Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Enhancing Lane Segment Perception and Topology Reasoning with Crowdsourcing Trajectory Priors

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using crowdsourced vehicle traces as map priors lifts lane-segment mAP by 10.0 and topology reasoning by 9.25 on OpenLane-V2.

desk verdict Real idea — trajectory priors for lane perception — but the +10.0 SOTA claim is not yet clean; worth a serious referee and a request for data. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17161 v2 pith:JSZLWI47 submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CV

Peijin Jia , Ziang Luo , Tuopu Wen , Mengmeng Yang , Kun Jiang , Le Cui , Diange Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords lanesegmentperceptiontopologyreasoningtrajectorypriorcrowdsourcingdataonlineHDmapconstructionBEVfusionOpenLane-V2Argoverse2
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that crowdsourced vehicle trajectories, collected from the Argoverse2 motion-forecasting dataset, can serve as a lane-structure prior that is more accurate than standard-definition maps, and that injecting them into an online lane-perception model materially improves both lane-segment detection and topology reasoning. The authors encode trajectories in two forms, a rasterized density-and-direction heatmap and vectorized instance tokens from clustering or farthest-point sampling, then fuse them into a BEVFormer-style encoder and a DETR-style decoder. To handle the inevitable spatial and semantic misalignment between prior traces and online camera perception, they add an alignment module that predicts per-cell offsets, warps the prior, and fuses it with confidence weights under BEV segmentation supervision. On OpenLane-V2, the best configuration raises lane-segment average precision by 10.0 and topology score by 9.25 over a strong SD-map prior baseline, and the model also retains an advantage when re-evaluated under a new split designed to limit geographic overlap. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as establishing trajectory data as a practical, easily updated prior for online HD map construction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the trajectory prior dataset built by aligning Argoverse2 motion-forecasting traces to OpenLane-V2 frames using vehicle poses, filtered by length, smoothed, and pruned to frames where trajectory counts exceed five times the centerline count. The paper feeds this prior into the network in two encodings: a rasterized heatmap that stores, per grid cell, the normalized visit density and average movement direction, and vectorized instance tokens obtained by k-means clustering or farthest-point sampling with Frechet distance. The fusion is done either by element-wise addition of the heatmap into BEV features during encoding or by initializing extra decoder queries and reference points from the vectorized tokens. A dedicated alignment module then concatenates prior and BEV features, predicts 2D offsets for each position, warps the prior with bilinear interpolation, and combines the two feature maps through softmax-normalized confidence weights, with a BEV segmentation loss providing supervision for the learned alignment.

What would settle it

Re-run the full comparison on a split where the trajectory-collection and evaluation areas are strictly disjoint (for example, trajectories from one set of cities and perception frames from another); if the trajectory prior then gives no consistent improvement over the SD-map baseline, the reported gains are explained by geographic overlap rather than by the lane-structure content of the priors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that the path history of ordinary vehicles, treated as a map prior, captures the geometric structure of lanes more faithfully than road-level SD maps, especially at intersections, and that this fidelity translates into measurable gains in online mapping. The paper quantifies the geometric advantage by a centerline-aligned IoU of 0.39 for trajectories versus 0.16 for SD maps. It then shows, through systematic ablations, that the trajectory prior improves performance no matter how it is encoded or fused; the best result comes from adding the heatmap to BEV features and combining it with an SD-map prior, reaching 42.30 APls and 34.65 T OPlsls on the validation split, and 22.50 APls and 21.22 T OPlsls on the StreamMapNet split. The authors present this as evidence that trajectory priors are a better source of supplemental lane information than existing explicit map priors.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that motion-forecasting trajectories gathered from the same cities at different times and under different scenarios can be pose-aligned to perception frames and used as honest lane-structure priors, rather than as a way of leaking validation geography into the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Trajectory data alone outperforms SD-map prior fusion on every reported metric; combining trajectory with SD map yields the largest gains (+10.0 APls, +9.25 T OPlsls).
  • Heatmap-based augmentation of BEV features is the strongest single fusion scheme for topology reasoning; query initialization from vectorized tokens still improves the baseline but is slightly weaker.
  • The alignment module contributes a consistent gain: removing it drops APls from 42.30 to 41.13 and T OPlsls from 34.65 to 34.18.
  • Under the new split protocol from StreamMapNet, TrajTopo still beats the LaneSegNet baseline by a wide margin (22.50 vs 16.67 APls; 21.22 vs 17.08 T OPlsls), indicating the benefit is not solely a memorization artifact of the original split.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if trajectory priors keep their value across geographically disjoint splits, the same recipe could turn continuously collected fleet data into self-updating lane priors, reducing reliance on manual HD map annotation.
  • Beyond the paper: because the original split has a 54% geographic overlap between Argoverse2 train and validation, the headline +10.0/+9.25 gains likely mix in location memorization; the new-split numbers are the cleaner estimate of true prior value, and comparing them against existing methods under the same protocol would sharpen the conclusion.
  • Beyond the paper: the alignment module is prior-agnostic; applying it to satellite or HD-map priors, or to detect temporally shifted lane changes, is a natural transfer test.
  • Beyond the paper: one could measure how much of the gain comes from trajectory geometry rather than trajectory density by ablating with random synthetic traces of the same density.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TrajTopo, a method that augments lane segment perception and topology reasoning on the OpenLane-V2 benchmark with crowdsourced trajectory priors extracted from the Argoverse2 motion forecasting dataset. Trajectories are encoded as a rasterized heatmap or as vectorized instance tokens via K-means or farthest-point sampling, and are fused into a BEVFormer-style encoder and a DETR-style decoder. A confidence-based fusion module with spatial alignment and BEV segmentation supervision is introduced to mitigate prior-to-perception misalignment. The authors report that their best configuration improves lane segment mAP by +10.0 and topology metric by +9.25 over prior SOTA methods, and they also include a new-split evaluation intended to control for geographic overlap between Argoverse2 train and validation data.

Significance. The central idea of using crowdsourced trajectories as a map prior is interesting and potentially practical: trajectory data are broadly available, frequently updated, and closely reflect lane-level geometry, as the paper's own IoU analysis suggests. The within-framework ablation in Table II, which compares SDMap and trajectory priors on top of the same LaneSegNet baseline, is a genuinely controlled piece of evidence and supports the conclusion that trajectory priors help. The paper also releases code and includes a new-split robustness check, which is a good-faith attempt to address known data-leakage concerns in this benchmark family. However, the headline SOTA claim is not supported by the evidence as presented: the comparison in Table I stacks multiple engineering changes with the trajectory module, the evaluation subset is defined using a trajectory-density filter that is not clearly applied to baselines, and the new-split evaluation omits all prior SOTA methods. If these evaluation issues are fixed, the contribution would be a solid empirical study of a useful prior modality.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V.B, Table I] The headline comparison (+10.0/+9.25 over prior methods) is not controlled. TrajTopo includes the LaneDAG topology head, an SDMap fusion module, trajectory fusion, and the alignment module, whereas P-MapNet, SMERF, and MapEx each use their own backbones and fusion designs. The text says the authors 'reproduce the state-of-the-art SDMap prior fusion algorithm based on the LaneSegNet framework,' but the details of this reproduction (which method, which hyperparameters, how the LaneDAG head is combined) are not given, so the reader cannot verify that the comparison isolates the trajectory prior rather than the accumulated engineering changes. Please report the SOTA baselines under the same framework and training recipe, or clearly present Table I as a system-level comparison and Table II as the controlled ablation.
  2. [Sections III and V.A.1] The filtering statement 'we retain only the frames where the number of trajectories exceeded five times the number of centerlines' is ambiguous. If this filter is applied to the evaluation set, TrajTopo is scored on the approximately 86% of validation frames richest in trajectory coverage while the published P-MapNet, SMERF, and MapEx numbers are computed on the full validation set, which would inflate the reported gains independently of any perceptual improvement. Please state explicitly whether the filter is applied during training, evaluation, or both; if evaluation is filtered, also report results on the full validation set and release the exact frame IDs used so the comparison is reproducible.
  3. [Section V.B, new-split rows] The new-split evaluation, which is the only control for the 54% geographic overlap between Argoverse2 train and validation splits, compares only LaneSegNet* and TrajTopo*. It does not include P-MapNet*, SMERF*, MapEx*, or any other SDMap-prior method, so it cannot support the abstract's claim that the method 'significantly outperforms the current state-of-the-art methods' under a leakage-free protocol. Please run the full set of baselines on the same new split, or explicitly limit the claim to the comparison against LaneSegNet.
  4. [Section III and V.B] Even with the new-split control, the standard-split numbers are the primary evidence for the +10.0/+9.25 claim, and those numbers are obtained with trajectory priors harvested from the same geographic areas as the OpenLane-V2 validation set. The paper acknowledges the 54% overlap but does not quantify how much of the gain comes from memorizing lane geometry in previously seen cities. A stronger test would be to evaluate on the new split with all SOTA baselines, and additionally to ablate the prior by removing trajectory data from areas overlapping the training split; without this, the magnitude of the claimed improvement over SOTA remains uncertain.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The text contains several typos, including 'Code is released is at', 'forcasting', 'Rasterzied', 'ues', and 'askin to'; please revise.
  2. [Section V.A.2] The definitions of AEtype and AEdist are terse; please specify the matching procedure used to pair predictions with ground truth, since these are not standard OpenLane-V2 metrics and the reader cannot otherwise compare with prior work.
  3. [Section IV.B.2] The K-means implementation does not specify the number of clusters K, the trajectory length n used to form A*, or the coverage threshold for retaining frames; these are needed for reproducibility.
  4. [Table III] The column headers 'Heatmap', 'Far Sampling', and 'KMeans Cluster' and the row labels are unclear; 'Far Sampling' should be 'Farthest Point Sampling' and the table should state which encoding is used in each fusion strategy.
  5. [Section III] The centerline-aligned IoU computation for SDMap and trajectory data is described in one sentence; please report the rendering resolution, line width, and matching threshold so the IoU values 0.16 and 0.39 are reproducible.
  6. [Section V.B] No error bars or repeated-seed statistics are reported for any of the main results; given that the margins between some ablations are small (e.g., Table V), at least the key comparisons should include variance over seeds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the trajectory-prior claim is an empirical, self-contained result; the self-citations are ablated components, and the leakage/subset concerns are validity risks rather than circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper makes an empirical claim, not a derived one: crowdsourced trajectory priors from Argoverse2 motion forecasting improve lane-segment perception and topology reasoning on OpenLane-V2. I find no step where a prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. The trajectory prior is a distinct modality (vehicle trajectories, pose-aligned into a heatmap or vector tokens) and is not defined from the target lane-segment labels; the IoU-0.39 quality check compares trajectories with centerline annotations but is not used to construct the evaluation metric. The fusion weights alpha, beta in Eqs. (4)-(5) are learned on training frames and evaluated on a held-out validation set; this is ordinary supervised learning, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The self-citations are architectural: LaneSegNet [9] is the baseline and LaneDAG [25] is adopted as the topology head, both with overlapping authorship. They are not used to justify the trajectory-prior claim; Table II separately ablates the LaneDAG head (Baseline vs Baseline*) and isolates the trajectory gain over SDMap (+6.8 APls over baseline, +1.8 over SDMap alone). The paper's own limitation note, citing a 54% Argoverse2 train/val geographic overlap and re-evaluating on StreamMapNet's new split, is a data-leakage and benchmark-comparability concern, not circularity: the prior is not a re-encoding of the validation labels, and the new-split result (+5.83 APls over LaneSegNet*) is an independent empirical check even though prior SOTA baselines are missing from that split. Frame filtering in Section V.A.1 and the incomplete new-split SOTA comparisons are validity risks for a correctness review, but they do not make the result equivalent to its inputs by definition. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on assumptions about data correspondence, evaluation fairness, and the validity of segmentation supervision; no new physical entities are introduced, and trajectory heatmaps and EX query tokens are learned representations rather than independently evidenced entities.

free parameters (3)
  • KMeans cluster count K = not stated
    The number of representative trajectory tokens used for query initialization is a hand-chosen hyperparameter, not justified beyond ablation.
  • Trajectory coverage filter threshold = 5x centerline count
    Frames with fewer than five trajectories per centerline are discarded; this selection rule affects which scenes are scored.
  • BEV segmentation loss weight = 3.0
    Tuned on validation by ablation in Table V.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Argoverse2 motion forecasting trajectories, collected from the same cities as OpenLane-V2 but at other times, can be pose-aligned to perception frames and serve as lane geometry prior.
    Invoked in Section III; if trajectories are not representative of the current lane layout, the prior can be wrong.
  • domain assumption Retaining only frames where trajectory count exceeds 5x lane segment count does not bias evaluation.
    Section V.A.1; no results are reported on filtered-out frames, so generalization to all frames is assumed.
  • domain assumption BEV segmentation supervision using ground-truth segmentation corrects misalignment without introducing test-time oracle information.
    Section IV.C.2; this supervision uses labels available at training, but the paper does not analyze failure when labels are noisy.
  • domain assumption Centerline-aligned IoU with 0.75 m line width is a valid measure of prior geometric fidelity.
    Section III; the quality comparison between SDMap and trajectory data depends on this metric.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Lane Segment Perception and Topology Reasoning with Crowdsourcing Trajectory Priors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JSZLWI47

@misc{pith2026241117161,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Lane Segment Perception and Topology Reasoning with Crowdsourcing Trajectory Priors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JSZLWI47}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17161}
}
read the original abstract

In autonomous driving, recent advances in lane segment perception provide autonomous vehicles with a comprehensive understanding of driving scenarios. Moreover, incorporating prior information input into such perception model represents an effective approach to ensure the robustness and accuracy. However, utilizing diverse sources of prior information still faces three key challenges: the acquisition of high-quality prior information, alignment between prior and online perception, efficient integration. To address these issues, we investigate prior augmentation from a novel perspective of trajectory priors. In this paper, we initially extract crowdsourcing trajectory data from Argoverse2 motion forecasting dataset and encode trajectory data into rasterized heatmap and vectorized instance tokens, then we incorporate such prior information into the online mapping model through different ways. Besides, with the purpose of mitigating the misalignment between prior and online perception, we design a confidence-based fusion module that takes alignment into account during the fusion process. We conduct extensive experiments on OpenLane-V2 dataset. The results indicate that our method's performance significantly outperforms the current state-of-the-art methods. Code is released is at https://github.com/wowlza/TrajTopo

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17161 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of Different Priors: a) Ground Truth. b) SDMap, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview model architecture. The model receives surrounding images, a local aligned SDMap and trajectory data as prior inputs and the model follows the typical encoder-decoder paradigm. We add the sdmap upon previous work. Then we innovatively represent trajectory data in two forms and compare different fusion strategies, ultimately identifying the optimal fusion strategy. The subsequent challenge is to fully ex… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of alignment Module: We initially concatenate the prior feature with BEV feature and feed them into several convolutional layers to predict the coordinate offsets at each position. Subsequently, we employ a warp operation to achieve spatially aligned feature. These aligned feature then proceed through the confidence fusion module to further integrate the prior information. Throughout the training proces… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results:It can be observed that under certain complex road conditions, the coarse sdmap provides some prior information, but its simple structure does not guarantee that the model has a more comprehensive understanding of the road scenario. In contrast, tra…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Augmenting lane perception and topol- ogy understanding with standard definition navigation maps,

    K. Z. Luo, X. Weng, Y . Wang, S. Wu, J. Li, K. Q. Weinberger, Y . Wang, and M. Pavone, “Augmenting lane perception and topol- ogy understanding with standard definition navigation maps,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 4029–4035, IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Neural map prior for autonomous driving,

    X. Xiong, Y . Liu, T. Yuan, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, and H. Zhao, “Neural map prior for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 17535– 17544, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Complement- ing onboard sensors with satellite maps: A new perspective for hd map construction,

    W. Gao, J. Fu, Y . Shen, H. Jing, S. Chen, and N. Zheng, “Complement- ing onboard sensors with satellite maps: A new perspective for hd map construction,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 11103–11109, IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self-driving perception and forecasting,

    B. Wilson, W. Qi, T. Agarwal, J. Lambert, J. Singh, S. Khandelwal, B. Pan, R. Kumar, A. Hartnett, J. K. Pontes, et al., “Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self-driving perception and forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00493, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Structured bird’s-eye-view traffic scene understanding from onboard images,

    Y . B. Can, A. Liniger, D. P. Paudel, and L. Van Gool, “Structured bird’s-eye-view traffic scene understanding from onboard images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 15661–15670, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Topology preserving local road network estimation from single onboard camera image,

    Y . B. Can, A. Liniger, D. P. Paudel, and L. Van Gool, “Topology preserving local road network estimation from single onboard camera image,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 17263–17272, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Roadpainter: Points are ideal navigators for topology transformer,

    Z. Ma, S. Liang, Y . Wen, W. Lu, and G. Wan, “Roadpainter: Points are ideal navigators for topology transformer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15349, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Lane graph as path: Continuity-preserving path- wise modeling for online lane graph construction,

    B. Liao, S. Chen, B. Jiang, T. Cheng, Q. Zhang, W. Liu, C. Huang, and X. Wang, “Lane graph as path: Continuity-preserving path- wise modeling for online lane graph construction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08815, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    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

    2023

  2. [10]

    Tesla ai day,

    Tesla, “Tesla ai day,” 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= ODSJsviD SU

    2022

  3. [11]

    Translating images to road network: A non-autoregressive sequence- to-sequence approach,

    J. Lu, R. Peng, X. Cai, H. Xu, H. Li, F. Wen, W. Zhang, and L. Zhang, “Translating images to road network: A non-autoregressive sequence- to-sequence approach,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 23–33, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Lanegraph2seq: Lane topology extraction with language model via vertex-edge encoding and connectivity enhancement,

    R. Peng, X. Cai, H. Xu, J. Lu, F. Wen, W. Zhang, and L. Zhang, “Lanegraph2seq: Lane topology extraction with language model via vertex-edge encoding and connectivity enhancement,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, pp. 4497–4505, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    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,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Graph-based topology reasoning for driving scenes,

    T. Li, L. Chen, H. Wang, Y . Li, J. Yang, X. Geng, S. Jiang, Y . Wang, H. Xu, C. Xu, et al. , “Graph-based topology reasoning for driving scenes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05277 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Topomaskv2: Enhanced instance-mask-based formulation for the road topology prob- lem,

    M. Kalfaoglu, H. I. Ozturk, O. Kilinc, and A. Temizel, “Topomaskv2: Enhanced instance-mask-based formulation for the road topology prob- lem,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11325 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Topomlp: A simple yet strong pipeline for driving topology reasoning,

    D. Wu, J. Chang, F. Jia, Y . Liu, T. Wang, and J. Shen, “Topomlp: A simple yet strong pipeline for driving topology reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06753, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Mapprior: Bird’s-eye view map layout estimation with generative models,

    X. Zhu, V . Zyrianov, Z. Liu, and S. Wang, “Mapprior: Bird’s-eye view map layout estimation with generative models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 8228– 8239, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp. 7356–7365, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Diffmap: Enhancing map segmentation with map prior using diffusion model,

    P. Jia, T. Wen, Z. Luo, M. Yang, K. Jiang, Z. Liu, X. Tang, Z. Lei, L. Cui, B. Zhang, et al., “Diffmap: Enhancing map segmentation with map prior using diffusion model,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Maplite 2.0: Online hd map inference using a prior sd map,

    T. Ort, J. M. Walls, S. A. Parkison, I. Gilitschenski, and D. Rus, “Maplite 2.0: Online hd map inference using a prior sd map,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 8355–8362, 2022. 9

    2022

  13. [21]

    Priormapnet: Enhancing online vectorized hd map construction with priors,

    R. Wang, X. Lu, X. Liu, X. Zou, T. Cao, and Y . Li, “Priormapnet: Enhancing online vectorized hd map construction with priors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08802, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Mind the map! accounting for existing map information when estimating online hdmaps from sensor data,

    R. Sun, L. Yang, D. Lingrand, and F. Precioso, “Mind the map! accounting for existing map information when estimating online hdmaps from sensor data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10517 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    P-mapnet: Far-seeing map generator enhanced by both sdmap and hdmap priors,

    Z. Jiang, Z. Zhu, P. Li, H.-a. Gao, T. Yuan, Y . Shi, H. Zhao, and H. Zhao, “P-mapnet: Far-seeing map generator enhanced by both sdmap and hdmap priors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10521 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Autograph: Predicting lane graphs from traffic observations,

    J. Z ¨urn, I. Posner, and W. Burgard, “Autograph: Predicting lane graphs from traffic observations,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 73–80, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Lanedag: Automatic hd map topology generator based on geometry and attention fusion mechanism,

    P. Jia, T. Wen, Z. Luo, Z. Fu, J. Liao, H. Chen, K. Jiang, M. Yang, and D. Yang, “Lanedag: Automatic hd map topology generator based on geometry and attention fusion mechanism,” in 2024 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pp. 1015–1021, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Trajectory clustering: a partition- and-group framework,

    J.-G. Lee, J. Han, and K.-Y . Whang, “Trajectory clustering: a partition- and-group framework,” in Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data , pp. 593–604, 2007

    2007

  19. [27]

    Crossing intersections: A tool for investigating road user pathways,

    H. A. Kaths, “Crossing intersections: A tool for investigating road user pathways,” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 275–281, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Genetic k-means algorithm,

    K. Krishna and M. N. Murty, “Genetic k-means algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) , vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 433–439, 1999

    1999

  21. [29]

    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 European conference on computer vision, pp. 1–18, Springer, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Learning spatial fusion for single-shot object detection,

    S. Liu, D. Huang, and Y . Wang, “Learning spatial fusion for single-shot object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.09516 , 2019

    1911 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Semantic flow for fast and accurate scene parsing,

    X. Li, A. You, Z. Zhu, H. Zhao, M. Yang, K. Yang, S. Tan, and Y . Tong, “Semantic flow for fast and accurate scene parsing,” inComputer Vision– ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 16 , pp. 775–793, Springer, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization,

    I. Loshchilov, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Predicting semantic map representations from images using pyramid occupancy networks,

    T. Roddick and R. Cipolla, “Predicting semantic map representations from images using pyramid occupancy networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 11138–11147, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Localization is all you evaluate: Data leakage in online mapping datasets and how to fix it,

    A. Lilja, J. Fu, E. Stenborg, and L. Hammarstrand, “Localization is all you evaluate: Data leakage in online mapping datasets and how to fix it,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 22150–22159, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    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,” 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    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,” International Journal of Computer Vision , pp. 1–23, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.