Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

FGU3R: Fine-Grained Fusion via Unified 3D Representation for Multimodal 3D Object Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fusing images as 3D points yields 67.2 mAP on nuScenes with a new multimodal detector.

desk verdict Incremental but plausible multimodal fusion paper whose central ablation claim is undermined by an inconsistent baseline across Table II and Table III. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04373 v1 pith:JPIKVGOD submitted 2025-01-08 cs.CV

Guoxin Zhang , Ziying Song , Lin Liu , Zhonghong Ou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dobjectdetectionmultimodalfusionpseudopointclouddepthcompletioncross-attentionpoint-voxelnetworkautonomousdriving
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

The paper argues that the persistent weakness of multimodal 3D object detection is dimensional mismatch: fusing 3D LiDAR points directly with 2D image pixels is coarse and loses alignment. Its proposed framework, FGU3R, sidesteps the mismatch by converting every image pixel into a 3D pseudo point via depth completion, so that both modalities live in the same 3D coordinate space. Two modules then exploit that unified representation: Pseudo-Raw Convolution (PRConv), which pools raw and pseudo point features around shared keypoints, and Cross-Attention Adaptive Fusion (CAAF), which adaptively weights the two 3D RoI feature streams. On the nuScenes test set the method reports 67.2 mAP and 71.0 NDS, and on KITTI it raises its LiDAR-only two-stage baseline by 2.69% AP3D at easy difficulty. The paper's central claim is that fine-grained fusion on a unified 3D representation is a better route than the common 3D-plus-2D fusion pipeline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pseudo point cloud, generated by depth completion from the image and sparse LiDAR depth map. Around it sit two modules: PRConv, a point-voxel feature extractor in which raw and pseudo points are voxelized separately, passed through sparse 3D convolutions, and then pooled around shared furthest-point-sampled keypoints at several feature levels; and CAAF, a cross-attention variant that concatenates raw and pseudo RoI features, derives sigmoid attention weights through a fully connected layer, and fuses the weighted streams. PRConv carries out the fine-grained keypoint-level interaction; CAAF carries out the adaptive RoI-level refinement.

What would settle it

Perturb the pseudo point coordinates with controlled Gaussian noise (or corrupt the depth map before back-projection) and rerun the nuScenes evaluation keeping all other modules fixed; if mAP does not fall substantially, then the claimed fine-grained fusion is not actually sensitive to pseudo-point quality, whereas a large drop would confirm that the gain hinges on depth completion accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the image modality should be re-expressed as geometry before fusion. Using a pre-trained depth completion network, the sparse LiDAR depth map is densified and back-projected into a dense pseudo point cloud in which each point carries depth, color, and pixel coordinates. Raw LiDAR points and pseudo points are then processed by a point-voxel backbone whose keypoint features aggregate multi-level convolutional features from both point sets, and the two RoI feature streams are fused by CAAF, a cross-attention variant that learns per-dimension weights. The reported gains on KITTI and nuScenes are offered as evidence that 3D+3D fusion of this kind outperforms coarse 3D+2D fusion.

Load-bearing premise

The entire pipeline assumes the pseudo points generated by the pre-trained depth completion network are accurate enough and aligned with the raw LiDAR points that pooling and attending over the two point sets adds signal rather than noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The results support the thesis that dimension mismatch, not the scarcity of image information, is the main bottleneck in multimodal 3D detection.
  • The ablation shows that pseudo points alone barely help; PRConv and CAAF together add 3.42%, 2.91%, and 1.43% AP3D over the baseline on easy, moderate, and hard KITTI difficulties.
  • The reported nuScenes improvement is spread across all object categories rather than driven by one class, including hard categories such as construction vehicles and bicycles.
  • These nuScenes numbers are produced without test-time augmentation, so they are directly comparable to the published baselines listed in the paper.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Implicit in the design is that the depth completion network is a new sensitivity point: the paper uses a fixed pre-trained model and never perturbs pseudo-point quality, so how much of the gain survives a weaker or misaligned depth estimator is untested.
  • The same 'unify in 3D before fusing' principle could carry over to other sparse sensor modalities, such as radar point clouds, because the stated problem is the dimensional gap between 3D geometry and 2D images rather than anything specific to LiDAR-camera pairs.
  • A natural extension is end-to-end training of depth completion with the detector; the authors run depth completion offline for speed, and joint training might tighten the alignment of pseudo points with raw points.
  • The KITTI gain is concentrated at easy difficulty (2.69% AP3D) versus smaller margins at moderate and hard, so the claim that 3D+3D fusion improves multimodal detection should be scrutinized on occluded and truncated objects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. FGU3R is a two-stage multimodal 3D object detection framework. It first uses a depth completion network (PENet for KITTI, MVP for nuScenes) to turn the RGB image and sparse LiDAR depth into a dense pseudo point cloud, bringing image information into a unified 3D representation. A Pseudo-Raw Convolution (PRConv) backbone voxelizes raw and pseudo points separately, samples keypoints, and pools multi-scale features from both modalities around the keypoints. In the refinement stage, a proposed Cross-Attention Adaptive Fusion (CAAF) module fuses RoI features from the raw and pseudo branches using a gating mechanism described by Eqs. (5)-(6). Experiments on KITTI and nuScenes report strong results: 67.2 mAP / 71.0 NDS on nuScenes test and improvements over PV-RCNN on KITTI AP3D easy, with component ablations in Tables III and IV.

Significance. The paper addresses a relevant problem in multimodal 3D detection: the dimension mismatch between LiDAR points and camera pixels. The proposed design of converting images into pseudo points and then performing fusion in a unified 3D space is a sensible and increasingly common line of work, following MVP and related methods. If the reported numbers are reproducible, FGU3R is a competitive system: it surpasses MVP by 0.8 mAP and 0.5 NDS on the nuScenes test set and substantially improves AP3D easy over PV-RCNN on KITTI. The manuscript does not release code, and the reported metrics are single-run numbers with no error bars, which limits certainty about the small nuScenes gain. The primary strengths are the clear system-level comparisons and the component-wise study, but the baseline inconsistency in the ablation and the discrepancy between the stated loss and the offline depth completion must be resolved before the attribution claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B and III-C, Tables II and III] The component-wise ablation does not use a consistent baseline. Table II reports PV-RCNN at 92.57/84.83/82.69 AP3D and 95.76/91.11/88.93 AP_BEV, while Table III row (a) is reported as 91.84/82.93/82.24 AP3D and 92.88/90.39/88.39 AP_BEV. The text says row (a) applies the pseudo point solely to the baseline, but then adding pseudo points decreases easy AP3D relative to the Table II baseline by 0.73 points, which contradicts the statement that it gives 'a slight performance improvement.' If row (a) is instead meant to be the pure baseline, it does not match the PV-RCNN numbers in Table II. Consequently, the claimed 2.69% improvement over PV-RCNN and the marginal gains attributed to PRConv (1.03% easy) and CAAF (2.39% easy) are not measured against a single controlled baseline. This is the central issue for the paper's attribution and must be fixed by reporting a clean baseline and all ablations under identical settings.
  2. [Section II-C, Eq. (5)-(6)] The proposed CAAF is described as a 'cross-attention variant' that 'captures this correspondence dynamically,' but the formulation in Eqs. (5) and (6) contains no attention mechanism. It computes a sigmoid gating weight from the concatenation of the two RoI feature tensors and then multiplies each branch by its gate. There are no query/key/value projections, no compatibility scores, and no aggregation over a set of elements, which is what would be required for a cross-attention operation. The authors should either rename the module to something like 'gated adaptive fusion' or replace it with an actual cross-attention formulation and show how the correspondence is learned. As it stands, the claimed fine-grained attention-based fusion is not supported by the equations.
  3. [Section III-B, Table II] The conclusion that FGU3R 'improves accuracy prominently' is selective. On KITTI, compared with the PV-RCNN baseline in Table II, the method improves AP3D easy from 92.57 to 95.26 but AP_BEV moderate decreases from 91.11 to 89.65; the final model in Table III also shows AP_BEV moderate 89.65 versus 90.39 in row (a). This drop is not discussed. The paper should either analyze why the BEV moderate metric degrades or qualify the claim, since a central empirical conclusion is based on a subset of metrics.
  4. [Section II-D and Section III-A] There is an inconsistency between the loss definition and the training setup. Eq. (7) includes L_Depth as part of the total loss, but Section III-A states that depth completion is performed offline with pre-trained networks (PENet for KITTI, MVP for nuScenes). If the depth network is fixed, L_Depth is not optimized during FGU3R training and should be described as a pretraining loss or removed from Eq. (7); if the depth network is actually trainable, the offline statement is misleading. This should be clarified because it affects the reproducibility of the training pipeline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-B, Eq. (4)] The notation f_point_i is not defined precisely; the text says it incorporates both raw point and pseudo point, but the equation uses it inside a pooling operator along with conv features. Please define the point-level features and the pooling domain. In Section III-C, 'f_point_mm' in the text should be 'f_point_i'.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'Brid-eye's view' in Fig. 2 and Section II-B should be 'bird's-eye view'; 'An illusion is shown' in Section II-C should be 'An illustration is shown'.
  3. [Section III-B, Table I] The text says the method 'outperforms MVP in all categories,' but Car is 86.8 for both; please rephrase as 'matches or outperforms'.
  4. [Section III-A] The sentence 'we set the number of keypoints to 2048, and 4096 for kitti and nuScenes, respectively' should be reworded for clarity.
  5. [Section III-B] Since the method relies on pre-trained depth completion, a brief sensitivity analysis regarding the quality of pseudo points (e.g., different depth complement networks or added noise) would strengthen the robustness claim; currently this assumption is not tested.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper's claims are benchmark-driven and the cited prior work is not load-bearing.

full rationale

FGU3R is an empirical systems paper. Its central components, PRConv and CAAF, are architectural modules whose contributions are assessed by ablations on KITTI and nuScenes against published baselines, not derived from the paper's own definitions. The pseudo-point branch uses pre-trained external depth-completion models (PENet and MVP), and the equations in Sections II-A and II-B simply formalize projection and inverse projection; they do not assume the claimed detection improvement. The self-citations (GraphAlign [16], GraphBEV [18]) appear only in the related-work enumeration and are never invoked as justification for the PRConv or CAAF design, so they are not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem, imported ansatz, or fitted-then-predicted quantity is present. One notable experimental inconsistency exists: Table III's baseline row (a) reports 91.84 AP3D easy, which does not match Table II's PV-RCNN baseline of 92.57, making the claimed 2.69% improvement and the component-wise gains not measured against a single controlled baseline. This is a correctness and reproducibility concern, not a circularity of derivation, and it does not reduce the central claim to its own inputs. Under the given criteria, therefore, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical performance improvement, so the ledger lists the domain assumptions and hand-set hyperparameters that the method depends on. The main assumptions are the reliability of depth-completed pseudo points, the complementarity of the two point types, and the effectiveness of the attention gating. No mathematical axioms are used and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (weight for L_AS1) = 0.5
    Weight for auxiliary supervision LAS1 in Eq. 7; set by default without a reported search.
  • beta (weight for L_AS2) = 0.5
    Weight for auxiliary supervision LAS2 in Eq. 7; set by default without a reported search.
  • number of keypoints = 2048 (KITTI), 4096 (nuScenes)
    Chosen by hand; affects the density of keypoint-based feature aggregation in PRConv.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The depth complement network phi produces reliable dense depth maps from an image and sparse LiDAR projection (Eq. 2).
    Invoked in Section II-A; if depth estimates are poor, pseudo points will be misaligned and fusion could degrade performance.
  • domain assumption Pseudo points provide complementary semantic and geometric information to raw LiDAR points (Section II-B).
    This is the core motivation for the 3D+3D design; the paper does not prove complementarity, it assumes it.
  • domain assumption The cross-attention variant in CAAF (Eqs. 5-6) can learn useful correspondence between raw and pseudo RoI features.
    The paper states this based on visualization, but the mechanism is a heuristic gating function with no theoretical justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FGU3R: Fine-Grained Fusion via Unified 3D Representation for Multimodal 3D Object Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JPIKVGOD

@misc{pith2026250104373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FGU3R: Fine-Grained Fusion via Unified 3D Representation for Multimodal 3D Object Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JPIKVGOD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04373}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal 3D object detection has garnered considerable interest in autonomous driving. However, multimodal detectors suffer from dimension mismatches that derive from fusing 3D points with 2D pixels coarsely, which leads to sub-optimal fusion performance. In this paper, we propose a multimodal framework FGU3R to tackle the issue mentioned above via unified 3D representation and fine-grained fusion, which consists of two important components. First, we propose an efficient feature extractor for raw and pseudo points, termed Pseudo-Raw Convolution (PRConv), which modulates multimodal features synchronously and aggregates the features from different types of points on key points based on multimodal interaction. Second, a Cross-Attention Adaptive Fusion (CAAF) is designed to fuse homogeneous 3D RoI (Region of Interest) features adaptively via a cross-attention variant in a fine-grained manner. Together they make fine-grained fusion on unified 3D representation. The experiments conducted on the KITTI and nuScenes show the effectiveness of our proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Due to the discrepancy between 3D points and 2D images, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall architecture of FGU3R.The dashed line means inference-only. RPN, BEV, and A.S. represent Region Proposal Network, Brid-eye’s view, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The architecture of CAAF. containing bounding box regression loss and class confidence loss. The total loss can be represented as following: LT otal = LRP N + LRef + LDepth + αLAS1 + βLAS2 (7) where α and β weight on LAS1 and LAS2 respectively (α = 0.5, β = 0.5 by default). LDepth is our depth complement network loss. III. EXPERIMENTS A. Dataset and Implementation Details We conduct experiments on two popular autono… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Temporal point cloud fusion with scene flow for robust 3d object tracking,

    Y . Yang, K. Jiang, D. Yang, Y . Jiang, and X. Lu, “Temporal point cloud fusion with scene flow for robust 3d object tracking,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 29, pp. 1579–1583, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Caltracker: Cross-task association learning for multiple object tracking,

    J. Liu, J. Kong, M. Jiang, and T. Liu, “Caltracker: Cross-task association learning for multiple object tracking,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Hybrid cross-transformer-kpconv for point cloud segmentation,

    S. Wen, P. Li, and H. Zhang, “Hybrid cross-transformer-kpconv for point cloud segmentation,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Pointrcnn: 3d object proposal generation and detection from point cloud,

    S. Shi, X. Wang, and H. Li, “Pointrcnn: 3d object proposal generation and detection from point cloud,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 770– 779

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Pv- rcnn: Point-voxel feature set abstraction for 3d object detection,

    S. Shi, C. Guo, L. Jiang, Z. Wang, J. Shi, X. Wang, and H. Li, “Pv- rcnn: Point-voxel feature set abstraction for 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020, pp. 10 529–10 538

    2020

  6. [6]

    V oxel r- cnn: Towards high performance voxel-based 3d object detection,

    J. Deng, S. Shi, P. Li, W. Zhou, Y . Zhang, and H. Li, “V oxel r- cnn: Towards high performance voxel-based 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 35, no. 2, 2021, pp. 1201–1209

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Dtssd: Dual-channel transformer-based network for point-based 3d object detection,

    Z. Zheng, Z. Huang, J. Zhao, H. Hu, and D. Chen, “Dtssd: Dual-channel transformer-based network for point-based 3d object detection,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Imfusion: Boosting two- stage 3d object detection via image candidates,

    M. Tao, C. Zhao, J. Wang, and M. Tang, “Imfusion: Boosting two- stage 3d object detection via image candidates,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Frustum pointnets for 3d object detection from rgb-d data,

    C. R. Qi, W. Liu, C. Wu, H. Su, and L. J. Guibas, “Frustum pointnets for 3d object detection from rgb-d data,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 918– 927

    2018

  2. [10]

    Frustum- pointpillars: A multi-stage approach for 3d object detection using rgb camera and lidar,

    A. Paigwar, D. Sierra-Gonzalez, ¨O. Erkent, and C. Laugier, “Frustum- pointpillars: A multi-stage approach for 3d object detection using rgb camera and lidar,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 2926–2933

    2021

  3. [11]

    Frustum convnet: Sliding frustums to aggregate local point-wise features for amodal 3d object detection,

    Z. Wang and K. Jia, “Frustum convnet: Sliding frustums to aggregate local point-wise features for amodal 3d object detection,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1742–1749

    2019

  4. [12]

    Multi-view 3d object detection network for autonomous driving,

    X. Chen, H. Ma, J. Wan, B. Li, and T. Xia, “Multi-view 3d object detection network for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2017, pp. 1907–1915

    2017

  5. [13]

    Joint 3d proposal generation and object detection from view aggregation,

    J. Ku, M. Mozifian, J. Lee, A. Harakeh, and S. L. Waslander, “Joint 3d proposal generation and object detection from view aggregation,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–8

    2018

  6. [14]

    Deep continuous fusion for multi-sensor 3d object detection,

    M. Liang, B. Yang, S. Wang, and R. Urtasun, “Deep continuous fusion for multi-sensor 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , 2018, pp. 641–656

    2018

  7. [15]

    Scanet: Spatial-channel attention network for 3d object detection,

    H. Lu, X. Chen, G. Zhang, Q. Zhou, Y . Ma, and Y . Zhao, “Scanet: Spatial-channel attention network for 3d object detection,” in ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1992–1996

    2019

  8. [16]

    Graphalign: Enhancing accurate feature alignment by graph matching for multi-modal 3d object detection,

    Z. Song, H. Wei, L. Bai, L. Yang, and C. Jia, “Graphalign: Enhancing accurate feature alignment by graph matching for multi-modal 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , October 2023, pp. 3358–3369

    2023

  9. [17]

    Is-fusion: Instance-scene collaborative fusion for multimodal 3d object detection,

    J. Yin, J. Shen, R. Chen, W. Li, R. Yang, P. Frossard, and W. Wang, “Is-fusion: Instance-scene collaborative fusion for multimodal 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 14 905–14 915

    2024

  10. [18]

    Graphbev: Towards robust bev feature alignment for multi-modal 3d object detection,

    Z. Song, L. Yang, S. Xu, L. Liu, D. Xu, C. Jia, F. Jia, and L. Wang, “Graphbev: Towards robust bev feature alignment for multi-modal 3d object detection,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2025, pp. 347–366

    2025

  11. [19]

    Pointpainting: Se- quential fusion for 3d object detection,

    S. V ora, A. H. Lang, B. Helou, and O. Beijbom, “Pointpainting: Se- quential fusion for 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 4604– 4612

    2020

  12. [20]

    Mvx-net: Multimodal voxelnet for 3d object detection,

    V . A. Sindagi, Y . Zhou, and O. Tuzel, “Mvx-net: Multimodal voxelnet for 3d object detection,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 7276–7282

    2019

  13. [21]

    Epnet: Enhancing point features with image semantics for 3d object detection,

    T. Huang, Z. Liu, X. Chen, and X. Bai, “Epnet: Enhancing point features with image semantics for 3d object detection,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2020, pp. 35–52

    2020

  14. [22]

    Pi-rcnn: An efficient multi-sensor 3d object detector with point-based attentive cont-conv fusion module,

    L. Xie, C. Xiang, Z. Yu, G. Xu, Z. Yang, D. Cai, and X. He, “Pi-rcnn: An efficient multi-sensor 3d object detector with point-based attentive cont-conv fusion module,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 34, no. 07, 2020, pp. 12 460–12 467

    2020

  15. [23]

    Deepfusion: Lidar-camera deep fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection,

    Y . Li, A. W. Yu, T. Meng, B. Caine, J. Ngiam, D. Peng, J. Shen, Y . Lu, D. Zhou, Q. V . Leet al., “Deepfusion: Lidar-camera deep fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 17 182–17 191

    2022

  16. [24]

    Cat-det: Contrastively augmented transformer for multi-modal 3d object detection,

    Y . Zhang, J. Chen, and D. Huang, “Cat-det: Contrastively augmented transformer for multi-modal 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 908–917

    2022

  17. [25]

    Multi-task multi- sensor fusion for 3d object detection,

    M. Liang, B. Yang, Y . Chen, R. Hu, and R. Urtasun, “Multi-task multi- sensor fusion for 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2019, pp. 7345–7353

    2019

  18. [26]

    Futr3d: A unified sensor fusion framework for 3d detection,

    X. Chen, T. Zhang, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, and H. Zhao, “Futr3d: A unified sensor fusion framework for 3d detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10642, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Focal sparse convolutional networks for 3d object detection,

    Y . Chen, Y . Li, X. Zhang, J. Sun, and J. Jia, “Focal sparse convolutional networks for 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 5428–5437

    2022

  20. [28]

    Centerfusion: Center-based radar and camera fusion for 3d object detection,

    R. Nabati and H. Qi, “Centerfusion: Center-based radar and camera fusion for 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision. IEEE, 2021, pp. 1527– 1536

    2021

  21. [29]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,

    C. R. Qi, L. Yi, H. Su, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Class-balanced grouping and sampling for point cloud 3d object detection,

    B. Zhu, Z. Jiang, X. Zhou, Z. Li, and G. Yu, “Class-balanced grouping and sampling for point cloud 3d object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09492, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Center-based 3d object detection and tracking,

    T. Yin, X. Zhou, and P. Krahenbuhl, “Center-based 3d object detection and tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 11 784–11 793

    2021

  24. [32]

    V oxelnext: Fully sparse voxelnet for 3d object detection and tracking,

    Y . Chen, J. Liu, X. Zhang, X. Qi, and J. Jia, “V oxelnext: Fully sparse voxelnet for 3d object detection and tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 21 674–21 683

    2023

  25. [33]

    Largekernel3d: Scaling up kernels in 3d sparse cnns,

    ——, “Largekernel3d: Scaling up kernels in 3d sparse cnns,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 13 488–13 498

    2023

  26. [34]

    Vista: Boosting 3d object detection via dual cross-view spatial attention,

    S. Deng, Z. Liang, L. Sun, and K. Jia, “Vista: Boosting 3d object detection via dual cross-view spatial attention,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Multimodal virtual point 3d detection,

    T. Yin, X. Zhou, and P. Kr ¨ahenb¨uhl, “Multimodal virtual point 3d detection,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 16 494–16 507, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    A unified query- based paradigm for point cloud understanding,

    Z. Yang, L. Jiang, Y . Sun, B. Schiele, and J. Jia, “A unified query- based paradigm for point cloud understanding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 8541–8551

    2022

  29. [37]

    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 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . IEEE, 2012, pp. 3354–3361

    2012

  30. [38]

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

    2020

  31. [39]

    Penet: Towards precise and efficient image guided depth completion,

    M. Hu, S. Wang, B. Li, S. Ning, L. Fan, and X. Gong, “Penet: Towards precise and efficient image guided depth completion,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 13 656–13 662

    2021

  32. [40]

    Openpcdet: An open-source toolbox for 3d object detection from point clouds,

    O. Team et al. , “Openpcdet: An open-source toolbox for 3d object detection from point clouds,” 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.