Wireless Communication as an Information Sensor for Multi-agent Cooperative Perception: A Survey

Fuxi Wen; Jun Li; Tenghui Xie; Zhiying Song

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Wireless Communication as an Information Sensor for Multi-agent Cooperative Perception: A Survey

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey argues that Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) wireless communication is best understood as an "information sensor" for autonomous vehicles, defined by mobility, heterogeneity, communication dependence, and scalability, and it…

desk verdict A current, useful survey with a real organizing gap around BEV/occupancy representations and a bad bandwidth number; worth peer review after revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00747 v1 pith:LJVV4SHD submitted 2025-04-30 cs.OH cs.CVcs.MAcs.RO

Zhiying Song , Tenghui Xie , Fuxi Wen , Jun Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.OHcs.CVcs.MAcs.RO

keywords cooperativeperceptionV2Xcommunicationinformationsensormulti-agentfusionautonomousdrivingcommunication-efficientlarge-scaledeployment

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 Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) wireless communication should be treated as an "information sensor" for autonomous vehicles, not merely as a data link. On this view, the wireless channel behaves like a perception sensor whose readings are other agents' observations, with four defining traits: mobility, heterogeneity, communication dependence, and scalability. The survey organizes the field around three questions—how shared information should be represented, how it should be fused, and how the system should scale—and shows that each question is governed by limited bandwidth. A sympathetic reader would take away that representation choice and communication-aware fusion are core design decisions, on par with sensor choice, rather than implementation details.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object of the survey is the "information sensor" concept: a way of treating the V2X wireless link as a virtual perception sensor whose inputs are measurements made by other agents and whose output is constrained by bandwidth, signal stability, and mobility. This concept carries the argument by converting communication constraints from an engineering nuisance into a first-class property of the perception system, on equal footing with a camera's field of view or a LiDAR's range. The second piece of machinery is the three-level taxonomy of information representation—data-level, feature-level, object-level—which the survey uses to index both compression methods and fusion strategies, and which lets it identify the open problem of a universal, task-agnostic intermediate representation.

What would settle it

A concrete check on the central claim: run a representative cooperative perception stack with and without communication-aware representation and compression under a measured V2X link of less than 10 Mbps; if the communication-agnostic version matches its accuracy and latency, the case for treating the wireless link as a first-class perception sensor weakens. A meta-analytic falsifier would be a sizable cluster of published cooperative perception methods whose core contribution fits none of the survey's three axes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is organizational: cooperative perception research has matured enough to be viewed through an information-centric lens, and doing so reveals a consistent structure. Raw sensor data can be shared at the data level, the feature level, or the object level; data level preserves detail but swamps the network, feature level compresses but suffers standardization and heterogeneity problems, and object level is bandwidth-friendly but loses information needed for prediction and end-to-end driving. Fusion methods that work under ideal, homogeneous conditions degrade under real-world latency, packet loss, and localization error, in some cases falling below single-vehicle perception. The paper further claims that large-scale deployment requires explicit system-level choices—edge-assisted, fully decentralized, or hybrid architectures, plus communication scheduling—because the number of cooperating agents varies from a few to hundreds. The conclusion is that the field's next step is not better detectors alone but generalizable, communication-aware representations and standardized, realistic benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's usefulness rests on accepting that cooperative perception research can be cleanly divided into the three dimensions of representation, fusion, and scalability, and that the papers it reviews are representative of the field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Bandwidth becomes a perception budget: choosing between data-, feature-, and object-level sharing is a perception design decision with direct accuracy and latency consequences.
Fusion algorithms must assume imperfect communication and pose error, because under latency, packet loss, or misalignment cooperation can perform worse than a single vehicle.
Compression is not free: once compression exceeds a threshold, cooperative perception accuracy drops sharply, so codecs for this setting need to preserve semantic content, not just geometry.
Scalability requires system-level planning of who talks to whom and when, using architectures that range from edge servers to fully decentralized schemes.
Progress in real-world deployment depends on standardized benchmarks and realistic large-scale datasets that include heterogeneity, localization noise, and genuine communication limits.

Reading between the lines

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

The information-sensor lens likely extends beyond vehicles to any multi-robot or edge-AI system where perception data cross a wireless bottleneck, such as drones or warehouse robots; the same representation-fusion-deployment triad would apply.
The paper's suggested directions—3D Gaussian ellipsoids as explicit representations and a universal feature space—point toward a task-agnostic compressed world model; a testable extension is whether such a shared representation lets agents collaborate on the fly without any joint training.
The observed sharp accuracy collapse under compression resembles a rate-distortion-perception tradeoff; quantifying that tradeoff with an information-theoretic bound could give codec designers a target to optimize.
A concrete missing piece implied by the survey is a common test harness that injects measured packet loss, latency, and localization noise into standard datasets; building one would test whether robustness methods actually generalize.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. This is a useful survey, not a breakthrough. The information-sensor framing is a sensible way to organize known V2X constraints—mobility, heterogeneity, communication dependence, scalability—but it doesn't add new theory. What the survey does well is collection: it pulls together recent work through early 2025, including the scalability/system-level line (EMP, AutoCast, Harbor, Select2Coll), which earlier surveys treat thinly. The references are real, and the self-citations are used as examples, not to prop up the framing. If I were new to cooperative perception, this would give me a quicker map than the 2023 surveys. The biggest issue is the representation taxonomy in Section II-A. The paper defines three levels—data, feature, object—but then cites occupancy prediction [15] and end-to-end cooperative driving [16,17] as tasks object-level can't support, without saying where those methods live. Dense BEV or occupancy-grid representations are common now, and the survey itself uses BEV features in Section III-B (HM-ViT). That leaves the reader unable to tell whether BEV/map-level is supposed to fold into feature-level, form a fourth category, or be excluded. Since comprehensiveness is the survey's main pitch, this is load-bearing, not cosmetic. The fix is easy in a revision: state the relationship explicitly. The other concrete problem is numbers. Section II-B says 10 Mbps supports about 10 LiDAR points per second. That is off by orders of magnitude for any reasonable point encoding, and no derivation or source is given for 4.16 million pixels either. A reader who spots this will start doubting the qualitative claims even where they are sound. It's a small editing fix, but it should not survive review. Novelty is modest. The three-level taxonomy is not new; prior surveys use it. The information-sensor lens is a reframing. That's fine for a survey, but the prose should be careful not to oversell it. This paper is for graduate students and researchers entering the area, or for people in the V2X comms community who want the perception side summarized. Specialists won't learn much they don't already know. I probably won't cite it in my own work, but I'd point students to it. It deserves peer review rather than desk rejection: it's coherent, current, and citable once the taxonomy and numbers are fixed. Send it to a venue with constructive referees; ask for revision, not rejection.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This survey reviews cooperative perception for autonomous driving from an information-centric viewpoint, treating V2X communication as a dynamic 'information sensor' with four characteristics: mobility, heterogeneity, communication dependence, and scalability. It organizes recent work along three dimensions—information representation (data-level, feature-level, object-level), information fusion under ideal and non-ideal conditions (heterogeneity, latency, packet loss, pose errors), and large-scale deployment (system architectures and information scheduling). The paper identifies open challenges such as task-specific information selection, reliance on joint training, lack of standardized benchmarks, and suggests future directions including explicit representations and universal feature spaces. The survey contributes no new technical results; its value rests on the usefulness and completeness of its organizing taxonomy and coverage.

Significance. If its organizing taxonomy is accepted, this survey offers a useful complement to fusion-centric surveys by foregrounding representation choices and deployment scalability. It assembles a broad set of recent methods, including several from 2023-2025 venues, and gives balanced treatment to compression, heterogeneity, latency, packet loss, and pose calibration. The 'information sensor' framing is a plausible pedagogical contribution. However, the survey's significance is conditional on the three-level representation taxonomy being both complete and clearly defined; as discussed below, that condition is not currently met, and one quantitative motivation contains an apparent error.

major comments (2)

[II-A] The three-level taxonomy (data-, feature-, object-level) is presented as exhaustive ('cooperative perception can be categorized into three approaches'), but the paper itself cites collaboration methods built on Bird's-Eye-View (BEV) or occupancy representations: collaborative semantic occupancy prediction [15] and end-to-end cooperative driving [16], [17] are invoked as tasks that object-level information cannot support, yet no fourth category is defined to cover them. Dense map-level or occupancy-grid representations are not raw sensor data in the sense of [7], [8], nor model-specific intermediate features in the sense of [10], [11], nor object lists. Please add an explicit fourth representation category (e.g., map/BEV/occupancy-level) or justify subsuming these works under feature-level; as written, the taxonomy does not demonstrably cover a major body of cooperative perception work, which undercuts the survey's claim of a comprehensive organizing perspective.
[II-B] The claim that 'less than 10 Mbps' translates to 'about 4.16 million pixels, 10 LiDAR points, or 4,800 64-channel depth features per second' is not derived and is numerically implausible: at 8 bits per pixel, 4.16 million pixels would require about 33 Mbps, and '10 LiDAR points' is several orders of magnitude too low for any reasonable point encoding. Moreover, the sentence attributes the 10 Mbps C-V2X bound to reference [16], which is the Coopernaut paper on end-to-end driving, not a V2X throughput measurement study. Please correct the derivation, replace the numbers, and cite an appropriate source for the throughput claim.

minor comments (4)

[Section II-B] The acronym C-V2X is used without defining 'Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything' at first use; please expand it for readers who are not specialists in vehicular communications.
[References] References [8] and [34] are duplicate entries for the same Cooper paper, and references [7] and [48] are duplicate entries for the same multivehicle cooperative driving paper; please merge these duplicate entries.
[II-C] The phrase 'deep generative models such as autoencoders and their variations' is imprecise in relation to V2VNet, which uses a CNN-based compression module; suggest distinguishing learned compression from generative-model-based compression to avoid conflating the two.
[IV] A summary table comparing the surveyed large-scale systems (e.g., EMP, AutoCast, Harbor) in terms of agent count, architecture type, communication assumptions, and reported performance would make the comparison easier to follow and would strengthen the survey's usefulness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the survey organizes existing work without deriving predictions from fitted inputs or importing load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

This paper is a survey and makes no quantitative predictions, derives no theorems, and fits no parameters. Its stated contribution is an organizational perspective: treating V2X communication as an 'information sensor' and reviewing work along the dimensions of information representation, fusion, and large-scale deployment. That framing is introduced by definition rather than derived from the surveyed methods, so no self-definitional loop is present. The paper's self-citations (refs [12], [45], and [55]) are used only as examples of object-level alignment, latency compensation, and spatial calibration methods; they do not justify the survey's taxonomy or any central conclusion. The three-level representation taxonomy (data-, feature-, object-level) is asserted as a categorization scheme, not derived from the papers it organizes; whether it is exhaustive is a legitimate completeness concern, but not a circularity concern. No uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work, no fitted value is renamed as a prediction, and no ansatz is smuggled in through citation. The paper is therefore self-contained as a survey, and the correct finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central claim rests on assumptions about the completeness of the taxonomy and the representativeness of sources, not on fitted parameters or invented entities. The main risk is that the categorization may omit relevant work or misrepresent progress in the field.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption V2X communication can be usefully characterized as an information sensor with four properties: mobility, heterogeneity, communication dependence, and scalability.
This framing is introduced in Section I and underpins the entire survey structure. If the framing is not accepted, the survey's organizing principle weakens.
domain assumption Cooperative perception methods can be exhaustively categorized into data-level, feature-level, and object-level representations.
Section II-A states this categorization without arguing for its completeness. The survey builds its representation discussion on this trichotomy.
domain assumption The surveyed papers are representative of the state of the art in cooperative perception.
The paper does not describe a systematic search or selection criteria (Section I). This is a common but unstated assumption in surveys.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wireless Communication as an Information Sensor for Multi-agent Cooperative Perception: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LJVV4SHD

@misc{pith2026250500747,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wireless Communication as an Information Sensor for Multi-agent Cooperative Perception: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LJVV4SHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00747}
}

read the original abstract

Cooperative perception extends the perception capabilities of autonomous vehicles by enabling multi-agent information sharing via Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) communication. Unlike traditional onboard sensors, V2X acts as a dynamic "information sensor" characterized by limited communication, heterogeneity, mobility, and scalability. This survey provides a comprehensive review of recent advancements from the perspective of information-centric cooperative perception, focusing on three key dimensions: information representation, information fusion, and large-scale deployment. We categorize information representation into data-level, feature-level, and object-level schemes, and highlight emerging methods for reducing data volume and compressing messages under communication constraints. In information fusion, we explore techniques under both ideal and non-ideal conditions, including those addressing heterogeneity, localization errors, latency, and packet loss. Finally, we summarize system-level approaches to support scalability in dense traffic scenarios. Compared with existing surveys, this paper introduces a new perspective by treating V2X communication as an information sensor and emphasizing the challenges of deploying cooperative perception in real-world intelligent transportation systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00747 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Collaborative Perception Datasets for Autonomous Driving: A Review
cs.CV 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A structured survey that catalogs and compares collaborative perception datasets for autonomous driving across cooperation paradigms, sensors, scenarios, and tasks, with a living online repository.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[15]

Collaborative semantic occupancy prediction with hybrid feature fusion in connected automated vehicles,

R. Song, C. Liang, H. Cao, Z. Yan, W. Zimmer, M. Gross, A. Festag, and A. Knoll, “Collaborative semantic occupancy prediction with hybrid feature fusion in connected automated vehicles,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 17 996–18 006

work page 2024
[16]

Coopernaut: End-to- end driving with cooperative perception for networked vehicles,

J. Cui, H. Qiu, D. Chen, P. Stone, and Y . Zhu, “Coopernaut: End-to- end driving with cooperative perception for networked vehicles,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 17 252–17 262

2022
[17]

End- to-end autonomous driving through v2x cooperation,

H. Yu, W. Yang, J. Zhong, Z. Yang, S. Fan, P. Luo, and Z. Nie, “End- to-end autonomous driving through v2x cooperation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 9, 2025, pp. 9598–9606

work page 2025
[7]

Multivehicle cooperative driving using cooperative perception: Design and experimental validation,

S.-W. Kim, B. Qin, Z. J. Chong, X. Shen, W. Liu, M. H. Ang, E. Fraz- zoli, and D. Rus, “Multivehicle cooperative driving using cooperative perception: Design and experimental validation,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 663–680, 2014

work page 2014
[8]

Cooper: Cooperative perception for connected autonomous vehicles based on 3d point clouds,

Q. Chen, S. Tang, Q. Yang, and S. Fu, “Cooper: Cooperative perception for connected autonomous vehicles based on 3d point clouds,” in 2019 IEEE 39th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 514–524

2019
[10]

Multimedia fusion at semantic level in vehicle cooperactive perception,

Z. Xiao, Z. Mo, K. Jiang, and D. Yang, “Multimedia fusion at semantic level in vehicle cooperactive perception,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–6

work page 2018
[11]

OPV2V: An open benchmark dataset and fusion pipeline for perception with Vehicle-to- Vehicle communication,

R. Xu, H. Xiang, X. Xia, X. Han, J. Li, and J. Ma, “OPV2V: An open benchmark dataset and fusion pipeline for perception with Vehicle-to- Vehicle communication,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2022

work page 2022
[1]

V2VNet: Vehicle-to-vehicle communication for joint perception and prediction,

T.-H. Wang, S. Manivasagam, M. Liang, B. Yang, W. Zeng, and R. Ur- tasun, “V2VNet: Vehicle-to-vehicle communication for joint perception and prediction,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) . Springer-Verlag, 2020, p. 605–621

work page 2020

Show all 61 references

[2]

Towards vehicle-to-everything au- tonomous driving: A survey on collaborative perception,

S. Liu, C. Gao, Y . Chen, X. Peng, X. Kong, K. Wang, R. Xu, W. Jiang, H. Xiang, J. Ma et al. , “Towards vehicle-to-everything au- tonomous driving: A survey on collaborative perception,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16714, 2023

2023 arXiv
[3]

Survey on cooperative perception in an automotive context,

A. Caillot, S. Ouerghi, P. Vasseur, R. Boutteau, and Y . Dupuis, “Survey on cooperative perception in an automotive context,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 14 204–14 223, 2022

2022
[4]

Collaborative perception in autonomous driving: Methods, datasets and challenges,

Y . Han, H. Zhang, H. Li, Y . Jin, C. Lang, and Y . Li, “Collaborative perception in autonomous driving: Methods, datasets and challenges,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, , vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 131–151, 2023

2023
[5]

V2X cooperative perception for autonomous driving: Recent advances and challenges,

T. Huang, J. Liu, X. Zhou, D. C. Nguyen, M. R. Azghadi, Y . Xia, Q.-L. Han, and S. Sun, “V2X cooperative perception for autonomous driving: Recent advances and challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03525 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[6]

A survey on intermediate fusion methods for collaborative perception categorized by real world challenges,

M. Yazgan, T. Graf, M. Liu, T. Fleck, and J. M. Z ¨ollner, “A survey on intermediate fusion methods for collaborative perception categorized by real world challenges,” in 2024 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2226–2233

2024
[9]

Cooperative perception for 3d object detection in driving scenarios using infrastruc- ture sensors,

E. Arnold, M. Dianati, R. de Temple, and S. Fallah, “Cooperative perception for 3d object detection in driving scenarios using infrastruc- ture sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1852–1864, 2020

2020
[12]

A cooperative perception system robust to localization errors,

Z. Song, F. Wen, H. Zhang, and J. Li, “A cooperative perception system robust to localization errors,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2023

2023
[13]

Car2x-based perception in a high-level fusion architecture for cooperative perception systems,

A. Rauch, F. Klanner, R. Rasshofer, and K. Dietmayer, “Car2x-based perception in a high-level fusion architecture for cooperative perception systems,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 2012, pp. 270–275

2012
[14]

Object-level fusion for surround environment percep- tion in automated driving applications,

M. Aeberhard, “Object-level fusion for surround environment percep- tion in automated driving applications,” Ph.D. dissertation, Technische universit¨at Dortmund, 2017

2017
[18]

3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimk ¨uhler, and G. Drettakis, “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.” ACM Trans. Graph. , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 139–1, 2023

2023
[19]

Gmmap: Memory-efficient contin- uous occupancy map using gaussian mixture model,

P. Z. X. Li, S. Karaman, and V . Sze, “Gmmap: Memory-efficient contin- uous occupancy map using gaussian mixture model,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 1339–1355, 2024

2024
[20]

Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International conference on machine learning . PmLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

2021
[21]

Where2comm: Communication-efficient collaborative perception via spatial confidence maps,

Y . Hu, S. Fang, Z. Lei, Y . Zhong, and S. Chen, “Where2comm: Communication-efficient collaborative perception via spatial confidence maps,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) , 2022

2022
[22]

Aicp: Augmented informative cooperative perception,

P. Zhou, P. Kortoc ¸i, Y .-P. Yau, B. Finley, X. Wang, T. Braud, L.- H. Lee, S. Tarkoma, J. Kangasharju, and P. Hui, “Aicp: Augmented informative cooperative perception,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 22 505–22 518, 2022

2022
[23]

Robust real-time multi-vehicle collaboration on asynchronous sensors,

Q. Zhang, X. Zhang, R. Zhu, F. Bai, M. Naserian, and Z. M. Mao, “Robust real-time multi-vehicle collaboration on asynchronous sensors,” in Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking , 2023, pp. 1–15

2023
[24]

Point cluster: A compact message unit for communication-efficient collaborative perception,

Z. Ding, J. Fu, S. Liu, H. Li, S. Chen, H. Li, S. Zhang, and X. Zhou, “Point cluster: A compact message unit for communication-efficient collaborative perception,” in The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2025

2025
[25]

Transiff: An instance-level feature fusion framework for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative 3d detection with trans- formers,

Z. Chen, Y . Shi, and J. Jia, “Transiff: An instance-level feature fusion framework for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative 3d detection with trans- formers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 18 205–18 214

2023
[26]

Transcendental idealism of planner: Evaluating perception from planning perspective for autonomous driving,

W. Li and X. Yang, “Transcendental idealism of planner: Evaluating perception from planning perspective for autonomous driving,” in Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 20 253– 20 275

2023
[27]

Autocast: scalable infrastructure-less cooperative perception for distributed collaborative driving,

H. Qiu, P.-H. Huang, N. Asavisanu, X. Liu, K. Psounis, and R. Govin- dan, “Autocast: scalable infrastructure-less cooperative perception for distributed collaborative driving,” in ACM MobiSys, 2022

2022
[28]

Towards communication-efficient cooperative perception via planning-oriented feature sharing,

Q. Xie, X. Zhou, T. Hong, W. Hu, W. Qu, and T. Qiu, “Towards communication-efficient cooperative perception via planning-oriented feature sharing,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , 2024

2024
[29]

Image-based compression of LiDAR sensor data,

P. Van Beek, “Image-based compression of LiDAR sensor data,” Elec- tronic Imaging, vol. 31, pp. 1–7, 2019

2019
[30]

Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks,

G. E. Hinton and R. R. Salakhutdinov, “Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks,” Science, vol. 313, no. 5786, pp. 504–507, 2006

2006
[31]

Auto-encoding variational bayes,

D. P. Kingma, M. Welling et al. , “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” 2013

2013
[32]

Masked au- toencoders are scalable vision learners,

K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y . Li, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Masked au- toencoders are scalable vision learners,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 16 000–16 009

2022
[33]

Communication- efficient collaborative perception via information filling with codebook,

Y . Hu, J. Peng, S. Liu, J. Ge, S. Liu, and S. Chen, “Communication- efficient collaborative perception via information filling with codebook,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 15 481–15 490

2024
[34]

Cooper: Cooperative perception for connected autonomous vehicles based on 3D point clouds,

Q. Chen, S. Tang, Q. Yang, and S. Fu, “Cooper: Cooperative perception for connected autonomous vehicles based on 3D point clouds,” in 2019 IEEE 39th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, 2019, pp. 514–524

2019
[35]

F-Cooper: Feature based cooperative perception for autonomous vehicle edge computing system using 3D point clouds,

Q. Chen, X. Ma, S. Tang, J. Guo, Q. Yang, and S. Fu, “F-Cooper: Feature based cooperative perception for autonomous vehicle edge computing system using 3D point clouds,” in Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC) , 2019, p. 88–100

2019
[36]

V2X-ViT: Vehicle-to-everything cooperative perception with vision transformer,

R. Xu, H. Xiang, Z. Tu, X. Xia, M.-H. Yang, and J. Ma, “V2X-ViT: Vehicle-to-everything cooperative perception with vision transformer,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 2022

2022
[37]

Bridging the domain gap for multi-agent perception,

R. Xu, J. Li, X. Dong, H. Yu, and J. Ma, “Bridging the domain gap for multi-agent perception,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 6035–6042

2023
[38]

Plug and play: A representation enhanced domain adapter for collaborative perception,

T. Luo, Q. Yuan, G. Luo, Y . Xia, Y . Yang, and J. Li, “Plug and play: A representation enhanced domain adapter for collaborative perception,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 287– 303

2024
[39]

Hm-vit: Hetero-modal vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative perception with vision transformer,

H. Xiang, R. Xu, and J. Ma, “Hm-vit: Hetero-modal vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative perception with vision transformer,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2023, pp. 284– 295

2023
[40]

Helipr: Heterogeneous lidar dataset for inter-lidar place recognition under spa- tiotemporal variations,

M. Jung, W. Yang, D. Lee, H. Gil, G. Kim, and A. Kim, “Helipr: Heterogeneous lidar dataset for inter-lidar place recognition under spa- tiotemporal variations,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 1867–1883, 2024

2024
[41]

An extensible framework for open heterogeneous collaborative perception,

Y . Lu, Y . Hu, Y . Zhong, D. Wang, S. Chen, and Y . Wang, “An extensible framework for open heterogeneous collaborative perception,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024

2024
[42]

Time-sensitive cooperative perception for real-time data sharing over vehicular communications: Overview, challenges, and future directions,

S. Aoki, T. Yonezawa, N. Kawaguchi, P. Steenkiste, and R. R. Rajkumar, “Time-sensitive cooperative perception for real-time data sharing over vehicular communications: Overview, challenges, and future directions,” IEEE Internet of Things Magazine , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 108–113, 2022

2022
[43]

Latency-aware collaborative perception,

Z. Lei, S. Ren, Y . Hu, W. Zhang, and S. Chen, “Latency-aware collaborative perception,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 316–332

2022
[44]

Vehicle- infrastructure cooperative 3d object detection via feature flow predic- tion,

H. Yu, Y . Tang, E. Xie, J. Mao, J. Yuan, P. Luo, and Z. Nie, “Vehicle- infrastructure cooperative 3d object detection via feature flow predic- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10552 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[45]

Traf-align: Trajectory-aware fea- ture alignment for asynchronous multi-agent perception,

Z. Song, L. Yang, F. Wen, and J. Li, “Traf-align: Trajectory-aware fea- ture alignment for asynchronous multi-agent perception,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2025

2025
[46]

Learning for vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative perception under lossy communication,

J. Li, R. Xu, X. Liu, J. Ma, Z. Chi, J. Ma, and H. Yu, “Learning for vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative perception under lossy communication,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2650–2660, 2023

2023
[47]

Interruption-aware cooperative perception for v2x communication- aided autonomous driving,

S. Ren, Z. Lei, Z. Wang, M. Dianati, Y . Wang, S. Chen, and W. Zhang, “Interruption-aware cooperative perception for v2x communication- aided autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , 2024

2024
[48]

Multivehicle cooperative driving using cooperative perception: Design and experimental validation,

S.-W. Kim, B. Qin, Z. J. Chong, X. Shen, W. Liu, M. H. Ang, E. Fraz- zoli, and D. Rus, “Multivehicle cooperative driving using cooperative perception: Design and experimental validation,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 663–680, 2015

2015
[49]

Fast point feature histograms (FPFH) for 3D registration,

R. B. Rusu, N. Blodow, and M. Beetz, “Fast point feature histograms (FPFH) for 3D registration,” in IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2009, pp. 3212–3217

2009
[50]

A method for registration of 3-D shapes,

P. Besl and N. D. McKay, “A method for registration of 3-D shapes,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 239–256, 1992

1992
[51]

Learning to communicate and correct pose errors,

N. Vadivelu, M. Ren, J. Tu, J. Wang, and R. Urtasun, “Learning to communicate and correct pose errors,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL). PMLR, 2021, pp. 1195–1210

2021
[52]

Robust collaborative 3d object detection in presence of pose errors,

Y . Lu, Q. Li, B. Liu, M. Dianati, C. Feng, S. Chen, and Y . Wang, “Robust collaborative 3d object detection in presence of pose errors,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 4812–4818

2023
[53]

Trajmatch: Towards automatic spatio-temporal calibration for roadside lidars through trajectory matching,

H. Ren, S. Zhang, S. Li, Y . Li, X. Li, J. Ji, Y . Zhang, and Y . Zhang, “Trajmatch: Towards automatic spatio-temporal calibration for roadside lidars through trajectory matching,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02157 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[54]

VIPS: real-time perception fusion for infrastructure-assisted autonomous driv- ing,

S. Shi, J. Cui, Z. Jiang, Z. Yan, G. Xing, J. Niu, and Z. Ouyang, “VIPS: real-time perception fusion for infrastructure-assisted autonomous driv- ing,” in Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing And Networking (MobiCom) , 2022, pp. 133–146

2022
[55]

A spatial calibration method for robust cooperative perception,

Z. Song, T. Xie, H. Zhang, J. Liu, F. Wen, and J. Li, “A spatial calibration method for robust cooperative perception,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

2024
[56]

Emp: Edge-assisted multi-vehicle perception,

X. Zhang, A. Zhang, J. Sun, X. Zhu, Y . E. Guo, F. Qian, and Z. M. Mao, “Emp: Edge-assisted multi-vehicle perception,” in Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, 2021, pp. 545–558

2021
[57]

Boosting collaborative vehicular perception on the edge with vehicle-to-vehicle communication,

R. Zhu, X. Zhu, A. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Sun, F. Qian, H. Qiu, Z. M. Mao, and M. Lee, “Boosting collaborative vehicular perception on the edge with vehicle-to-vehicle communication,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems , 2024, pp. 141–154

2024
[58]

Select2col: Leveraging spatial-temporal importance of semantic information for efficient collaborative perception,

Y . Liu, Q. Huang, R. Li, X. Chen, Z. Zhao, S. Zhao, Y . Zhu, and H. Zhang, “Select2col: Leveraging spatial-temporal importance of semantic information for efficient collaborative perception,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2024

2024
[59]

Selective communication for cooper- ative perception in end-to-end autonomous driving,

H.-k. Chiu and S. F. Smith, “Selective communication for cooper- ative perception in end-to-end autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17181, 2023

2023 arXiv
[60]

Who2com: Collaborative perception via learnable handshake commu- nication,

Y .-C. Liu, J. Tian, C.-Y . Ma, N. Glaser, C.-W. Kuo, and Z. Kira, “Who2com: Collaborative perception via learnable handshake commu- nication,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 6876–6883

2020
[61]

When2com: Multi-agent perception via communication graph grouping,

Y .-C. Liu, J. Tian, N. Glaser, and Z. Kira, “When2com: Multi-agent perception via communication graph grouping,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 4106–4115

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [15]

Collaborative semantic occupancy prediction with hybrid feature fusion in connected automated vehicles,

R. Song, C. Liang, H. Cao, Z. Yan, W. Zimmer, M. Gross, A. Festag, and A. Knoll, “Collaborative semantic occupancy prediction with hybrid feature fusion in connected automated vehicles,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 17 996–18 006

work page 2024

[2] [16]

Coopernaut: End-to- end driving with cooperative perception for networked vehicles,

J. Cui, H. Qiu, D. Chen, P. Stone, and Y . Zhu, “Coopernaut: End-to- end driving with cooperative perception for networked vehicles,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 17 252–17 262

2022

[3] [17]

End- to-end autonomous driving through v2x cooperation,

H. Yu, W. Yang, J. Zhong, Z. Yang, S. Fan, P. Luo, and Z. Nie, “End- to-end autonomous driving through v2x cooperation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 9, 2025, pp. 9598–9606

work page 2025

[4] [7]

Multivehicle cooperative driving using cooperative perception: Design and experimental validation,

S.-W. Kim, B. Qin, Z. J. Chong, X. Shen, W. Liu, M. H. Ang, E. Fraz- zoli, and D. Rus, “Multivehicle cooperative driving using cooperative perception: Design and experimental validation,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 663–680, 2014

work page 2014

[5] [8]

Cooper: Cooperative perception for connected autonomous vehicles based on 3d point clouds,

Q. Chen, S. Tang, Q. Yang, and S. Fu, “Cooper: Cooperative perception for connected autonomous vehicles based on 3d point clouds,” in 2019 IEEE 39th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 514–524

2019

[6] [10]

Multimedia fusion at semantic level in vehicle cooperactive perception,

Z. Xiao, Z. Mo, K. Jiang, and D. Yang, “Multimedia fusion at semantic level in vehicle cooperactive perception,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–6

work page 2018

[7] [11]

OPV2V: An open benchmark dataset and fusion pipeline for perception with Vehicle-to- Vehicle communication,

R. Xu, H. Xiang, X. Xia, X. Han, J. Li, and J. Ma, “OPV2V: An open benchmark dataset and fusion pipeline for perception with Vehicle-to- Vehicle communication,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2022

work page 2022

[8] [1]

V2VNet: Vehicle-to-vehicle communication for joint perception and prediction,

T.-H. Wang, S. Manivasagam, M. Liang, B. Yang, W. Zeng, and R. Ur- tasun, “V2VNet: Vehicle-to-vehicle communication for joint perception and prediction,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) . Springer-Verlag, 2020, p. 605–621

work page 2020