Anchor3DLane++: 3D Lane Detection via Sample-Adaptive Sparse 3D Anchor Regression

Jizhong Han; Naiyan Wang; Shaofei Huang; Si Liu; Yue Liao; Zehao Huang; Zhenwei Shen

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 68 references

Anchor3DLane++: 3D Lane Detection via Sample-Adaptive Sparse 3D Anchor Regression

T0 review · 2 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A camera-only 3D lane detector that skips bird's-eye-view warping and regresses 3D anchors directly from front-view features, reporting state-of-the-art F1 scores on three benchmarks.

desk verdict Solid extension of their own CVPR 3D lane work, with real gains and clean ablations; the OpenLane tables mix annotation versions, so some SOTA margins need qualification, but the method still looks like SOTA. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16889 v1 pith:BIDXBBOE submitted 2024-12-22 cs.CV

Shaofei Huang , Zhenwei Shen , Zehao Huang , Yue Liao , Jizhong Han , Naiyan Wang , Si Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords 3DlanedetectionmonocularperceptionBEV-freeanchorregressionsample-adaptivesparseanchorscamera-LiDARfusionequal-widthregularizationautonomousdriving

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 claims that accurate 3D lane detection does not require the bird's-eye-view (BEV) representation that most current methods build by warping the front image onto a flat ground plane. The proposed Anchor3DLane++ instead defines lanes as sparse 3D anchors — rays through space with a start position and two angles — and samples front-view image features at the 2D projection of those anchors, so the 3D geometry is fixed before any feature is read. A prototype-based module generates a small set of anchors adapted to each image rather than a large hand-tuned dense set, and an equal-width loss exploits the near-parallelism of lanes as a training regularizer. On the OpenLane, ApolloSim, and ONCE-3DLanes benchmarks, the authors report state-of-the-art F1 scores — including 62.4 on OpenLane with a ResNet-50 backbone at $720\times 960$ input, camera-only — and quantify a +9.2 F1 gain over their own earlier conference version.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 3D lane anchor: a ray in 3D space defined by three anchor metas — starting coordinate $x_s$ on the $X_g$ axis, horizontal angle $\phi$, and vertical angle $\theta$ — sampled at $N$ fixed $y$-coordinates. The load-bearing operation is anchor projection: each anchor point $q^k$ is mapped to the front-view feature plane by $[\tilde{u}, \tilde{v}, d]^\top = K T_{g \to c}[x, y, z, 1]^\top$, followed by $u = (W_F/W_I)(\tilde{u}/d)$ and $v = (H_F/H_I)(\tilde{v}/d)$, with the anchor's feature read by bilinear interpolation at $(u, v)$. This turns the ill-posed question of where the lane is in 3D given a 2D image into a feature-sampling problem whose spatial correspondence is fixed by calibration, with no warping into BEV. Two supporting mechanisms carry the reported performance. PAAG learns prototype vectors $Q_x$, $Q_\phi$, $Q_\theta$ for the three metas and reads per-image coefficients from the $F_5$ feature map through linear layers, composing, clipping, and rescaling the metas per sample (Eqs. 1-3). The Equal-Width loss approximates the width between two lane proposals at point $k$ as $w^k_{j,j'} \approx |\cos\phi^k_{j'}(x^k_{j'} - x^k_j)|$ and penalizes its mean absolute deviation across points, skipping pairs whose deviation exceeds the threshold $\tau$. A self-attention layer and four stages of cross-layer iterative refinement then reshape the initial straight rays into proposals that track the true lane curve.

What would settle it

Take a trained Anchor3DLane++ model and evaluate it on the OpenLane validation set while perturbing the extrinsic transform $T_{g \to c}$ by controlled pitch or yaw errors (for instance 0.5°, 1°, and 2°), keeping everything else fixed: if a two-degree calibration error costs several F1 points while a BEV-based baseline such as PersFormer degrades less, the direct-projection design is not robust to the well-calibrated-camera assumption it rests on. A complementary check is to rerun the headline benchmark with the released code; reproducing the reported 62.4 F1 (ResNet-50, $720\times 960$, camera-only) would settle the state-of-the-art claim as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Anchor3DLane++ is a BEV-free framework for monocular 3D lane detection. A 3D lane anchor is a ray in the ground coordinate system, parameterized by a triple of anchor metas $(x_s, \phi, \theta)$ — the starting coordinate on the $X_g$ axis, the angle of the ray's projection on the $X_g$-$Y_g$ plane, and the angle on the $Y_g$-$Z_g$ plane — with $N$ points sampled at fixed $y$-coordinates. The central move is to project these 3D anchor points into the front-view feature map using the camera intrinsics $K$ and the ground-to-camera transform $T_{g \to c}$, sample features by bilinear interpolation at the projected locations, and regress per-point offsets $(\Delta x, \Delta z)$ with visibility and class scores directly from those front-view features. Because the geometry is explicit, predictions can be refined iteratively down the feature pyramid (from $F_5$ to $F_3$), with each stage's proposals becoming the next stage's anchors. The Prototype-based Adaptive Anchor Generation (PAAG) module replaces dense hand-designed anchor enumeration by learning a small set of prototypes for each meta and combining them per image with coefficients read from the image feature map, producing 30 anchors instead of a cubic-size dense set. An Equal-Width (EW) loss penalizes deviation of the measured width between lane-proposal pairs across sampling points — thresholded at $\tau$ to ignore merge and split cases — regularizing the ill-posed monocular estimation. Camera-LiDAR fusion is added by projecting the same anchors into LiDAR feature space and concatenating the sampled point-cloud features with the image features.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the camera's internal geometry and its position and orientation relative to the road are accurate and fixed; if the calibration is off, features get sampled from the wrong image locations and the geometric correspondence between anchors and pixels breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

BEV warping is not required for top-level 3D lane detection: the paper's Table VII ablation shows that sampling anchor features from front-view features beats sampling from BEV features produced by several encoders, including BEVFormer, under identical settings.
Sparse sample-adaptive anchors recover the coverage of dense anchor sets: with only 30 anchors, PAAG raises F1 over fixed sparse anchors ($52.3 \to 54.3$ single-stage) and pushes the full model past the dense-anchor conference version.
The parallel structure of lanes is a usable online constraint: the Equal-Width loss improves F1 ($54.3 \to 54.9$ single-stage) and reduces x and z errors by shrinking the solution space of monocular estimation.
The anchor mechanism doubles as a sensor-fusion bridge: projecting the same anchors into LiDAR feature space and concatenating features improves F1 and substantially reduces x errors over camera-only (near x error $0.202 \to 0.134$ m at ResNet-50, $720\times 960$).
Iterative refinement across the feature pyramid is a dependable performance lever: F1 rises monotonically from one to four stages ($54.9 \to 57.9$, ResNet-18) before mildly declining at five.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond lanes, the projection-plus-sampling design is a general bridge between 3D geometric priors and 2D features, so the same machinery should transfer to other slender structures with shape priors — curbs, guardrails, or map polylines — a direction the paper does not discuss.
The paper states that the projection relies on well-calibrated camera parameters but never tests sensitivity to calibration error; because the projection equations are differentiable, jointly refining small calibration offsets during training is a natural extension that would also probe the method's robustness.
PAAG is a generic recipe — a small learned prototype bank per attribute, image-conditioned coefficients, then composition and clipping — that could replace hand-designed anchor sets in other sparse regression tasks where the number of targets is small and their shapes vary.
As a reading note the paper itself discloses in a footnote: numbers marked with '*' in the comparison tables use the original OpenLane annotation version, while all other results use the refined version released after November 2022, so headline deltas that cross that line should be read accordingly.

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

Here's my read on Anchor3DLane++. It's a legitimate, well-executed extension of the authors' CVPR Anchor3DLane: they replace dense heuristic anchors with sample-adaptive sparse anchors generated from learned prototypes (PAAG), add an online Equal-Width loss, and bolt on camera-LiDAR fusion. The central claim — that this beats prior SOTA on three 3D lane benchmarks — mostly holds up, with one important caveat about the OpenLane tables.

What's genuinely new: PAAG is the real contribution. The idea of learning a small set of anchor-meta prototypes and mixing them per-image (rather than enumerating dense anchors) is simple and works. The ablations show it recovers the gap from sparsification (52.3 to 54.3 F1 in the single-stage setting) and that the FV sampling still beats BEV encoders like BEVFormer when everything else is held fixed. The EW loss is a smaller, sensible regularization; the global version helps a bit. The camera-LiDAR fusion is secondary, but the evaluation is honest about where LiDAR helps (depth errors) and where it doesn't (semantic classification).

The evaluation is thorough: three datasets, multiple backbones, both point encoders, ablations on each component, stage count, anchor count, and FV-vs-BEV feature sampling. They are unusually transparent about the refined OpenLane annotation — the footnote in Sec. IV-B and the asterisks in Tables I–II make clear which rows are on the original version.

Now the soft spots. The stress-test note is right and worth taking seriously: Tables I–II mix evaluation protocols. Their own rows and MapTRv2 are on the refined OpenLane annotations, while PersFormer*, CurveFormer*, M2-3DLaneNet* are quoted from the original version. Since the refinement changed ground-truth labels, the exact margins over those starred baselines are not established without re-running them on the refined set. I don't think this sinks the paper — the comparison to MapTRv2 is clean and they beat it by a healthy margin, and on ApolloSim and ONCE-3DLanes there's no protocol mixing — but the blanket 'outperforms previous SOTA' line needs qualification or a re-evaluation of the starred baselines.

Also minor: no error bars or multiple seeds, so the 0.5–1.0 F1 differences between some of their own variants may be noise. And the whole pipeline depends on well-calibrated camera intrinsics/extrinsics; they never test sensitivity to calibration error, which matters for deployment even if it doesn't invalidate the benchmark results.

Who this is for: anyone working on monocular 3D lane detection or BEV-free perception for driving. It deserves a serious referee. I'd recommend sending it out, with the annotation-protocol issue raised as the main required revision, plus a request for variance or code with a commit hash.

I'd bring it to reading group as a good example of a systems paper that does clean, transparent ablations, even though it's not paradigm-shifting.

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper proposes Anchor3DLane++, a BEV-free 3D lane detection framework built on the authors' CVPR 2023 Anchor3DLane. Instead of dense anchors, a Prototype-based Adaptive Anchor Generation (PAAG) module generates a small set of sample-adaptive 3D anchors from learned meta prototypes; anchors are projected onto FV features via camera parameters, and iterative refinement over FPN stages progressively aligns proposals with lanes. The paper also introduces an Equal-Width (EW) loss that regularizes predicted lane pairs to have consistent widths, and it extends the framework to camera-LiDAR fusion by sampling aligned anchor features in LiDAR space. Experiments on OpenLane, ApolloSim, and ONCE-3DLanes report state-of-the-art results (e.g., 62.4 F1 on OpenLane with ResNet-50 at 720x960 camera-only), with ablations covering each component, fusion, number of anchors, and number of refinement stages.

Significance. If the benchmark comparisons are accepted, this is a meaningful empirical contribution to monocular 3D lane detection. The paper demonstrates that a compact set of explicit 3D geometric anchors, generated conditionally on the input, can outperform dense anchor enumeration and BEV-based pipelines, and it provides a clean way to fuse LiDAR without an explicit BEV. Strengths include the breadth of the evaluation (three datasets, multiple backbones, two LiDAR encoders), component-wise ablations, the transparent use of refined OpenLane annotations for the authors' own models, and the release of code. The principal caveat is the mixing of annotation protocols in the OpenLane comparison tables, which currently leaves the headline SOTA claim incompletely supported; this is addressable by re-evaluating the starred baselines or by qualifying the claim.

major comments (2)

[Sec. IV-B, Tables I-II] The footnote in Sec. IV-B states that all experiments use the refined OpenLane annotation and that the conference-version numbers were updated accordingly, yet rows marked with '*' (3D-LaneNet, GenLaneNet, PersFormer, CurveFormer, M2-3DLaneNet) are explicitly results on the original annotation version. Because the refinement changed ground-truth labels, the margins reported against these baselines in Tables I and II are not established under a single protocol. The paper's own paired numbers show the annotation version can change F1 by 0.6 points for the same model (Anchor3DLane++(R18+SE): 60.4 vs. 59.8 in Table I), so the differences for other methods could be comparable or larger. Please either re-evaluate the starred baselines on the refined annotations with their official implementations, or restrict the SOTA claim to methods that are compared under the same annotation version.
[Sec. I] The introduction claims a '+9.2% on OpenLane dataset for F1 score' improvement over the conference version, but no pair of rows in Tables I, II, or V yields this number with the stated settings (e.g., Anchor3DLane(R18) 53.7 to Anchor3DLane++(R18) 57.9 is +4.2; Anchor3DLane(R50)† 57.5 to Anchor3DLane++(R50)† 62.4 is +4.9). Please clarify which configuration and comparison yield the 9.2% figure, or correct the claim.

minor comments (8)

[Sec. III-B, Sec. IV-A] The number of sparse anchors is denoted 'Ma' in the method section but 'Na' in the implementation details; the notation should be unified.
[Table V] Table V does not clearly distinguish which rows include EW Loss (L) versus EW Loss (G): rows 4 and 5 both appear with four check marks, and the text says local regularization is weak while global improves F1; please make the table entries unambiguous.
[Table III] In the Visual Variations block, Anchor3DLane [1] is labeled 'CVPR2022', but the cited conference version is CVPR 2023.
[Sec. I, Sec. IV-D] There are several typos: 'degign' in Sec. I, and 'PersForemer' and 'Persofmer' in Sec. IV-D.
[Sec. IV-B, Table IV] The comparison with WS-3D-Lane on ONCE-3DLanes should note in the text that WS-3D-Lane is weakly supervised with 2D lane labels, while Anchor3DLane++ is fully supervised; this context is important for interpreting the SOTA claim on that benchmark.
[Sec. IV-C] The paper reports no variance over multiple runs or seeds; given that some ablation differences are small (e.g., 54.3 vs. 54.5 in Table V), adding standard deviations or an additional run would make the ablation conclusions more robust.
[Sec. IV-B, footnote 2] The MapTRv2 adaptation should be described with enough detail (e.g., which heads were changed and whether official pretrained weights were used) to allow reproduction of the adapted baseline.
[Table VII] The BEV feature baselines (LSS, GKT, BEVFormer) may be operating under different training schedules; a sentence clarifying whether they share the same training budget as the FV setting would increase confidence in the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the system is an empirical architecture validated on external benchmarks; self-citations are baselines rather than load-bearing derivations.

full rationale

Anchor3DLane++ contains no derivation chain in which an output is defined from itself or in which a fitted value is renamed as a prediction. 3D anchors are generated by the PAAG module (Eq. 1) from learned prototypes Q and image-dependent coefficients W; anchor features are obtained by projecting anchor points through camera parameters (Eqs. 4-6); classification and regression heads produce offsets from those features; and the model is trained with matching, regression, classification, and equal-width losses (Eqs. 12-16) against ground-truth lane annotations. The validation metrics on OpenLane, ApolloSim, and ONCE-3DLanes compare learned predictions with held-out ground truth, so they are independent of the method's design choices. Citations to the authors' own conference version [1] are used as a baseline and as a starting point for extensions, not as an authority that forces the new results; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from [1] to exclude alternatives. The only notable concern is the footnote in Sec. IV-B stating that OpenLane annotations were refined and 'the quantitative results of our conference version are also updated accordingly,' while some baseline rows still carry '*' for the original version; that is a benchmark-protocol and fair-comparison issue, not circularity, and it does not undermine the self-contained nature of the method's derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on benchmark trust, hand-set hyperparameters, camera calibration, the lane-parallel prior, and the representational capacity of learned prototypes. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

Number of sparse anchors (Ma) = 30
Chosen via ablation (Table IX); affects coverage and performance.
Prototype counts (Mx, Mphi, Mtheta) = 30, 15, 5
Set by hand; not ablated.
EW loss threshold (tau) = 0.1
Set based on road standards and validation; excludes non-parallel lane pairs.
Loss coefficients (lambda_cls, lambda_reg, lambda_EW) = 1, 1, 0.1
Manual tuning; no sensitivity analysis.
Matching coefficients (beta_cls, beta_dis) = 1, 3
Used in bipartite matching; set by hand.
Number of iterative stages = 4
Selected by ablation (Table VIII).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption OpenLane, ApolloSim, and ONCE-3DLanes benchmarks and their evaluation protocols provide reliable and comparable ground truth.
All conclusions are based on these benchmarks; the paper treats them as ground truth (Sec IV-A).
domain assumption Accurate camera intrinsic and extrinsic parameters are available for projecting 3D anchors into FV space.
Used in Eq. (4)-(6); if calibration is inaccurate, feature sampling fails (Sec III-A/C).
domain assumption Lane lines are locally parallel and widths between non-fork lane pairs are approximately constant.
Motivates the Equal-Width loss and its threshold tau (Sec III-D).
ad hoc to paper A small set of anchor prototypes, linearly combined via image features, can represent the distribution of 3D lane shapes.
The PAAG module's core assumption; supported empirically by ablations but not derived (Sec III-B).
domain assumption Standard deep learning optimization (Adam, fixed schedules) converges to models that generalize to the validation distributions.
Implicit in the training protocol (Sec IV-A3).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anchor3DLane++: 3D Lane Detection via Sample-Adaptive Sparse 3D Anchor Regression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BIDXBBOE

@misc{pith2026241216889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anchor3DLane++: 3D Lane Detection via Sample-Adaptive Sparse 3D Anchor Regression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BIDXBBOE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16889}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we focus on the challenging task of monocular 3D lane detection. Previous methods typically adopt inverse perspective mapping (IPM) to transform the Front-Viewed (FV) images or features into the Bird-Eye-Viewed (BEV) space for lane detection. However, IPM's dependence on flat ground assumption and context information loss in BEV representations lead to inaccurate 3D information estimation. Though efforts have been made to bypass BEV and directly predict 3D lanes from FV representations, their performances still fall behind BEV-based methods due to a lack of structured modeling of 3D lanes. In this paper, we propose a novel BEV-free method named Anchor3DLane++ which defines 3D lane anchors as structural representations and makes predictions directly from FV features. We also design a Prototype-based Adaptive Anchor Generation (PAAG) module to generate sample-adaptive sparse 3D anchors dynamically. In addition, an Equal-Width (EW) loss is developed to leverage the parallel property of lanes for regularization. Furthermore, camera-LiDAR fusion is also explored based on Anchor3DLane++ to leverage complementary information. Extensive experiments on three popular 3D lane detection benchmarks show that our Anchor3DLane++ outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods. Code is available at: https://github.com/tusen-ai/Anchor3DLane.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16889 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The overall architecture of Anchor3DLane++. (a) Pipeline of Anchor3DLane++. Proposals output from the previous stage are used as the new anchors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Illustration of 3D anchor and 3D lane in the ground coordinate system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Illustration of Prototype-based Adaptive Anchor Generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of F1 score vs. throughput for different methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Qualitative comparison between PersFormer and our Anchor3DLane++ on the OpenLane dataset. (a) Projected predictions of PersFormer on 2D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Visualization of initial sparse anchors and predictions of different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

[1]

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,” in CVPR, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

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,” in ECCV, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

HeightFormer: Explicit Height Modeling without Extra Data for Camera-only 3D Object Detection in Bird's Eye View

Y . Wu, R. Li, Z. Qin, X. Zhao, and X. Li, “HeightFormer: Explicit height modeling without extra data for camera-only 3d object detection in bird’s eye view,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13510 , 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[4]

UniFusion: Unified Multi-view Fusion Transformer for Spatial-Temporal Representation in Bird's-Eye-View

Z. Qin, J. Chen, C. Chen, X. Chen, and X. Li, “UniFormer: Unified multi-view fusion transformer for spatial-temporal representation in bird’s-eye-view,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.08536 , 2022

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[5]

Monoground: Detecting monocular 3d objects from the ground,

Z. Qin and X. Li, “Monoground: Detecting monocular 3d objects from the ground,” in CVPR, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

MonoEF: Extrinsic parameter free monocular 3d object detection,

Y . Zhou, Y . He, H. Zhu, C. Wang, H. Li, and Q. Jiang, “MonoEF: Extrinsic parameter free monocular 3d object detection,” TPAMI, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

LaneSegNet: Map learning with lane segment perception for autonomous driving,

T. Li, P. Jia, B. Wang, L. Chen, K. Jiang, J. Yan, and H. Li, “LaneSegNet: Map learning with lane segment perception for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16108 , 2023

arXiv 2023
[8]

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,” J. Navig., 2020

work page 2020

Show all 68 references

[9]

OpenLane-v2: A topology reasoning bench- mark for unified 3d hd mapping,

H. Wang, T. Li, Y . Li, L. Chen, C. Sima, Z. Liu, B. Wang, P. Jia, Y . Wang, S. Jiang et al. , “OpenLane-v2: A topology reasoning bench- mark for unified 3d hd mapping,” NeurIPS, 2024

2024
[10]

Trajectory planning of autonomous vehicles based on parameterized control optimization in dynamic on- road environments,

S. Zhu and B. Aksun-Guvenc, “Trajectory planning of autonomous vehicles based on parameterized control optimization in dynamic on- road environments,” J INTELL ROBOT SYST , 2020

2020
[11]

HDGT: Heterogeneous driving graph transformer for multi-agent trajectory prediction via scene encoding,

X. Jia, P. Wu, L. Chen, Y . Liu, H. Li, and J. Yan, “HDGT: Heterogeneous driving graph transformer for multi-agent trajectory prediction via scene encoding,” TPAMI, 2023

2023
[12]

Trajectory-guided control prediction for end-to-end autonomous driving: A simple yet strong baseline,

P. Wu, X. Jia, L. Chen, J. Yan, H. Li, and Y . Qiao, “Trajectory-guided control prediction for end-to-end autonomous driving: A simple yet strong baseline,” NeurIPS, 2022

2022
[13]

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,” in CVPR, 2019

2019
[14]

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,” in ECCV, 2020

2020
[15]

Learning to predict 3d lane shape and camera pose from a single image via geometry constraints,

R. Liu, D. Chen, T. Liu, Z. Xiong, and Z. Yuan, “Learning to predict 3d lane shape and camera pose from a single image via geometry constraints,” in AAAI, 2022

2022
[16]

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 et al. , “PersFormer: 3d lane detection via perspective transformer and the OpenLane benchmark,” in ECCV, 2022

2022
[17]

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,” in CVPR, 2022

2022
[18]

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,” in ICRA, 2023

2023
[19]

Ultra fast structure-aware deep lane detection,

Z. Qin, H. Wang, and X. Li, “Ultra fast structure-aware deep lane detection,” in ECCV, 2020

2020
[20]

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,” in CVPR, 2022

2022
[21]

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,” T-ITS, 2019

2019
[22]

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,” in CVPR, 2021

2021
[23]

PolyLaneNet: Lane estimation via deep polynomial regression,

L. Tabelini, R. Berriel, T. M. Paixao, C. Badue, A. F. De Souza, and T. Oliveira-Santos, “PolyLaneNet: Lane estimation via deep polynomial regression,” in ICPR, 2021

2021
[24]

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,” in AAAI, 2018

2018
[25]

EigenLanes: Data-driven lane descriptors for structurally diverse lanes,

D. Jin, W. Park, S.-G. Jeong, H. Kwon, and C.-S. Kim, “EigenLanes: Data-driven lane descriptors for structurally diverse lanes,” in CVPR, 2022

2022
[26]

Lane detection with versatile atrous- former and local semantic guidance,

J. Yang, L. Zhang, and H. Lu, “Lane detection with versatile atrous- former and local semantic guidance,” Pattern Recognition, 2023

2023
[27]

Real time detection of lane markers in urban streets,

M. Aly, “Real time detection of lane markers in urban streets,” in IV, 2008

2008
[28]

A novel lane detection based on geometrical model and gabor filter,

S. Zhou, Y . Jiang, J. Xi, J. Gong, G. Xiong, and H. Chen, “A novel lane detection based on geometrical model and gabor filter,” in IV, 2010

2010
[29]

Robust lane detection and tracking in challenging scenarios,

Z. Kim, “Robust lane detection and tracking in challenging scenarios,” T-ITS, 2008

2008
[30]

Lane detection and tracking using B-Snake,

Y . Wang, E. K. Teoh, and D. Shen, “Lane detection and tracking using B-Snake,” IVC, 2004

2004
[31]

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,” in ICCV, 2019

2019
[32]

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,” in IV, 2018

2018
[33]

PriorLane: A prior knowledge enhanced lane detection approach based on transformer,

Q. Qiu, H. Gao, W. Hua, G. Huang, and X. He, “PriorLane: A prior knowledge enhanced lane detection approach based on transformer,” in ICRA, 2023

2023
[34]

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,” in CVPR, 2021

2021
[35]

Key points estimation and point instance segmentation approach for lane detection,

Y . Ko, Y . Lee, S. Azam, F. Munir, M. Jeon, and W. Pedrycz, “Key points estimation and point instance segmentation approach for lane detection,” T-ITS, 2021

2021
[36]

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,” in ECCV, 2022

2022
[37]

Keep your eyes on the lane: Real-time attention- guided lane detection,

L. Tabelini, R. Berriel, T. M. Paixao, C. Badue, A. F. De Souza, and T. Oliveira-Santos, “Keep your eyes on the lane: Real-time attention- guided lane detection,” in CVPR, 2021

2021
[38]

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,” in ICCV, 2021

2021
[39]

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,” in CVPR, 2022

2022
[40]

Generating dynamic kernels via transformers for lane detection,

Z. Chen, Y . Liu, M. Gong, B. Du, G. Qian, and K. Smith-Miles, “Generating dynamic kernels via transformers for lane detection,” in ICCV, 2023

2023
[41]

LaneFormer: Object-aware row-column transformers for lane detec- tion,

J. Han, X. Deng, X. Cai, Z. Yang, H. Xu, C. Xu, and X. Liang, “LaneFormer: Object-aware row-column transformers for lane detec- tion,” in AAAI, 2022

2022
[42]

Ultra fast deep lane detection with hybrid anchor driven ordinal classification,

Z. Qin, P. Zhang, and X. Li, “Ultra fast deep lane detection with hybrid anchor driven ordinal classification,” TPAMI, 2022

2022
[43]

Deep multi-sensor lane detection,

M. Bai, G. Mattyus, N. Homayounfar, S. Wang, S. K. Lakshmikanth, and R. Urtasun, “Deep multi-sensor lane detection,” in IROS, 2018

2018
[44]

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
[45]

WS-3D-Lane: Weakly supervised 3d lane detection with 2d lane labels,

J. Ai, W. Ding, J. Zhao, and J. Zhong, “WS-3D-Lane: Weakly supervised 3d lane detection with 2d lane labels,” in ICRA, 2023

2023
[46]

Mˆ2-3DLaneNet: Multi-modal 3d lane detection,

Y . Luo, X. Yan, C. Zheng, C. Zheng, S. Mei, T. Kun, S. Cui, and Z. Li, “Mˆ2-3DLaneNet: Multi-modal 3d lane detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.05996, 2022

2022 arXiv
[47]

MapTR: Structured modeling and learning for online vectorized hd map construction,

B. Liao, S. Chen, X. Wang, T. Cheng, Q. Zhang, W. Liu, and C. Huang, “MapTR: Structured modeling and learning for online vectorized hd map construction,” in ICLR, 2023

2023
[48]

MapTRv2: An end-to-end framework for online vectorized hd map construction,

B. Liao, S. Chen, Y . Zhang, B. Jiang, Q. Zhang, W. Liu, C. Huang, and X. Wang, “MapTRv2: An end-to-end framework for online vectorized hd map construction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05736 , 2023. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE 14

2023 arXiv
[49]

StreamMapNet: Streaming mapping network for vectorized online hd map construction,

T. Yuan, Y . Liu, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, and H. Zhao, “StreamMapNet: Streaming mapping network for vectorized online hd map construction,” in CVPR, 2024

2024
[50]

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 ICCV, 2023

2023
[51]

End-to-end object detection with transformers,

N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko, “End-to-end object detection with transformers,” in ECCV, 2020

2020
[52]

Focal loss for dense object detection,

T.-Y . Lin, P. Goyal, R. Girshick, K. He, and P. Doll ´ar, “Focal loss for dense object detection,” TPAMI, 2018

2018
[53]

FCOS: A simple and strong anchor-free object detector,

Z. Tian, C. Shen, H. Chen, and T. He, “FCOS: A simple and strong anchor-free object detector,” TPAMI, 2020

2020
[54]

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

2010 arXiv
[55]

Anchor DETR: Query design for transformer-based detector,

Y . Wang, X. Zhang, T. Yang, and J. Sun, “Anchor DETR: Query design for transformer-based detector,” in AAAI, 2022

2022
[56]

Sparse R-CNN: An end-to-end framework for object detection,

P. Sun, R. Zhang, Y . Jiang, T. Kong, C. Xu, W. Zhan, M. Tomizuka, Z. Yuan, and P. Luo, “Sparse R-CNN: An end-to-end framework for object detection,” TPAMI, 2023

2023
[57]

Dynamic sparse R-CNN,

Q. Hong, F. Liu, D. Li, J. Liu, L. Tian, and Y . Shan, “Dynamic sparse R-CNN,” in CVPR, 2022

2022
[58]

Featurized query R-CNN,

W. Zhang, T. Cheng, X. Wang, S. Chen, Q. Zhang, and W. Liu, “Featurized query R-CNN,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.06258 , 2022

2022 arXiv
[59]

Deep residual learning for image recognition,

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in CVPR, 2016

2016
[60]

Feature pyramid networks for object detection,

T.-Y . Lin, P. Doll´ar, R. Girshick, K. He, B. Hariharan, and S. Belongie, “Feature pyramid networks for object detection,” in CVPR, 2017

2017
[61]

Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection,

Y . Yan, Y . Mao, and B. Li, “Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection,” Sensors, 2018

2018
[62]

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,” in CVPR, 2019

2019
[63]

Scalability in perception 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 et al. , “Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,” in CVPR, 2020

2020
[64]

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 , 1991

1991
[65]

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,” in ECCV, 2020

2020
[66]

BevPoolv2: A cutting-edge implementation of bevdet toward deployment,

J. Huang and G. Huang, “BevPoolv2: A cutting-edge implementation of bevdet toward deployment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.17111 , 2022

2022 arXiv
[67]

Efficient and robust 2d-to-bev representation learning via geometry-guided kernel transformer,

S. Chen, T. Cheng, X. Wang, W. Meng, Q. Zhang, and W. Liu, “Efficient and robust 2d-to-bev representation learning via geometry-guided kernel transformer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04584 , 2022. Shaofei Huang is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Institute of Information Engineer...

2022 arXiv
[2015]

His research interests include computer vision and image processing. Yue Liao is currently a post-doctoral fellow in Multi-Media Lab (MMLab) at The Chinese Uni- versity of Hong Kong (CUHK) and Centre for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence (CPII). He received his PhD degre...

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

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,” in CVPR, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [2]

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,” in ECCV, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

HeightFormer: Explicit Height Modeling without Extra Data for Camera-only 3D Object Detection in Bird's Eye View

Y . Wu, R. Li, Z. Qin, X. Zhao, and X. Li, “HeightFormer: Explicit height modeling without extra data for camera-only 3d object detection in bird’s eye view,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13510 , 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

UniFusion: Unified Multi-view Fusion Transformer for Spatial-Temporal Representation in Bird's-Eye-View

Z. Qin, J. Chen, C. Chen, X. Chen, and X. Li, “UniFormer: Unified multi-view fusion transformer for spatial-temporal representation in bird’s-eye-view,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.08536 , 2022

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

Monoground: Detecting monocular 3d objects from the ground,

Z. Qin and X. Li, “Monoground: Detecting monocular 3d objects from the ground,” in CVPR, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

MonoEF: Extrinsic parameter free monocular 3d object detection,

Y . Zhou, Y . He, H. Zhu, C. Wang, H. Li, and Q. Jiang, “MonoEF: Extrinsic parameter free monocular 3d object detection,” TPAMI, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

LaneSegNet: Map learning with lane segment perception for autonomous driving,

T. Li, P. Jia, B. Wang, L. Chen, K. Jiang, J. Yan, and H. Li, “LaneSegNet: Map learning with lane segment perception for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16108 , 2023

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

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,” J. Navig., 2020

work page 2020