, missing and wrong. effective fusion becomes critical. Rigid fusion strategies often fail under adverse weather (rain, snow, fog) or sensor-specific limitations such as occlusions and blind spots. To overcome this, our adaptive fusion mechanism … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Main diagram of our proposal, CaR1. Using multi-view camera images and radar point clouds, we predict BEV segmentation maps. We use two independent encoder branches, one for each modality, and we integrate features in an unified BEV space. We refine and decode the BEV feature using an Attention U-Net before a segmentation head. II. RELATED WORK Camera-based methods. Estimating depth from a monocular camera… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

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

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

    2020

  3. [3]

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

    Z. Liu, H. Tang, A. Amini, X. Yang, H. Mao, D. L. Rus, and S. Han, “Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view representation,” in2023 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2774–2781

    2023

  4. [4]

    Bevdepth: Acquisition of reliable depth for multi-view 3d object detection,

    Y . Li, Z. Ge, G. Yu, J. Yang, Z. Wang, Y . Shi, J. Sun, and Z. Li, “Bevdepth: Acquisition of reliable depth for multi-view 3d object detection,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 2, 2023, pp. 1477–1485

    2023

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    Simple- bev: What really matters for multi-sensor bev perception?

    A. W. Harley, Z. Fang, J. Li, R. Ambrus, and K. Fragkiadaki, “Simple- bev: What really matters for multi-sensor bev perception?” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2759–2765

    2023

  7. [7]

    Bev-guided multi-modality fusion for driving perception,

    Y . Man, L.-Y . Gui, and Y .-X. Wang, “Bev-guided multi-modality fusion for driving perception,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 21 960–21 969

    2023

  8. [8]

    Fb-occ: 3d occupancy prediction based on forward-backward view transformation,

    Z. Li, Z. Yu, D. Austin, M. Fang, S. Lan, J. Kautz, and J. M. Alvarez, “Fb-occ: 3d occupancy prediction based on forward-backward view transformation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01492, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Bevnext: Reviving dense bev frameworks for 3d object detection,

    Z. Li, S. Lan, J. M. Alvarez, and Z. Wu, “Bevnext: Reviving dense bev frameworks for 3d object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 20 113–20 123

    2024

  10. [10]

    Multi- class road user detection with 3+ 1d radar in the view-of-delft dataset,

    A. Palffy, E. Pool, S. Baratam, J. F. Kooij, and D. M. Gavrila, “Multi- class road user detection with 3+ 1d radar in the view-of-delft dataset,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4961–4968, 2022

    2022

  11. [11]

    Man truckscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous trucking in diverse conditions,

    F. Fent, F. Kuttenreich, F. Ruch, F. Rizwin, S. Juergens, L. Lechermann, C. Nissler, A. Perl, U. V oll, M. Yan,et al., “Man truckscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous trucking in diverse conditions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07462, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    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,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 12 697–12 705

    2019

  13. [13]

    Radarnext: Real-time and reliable 3d object detector based on 4d mmwave imaging radar,

    L. Jia, R. Guan, H. Zhao, Q. Zhao, K. L. Man, J. Smith, L. Yu, and Y . Yue, “Radarnext: Real-time and reliable 3d object detector based on 4d mmwave imaging radar,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02314, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Bevcar: Camera-radar fusion for bev map and object segmentation,

    J. Schramm, N. Vödisch, K. Petek, B. R. Kiran, S. Yogamani, W. Burgard, and A. Valada, “Bevcar: Camera-radar fusion for bev map and object segmentation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11761, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Crn: Camera radar net for accurate, robust, efficient 3d perception,

    Y . Kim, J. Shin, S. Kim, I.-J. Lee, J. W. Choi, and D. Kum, “Crn: Camera radar net for accurate, robust, efficient 3d perception,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 17 615–17 626

    2023

  16. [16]

    Crt-fusion: Camera, radar, temporal fusion using motion information for 3d object detection,

    J. Kim, M. Seong, and J. W. Choi, “Crt-fusion: Camera, radar, temporal fusion using motion information for 3d object detection,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03013, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Efficientvit: Lightweight multi-scale attention for high-resolution dense prediction,

    H. Cai, J. Li, M. Hu, C. Gan, and S. Han, “Efficientvit: Lightweight multi-scale attention for high-resolution dense prediction,” inProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 17 302–17 313

    2023

  18. [18]

    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,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 2117–2125

    2017

  19. [19]

    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,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04159, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    Point transformer v3: Simpler faster stronger,

    X. Wu, L. Jiang, P.-S. Wang, Z. Liu, X. Liu, Y . Qiao, W. Ouyang, T. He, and H. Zhao, “Point transformer v3: Simpler faster stronger,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 4840–4851

    2024

  21. [21]

    Attention u-net: Learning where to look for the pancreas,

    O. Oktay, J. Schlemper, L. L. Folgoc, M. Lee, M. Heinrich, K. Misawa, K. Mori, S. McDonagh, N. Y . Hammerla, B. Kainz,et al., “Attention u-net: Learning where to look for the pancreas,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03999, 2018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Fiery: Future instance prediction in bird’s- eye view from surround monocular cameras,

    A. Hu, Z. Murez, N. Mohan, S. Dudas, J. Hawke, V . Badrinarayanan, R. Cipolla, and A. Kendall, “Fiery: Future instance prediction in bird’s- eye view from surround monocular cameras,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 15 273–15 282

    2021

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.