Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

MetaOcc: Spatio-Temporal Fusion of Surround-View 4D Radar and Camera for 3D Occupancy Prediction with Dual Training Strategies

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fusing surround-view 4D radar with cameras achieves state-of-the-art 3D occupancy prediction, and a 50%-labels variant keeps roughly 90% of full-supervision accuracy.

desk verdict Solid empirical first on surround-view 4D radar + camera occupancy, but the 'Radar Height Self-Attention' module is not attention—it is convolutional gating—and the semi-supervised claim leans on LiDAR-derived geometry. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15384 v3 pith:N4HXPO4G submitted 2025-01-26 cs.CV cs.AI

Long Yang , Lianqing Zheng , Wenjin Ai , Minghao Liu , Sen Li , Qunshu Lin , Shengyu Yan , Jie Bai
show 3 more authors
Zhixiong Ma Tao Huang Xichan Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords 3Doccupancyprediction4Dradarmulti-modalfusionsemi-supervisedlearningpseudo-labelgenerationautonomousdrivingspatio-temporalsurround-viewcameras
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that fusing surround-view 4D radar with multi-view cameras, rather than relying on cameras alone or on LiDAR-style encoders, produces state-of-the-art 3D semantic occupancy predictions on two benchmark datasets. It attributes the improvement to two design choices: radar features are processed with a height-aware self-attention mechanism instead of a LiDAR-oriented voxel encoder, and camera-radar fusion is adaptive at local, global, and temporal scales instead of a static concatenation. The paper further claims that the cost of annotation can be roughly halved: a model trained with 50% human labels and 50% generated pseudo-labels reaches about 90% of its fully supervised mIoU, while a pseudo-label-only model reaches about 65%. If these claims hold, autonomous vehicles can get dense, all-weather 3D scene understanding from low-cost sensors without needing LiDAR at inference time.

What carries the argument

Three mechanisms carry the argument. The Radar Height Self-Attention (RHS) module starts from pillar-based BEV radar features, expands them along the vertical axis, adds a learnable height positional encoding, and uses a 3D-convolution-plus-sigmoid gating to modulate vertical features before a residual connection and a radar encoder; this is the paper's answer to the problem that LiDAR-oriented voxel encoders fit radar point clouds poorly. The Hierarchical Multi-scale Multi-modal Fusion module combines Local Adaptive Fusion (LAF), which learns a per-voxel weight $W_{laf}$ to blend camera and radar voxel features, with Global Cross-Attention Fusion (GCF), which projects fused features to BEV and uses dual-stream deformable attention with learnable offsets to align the two modalities, and a Temporal Fusion module that aligns historical frames through pose-based trilinear sampling. The pseudo-label generation pipeline uses Grounded-SAM with text prompts to produce 2D semantic masks, projects LiDAR points into those masks to label static elements, takes dynamic objects from 3D bounding boxes, filters rain noise by normal estimation inside the drivable region, and fuses the results by voxelization and staged nearest-neighbor matching. Together these modules encode the claim that radar-camera fusion for occupancy needs explicit vertical reasoning, adaptive spatio-temporal alignment, and cheap supervision.

What would settle it

Train the identical architecture and semi-supervised recipe on a benchmark where pseudo-labels are generated from camera-only depth (no LiDAR geometry) while keeping the same 50% ground-truth labels, and compare mIoU; if the model does not stay near 90% of fully supervised accuracy, the claim that the pipeline reduces annotation cost depends on LiDAR-derived geometry rather than on the labeling strategy itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MetaOcc is presented as the first framework that fuses surround-view 4D radar and camera data for 3D occupancy prediction. On the OmniHD-Scenes test set it reports 32.75 SC IoU and 21.73 mIoU, surpassing the prior radar-camera fusion method TEOcc by +0.47 SC IoU and +4.02 mIoU and OccFusion by +2.09 SC IoU and +4.09 mIoU; on SurroundOcc-nuScenes its single-frame variant reports 34.06 SC IoU and 21.97 mIoU, beating OccFusion by +1.16 SC IoU and +1.24 mIoU. The central claim is that these gains come from treating radar as radar: a Radar Height Self-Attention module models vertical structure in sparse radar pillars, and a Hierarchical Multi-scale Multi-modal Fusion module adaptively weights camera and radar voxel features, aligns them with deformable cross-attention, and aggregates temporal context. On the supervision side, the paper claims that a pseudo-label pipeline built on text-prompted open-set segmentation plus 3D bounding boxes lets a model trained with 50% ground-truth labels reach roughly 90% of fully supervised mIoU, with pseudo-label-only training reaching about 65%.

Load-bearing premise

The annotation-saving result rests on pseudo-labels and ground-truth labels being reconstructed from the same LiDAR point clouds, with 3D bounding boxes and an open-set image segmenter supplying semantics; when LiDAR geometry, box annotations, or reliable open-set segmentation are unavailable, the 90%-of-supervised result is not guaranteed to transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Autonomous vehicles can obtain dense 3D occupancy understanding from camera plus 4D radar alone, with no LiDAR needed at inference time; the gains over camera-only methods are largest for small, occluded classes such as riders and cycles.
  • Adverse-weather operation improves: the fused model keeps most of its performance on rain and night subsets, where camera-only baselines degrade.
  • Annotation cost drops by roughly half: using 50% human-labeled and 50% pseudo-labeled frames reaches about 90% of full-supervision mIoU, making larger-scale training feasible.
  • The architecture transfers across radar hardware: the single-frame variant beats prior radar-camera fusion on conventional radar (nuScenes) as well as 4D radar (OmniHD-Scenes).
  • Every fusion component contributes: ablations attribute +1.63 SC IoU and +2.13 mIoU to the combination of height self-attention, local adaptive fusion, and global cross-attention fusion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's evidence ties pseudo-label quality to LiDAR-derived geometry and 3D bounding-box annotations; extending the pipeline to camera-only depth estimation is the natural next test, but the current results do not establish that it would pass.
  • Grouping dynamic objects by tracking IDs inside the pseudo-label pipeline suggests the same staged nearest-neighbor recipe could be reused for panoptic occupancy labeling, where instance identity and static semantics are needed simultaneously.
  • The height self-attention mechanism is not obviously specific to radar; testing it on other sparse depth sensors, such as low-cost solid-state LiDAR or ultrasonic arrays, would reveal whether the claimed vertical-reasoning benefit is a radar property or a general sparsity remedy.
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. This paper presents MetaOcc, a multi-modal 3D occupancy prediction framework that fuses surround-view 4D radar and camera imagery. The camera stream uses ResNet-FPN with deformable-attention view transformation; the radar stream uses PointPillars followed by the proposed Radar Height Self-Attention (RHS) module; fusion is performed by Local Adaptive Fusion, Global Cross-Attention Fusion, and Temporal Fusion. A second contribution is a pseudo-label pipeline combining Grounded-SAM image segmentation with LiDAR point cloud projection, enabling semi-supervised training with as little as 50% ground-truth labels. On the OmniHD-Scenes test set, MetaOcc reports 32.75 SC IoU and 21.73 mIoU; on SurroundOcc-nuScenes, the single-frame variant MetaOcc-S reports 34.06 SC IoU and 21.97 mIoU; a model trained with 50% ground-truth labels reaches about 90% of fully supervised mIoU. The paper includes per-module ablations, temporal-window and resolution studies, and qualitative visualizations.

Significance. If the reported results hold, MetaOcc is a meaningful advance in radar-centric occupancy prediction: it is among the first to fuse surround-view 4D radar with cameras for this task, and the nuScenes results confirm that the approach transfers to conventional radar on an independently established benchmark. The paper ships reproducible assets (code and data links), extensive component ablations (Tables 8-12), and an unusually honest computational analysis (Table 11) documenting the memory and FPS cost of temporal fusion. The pseudo-label pipeline is also a practical contribution, and the evidence that it improves three different backbones (SurroundOcc, TEOcc, MetaOcc) in Table 6 is a genuine generalization test. The main weaknesses are the mischaracterization of the RHS module as self-attention, the lack of error bars on single-run results, the undefined adverse-weather subsets, and the overstated scope of the annotation-reduction claim; these are correctable without changing the core empirical scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (2); Abstract; Table 8] The abstract, Section 1, and Section 3.3 claim that the Radar Height Self-Attention (RHS) module 'applies self-attention along the height dimension,' but the formal definition in Eq. (2), F_att = Conv(F_init ⊙ σ(Φ_r(F_init + P_e_h))), implements no attention operation. There is no query/key/value decomposition, no softmax normalization, and no data-dependent aggregation across height positions; the only cross-height interaction is the local receptive field of a 3D convolution, and the sigmoid branch acts as an element-wise gate. The module is best described as height-aware convolutional gating or feature modulation. Because RHS is the flagship architectural contribution and Table 8 attributes +0.81 SC IoU and +1.35 mIoU to it, the name, the contribution bullet, and the mechanism explanation must be corrected to match Eq. (2), or a genuine attention formulation with Q/K/V and height-wise normalization must be specified and implemented. As written, the described architecture and the tested architecture differ.
  2. [§4.2, Tables 1, 3, 11] All main results are single-run reports without error bars or multiple seeds. Several of the decisive margins are small in absolute terms: +0.47 SC IoU over TEOcc on OmniHD (Table 1), +1.16 SC IoU over OccFusion on nuScenes (Table 3), and +0.08 SC IoU for extending the temporal window from T=3 to T=4 (Table 11). Without variance estimates it is impossible to judge whether these margins are significant, and the temporal-fusion result suggests the default configuration may not be stably better than its immediate neighbor. The authors should provide mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds for the main tables and key ablations, or explicitly justify the single-seed protocol.
  3. [§4.1-§4.2, Tables 2, 4, 5, 7] The 'adverse scenario subset' of OmniHD-Scenes (Tables 2 and 7) and the 'rainy' and 'night' subsets of SurroundOcc-nuScenes (Tables 4 and 5) are never defined. No selection criteria, scene tokens, frame counts, or weather/time-of-day metadata are given, so the robustness claims central to the paper cannot be reproduced or compared against future work. The many 0.00 per-class IoU entries in Table 5 also hint that at least the night subset is very small or class-imbalanced. Please specify exactly how each subset is constructed and report the number of frames and class statistics for each.
  4. [§3.6, Algorithm 1; §4.2, Table 6; Abstract] The abstract and introduction claim that the semi-supervised strategy reduces 'reliance on expensive point cloud annotations,' but Algorithm 1 requires LiDAR point clouds, sensor poses, and annotated 3D bounding boxes in addition to multi-view images; the savings are limited to semantic labeling of static LiDAR points. The paper itself states that 'both GT and pseudo-labels are generated using the same LiDAR point clouds for geometric reconstruction,' which means the stable SC IoU across GT ratios in Table 6 is aligned by construction and the '90% of fully supervised performance' figure is a statement about semantic mIoU only. The claims should be scoped to semantic annotation of static points, and the paper should quantify the actual annotation burden avoided (e.g., fraction of static points affected) rather than imply a general reduction in point-cloud annotation cost.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.5] The heading 'Occupany Head' is a typo; it should read 'Occupancy Head'.
  2. [Figures 7-10] The class legends in Figures 7-10 are rendered in Chinese characters (e.g., 小型车, 行人, 护栏) without an English translation in the captions or figures; they should be translated or accompanied by a bilingual legend.
  3. [Abstract; §4.2] The abstract reports the SurroundOcc-nuScenes gains without noting that they are achieved by the single-frame variant MetaOcc-S rather than the full temporal-fusion model; this should be stated explicitly.
  4. [§4.1, Tables 1-2] The paper does not state whether the OmniHD-Scenes baselines were retrained by the authors with matched settings or taken as published numbers; a clear protocol statement is needed because Tables 1, 2, 6, and 7 are the basis of the SOTA claim.
  5. [§3.6] The Grounded-SAM prompt set is only partially specified; for reproducibility, provide the complete prompt list per semantic class and clarify what 'fine-tuned text prompts' means in this pipeline. The text at the start of Section 3.6 appears corrupted (e.g., 'task-specific prompt set ∉'), and the notation should be cleaned up.
  6. [§3.6] The feature-based rain-noise filtering (normal-vector estimation within the drivable region R_d) is shown only qualitatively in Figure 6; a quantitative ablation of label quality before and after filtering would strengthen the adverse-weather claims in Tables 2 and 7.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No full circularity; one partial self-reference in the semi-supervised evaluation, where pseudo-labels and GT share LiDAR geometry by construction, while the core fusion claim is independently validated on SurroundOcc-nuScenes.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, discussion of Tables 6-7 ('Semi-Supervised Results on OmniHD-Scenes')]
    "Both GT and pseudo-labels are generated using the same LiDAR point clouds for geometric reconstruction, ensuring consistent spatial alignment across annotations. As a result, models exhibit stable geometric performance in terms of SC IoU across all settings."

    The pseudo-labels used for training and the ground-truth labels used for evaluation are generated from the same LiDAR point-cloud reconstruction, so the geometric (SC IoU) agreement in the semi-supervised tables is partly a consequence of shared label-generation inputs rather than an independent measure of the pseudo-labeling strategy. The paper itself attributes the stable SC IoU 'as a result' of this shared generation. The semantic mIoU progression (14.46 at 0% GT to 21.73 fully supervised) is still empirical and not forced, and the fully supervised radar-camera fusion claim is separately validated on the external SurroundOcc-nuScenes benchmark, so this is a partial self-reference rather than a collapse of the central derivation.

full rationale

The central contribution of MetaOcc is empirical: a multi-modal occupancy architecture evaluated on OmniHD-Scenes and SurroundOcc-nuScenes. The fully supervised SOTA comparisons (Tables 1-5) are benchmark measurements against external methods, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no mathematical derivation reduces to its own inputs. The only self-generated benchmark, OmniHD-Scenes [7], is not load-bearing because MetaOcc-S is independently re-evaluated on the external SurroundOcc-nuScenes dataset. The semi-supervised claim carries an explicitly disclosed limitation: pseudo-labels and GT are built from the same LiDAR point clouds, which makes geometric agreement partly by construction; this is flagged above as a minor self-definitional step. The RHS module, while named 'self-attention,' is defined in Eq. (2) as convolutional gating (element-wise sigmoid modulation); this is a terminology/mechanism concern and not a circularity. Overall, the paper does not exhibit a circular derivation chain; the score reflects the partial self-reference in the pseudo-label evaluation and the minor self-citation of the OmniHD-Scenes dataset.

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

No new physical entities or forces are introduced. The new modules (RHS, LAF, GCF, Temporal Fusion) are algorithmic components. The central claims rest on standard deep learning assumptions plus several hand-chosen hyperparameters and a pseudo-label pipeline that assumes pretrained open-set segmentation and 3D bounding box annotations are available.

free parameters (5)
  • Loss weights lambda1, lambda2, lambda3, lambda4 = 1, 5, 1, 1
    Set by hand in Eq. 10; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Temporal fusion window T = 3 (default, up to 4 in ablation)
    Chosen from ablation in Table 11; longer windows improve accuracy but use more memory.
  • Voxel size and prediction range = 0.5 m, ranges (-60,60)x(-40,40)x(-3,5) m on OmniHD
    Dataset-specific design choices that fix the output grid resolution.
  • Input image resolution = 544x960 (default; 864x1536 improves results)
    Ablation in Table 12 shows higher resolution helps; the default is a compute-accuracy trade-off.
  • Text prompt set for Grounded-SAM = Highway, Car, Building, Sidewalk, Vegetation, etc.
    Hand-designed prompts; the paper says 'fine-tuned' but gives no full list or tuning procedure.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PointPillars can serve as a radar point encoder for sparse 4D radar data.
    Invoked in Section 3.3; the paper's RHS module is built on top of PointPillars features.
  • domain assumption Deformable cross-attention with learnable offsets can correct spatio-temporal sensor misalignment.
    Central to the GCF module (Section 3.4, Eq. 7); no explicit validation of misalignment magnitude.
  • domain assumption Grounded-SAM zero-shot masks are accurate enough to label static LiDAR points via projection.
    Used throughout the pseudo-label pipeline (Section 3.6); label noise is not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper Normal-vector filtering within a coarse drivable region removes rain noise without removing valid points.
    Proposed in Section 3.6 with 'feature-based filtering'; thresholds and feature definitions are unspecified.
  • domain assumption Ego poses are accurate for temporal alignment of multi-modal features.
    Assumed in Temporal Fusion (Eq. 8); pose noise effects are not analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MetaOcc: Spatio-Temporal Fusion of Surround-View 4D Radar and Camera for 3D Occupancy Prediction with Dual Training Strategies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N4HXPO4G

@misc{pith2026250115384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MetaOcc: Spatio-Temporal Fusion of Surround-View 4D Radar and Camera for 3D Occupancy Prediction with Dual Training Strategies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N4HXPO4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15384}
}
read the original abstract

Robust 3D occupancy prediction is essential for autonomous driving, particularly under adverse weather conditions where traditional vision-only systems struggle. While the fusion of surround-view 4D radar and cameras offers a promising low-cost solution, effectively extracting and integrating features from these heterogeneous sensors remains challenging. This paper introduces MetaOcc, a novel multi-modal framework for omnidirectional 3D occupancy prediction that leverages both multi-view 4D radar and images. To address the limitations of directly applying LiDAR-oriented encoders to sparse radar data, we propose a Radar Height Self-Attention module that enhances vertical spatial reasoning and feature extraction. Additionally, a Hierarchical Multi-scale Multi-modal Fusion strategy is developed to perform adaptive local-global fusion across modalities and time, mitigating spatio-temporal misalignments and enriching fused feature representations. To reduce reliance on expensive point cloud annotations, we further propose a pseudo-label generation pipeline based on an open-set segmentor. This enables a semi-supervised strategy that achieves 90% of the fully supervised performance using only 50% of the ground truth labels, offering an effective trade-off between annotation cost and accuracy. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MetaOcc under full supervision achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming previous methods by +0.47 SC IoU and +4.02 mIoU on the OmniHD-Scenes dataset, and by +1.16 SC IoU and +1.24 mIoU on the SurroundOcc-nuScenes dataset. These results demonstrate the scalability and robustness of MetaOcc across sensor domains and training conditions, paving the way for practical deployment in real-world autonomous systems. Code and data are available at https://github.com/LucasYang567/MetaOcc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15384 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed occupancy prediction framework leveraging surround-view 4D radar and camera fusion for robust 3D scene understanding. (a) Fully supervised training using ground-truth labels. (b) Weakly supervised training with only pseudo-labels. (a + b) Semi-supervised training that integrates both ground-truth and pseudo-labels. 21]. Although these methods mitigate reliance on labeled data, they are often… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of the proposed MetaOcc framework. (a) Multi-view images are encoded into 3D features via an image feature extractor. (b) Multi-view 4D radar point clouds are voxelized using PointPillars and further enhanced by the Radar Height Self-Attention module. (c) Local Adaptive Fusion and Global Cross-Attention Fusion modules jointly perform efficient fusion of spatial features across modalities. (d) The Tempor… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Architecture of the proposed Radar Height Self￾Attention module, designed to enhance spatial feature extrac￾tion from sparse 4D radar point clouds by explicitly modeling vertical structure and height-aware interactions. where 𝑊 , 𝐻, and 𝑍 correspond to the dimensions of the occupancy ground truth. 3.3. 4D Radar Stream Most existing camera-radar fusion methods employ voxel encoders [50, 18] originally designed for Li… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Architecture of the Temporal Fusion module. The module efficiently aligns and integrates 3D multi-modal features across consecutive time frames, enhancing temporal consistency for robust occupancy prediction. Local Adaptive Fusion (LAF). Multi-modal features provide co…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pseudo-label generation pipeline. (a) Zero-shot multi-view semantic segmentation is performed using Grounded-SAM guided by fine-tuned text prompts. (b) LiDAR point clouds are separated into dynamic objects and static elements using 3D bounding boxes, followed by rain n…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative results across diverse scenes on the OmniHD-Scenes dataset. (a) presents the multi-view camera images and 4D radar inputs. (b)–(e) show the 3D occupancy predictions from SurroundOcc, TEOcc, and MetaOcc, alongside the ground truth. MetaOcc demonstrates consi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative results across diverse scenes on the SurroundOcc-nuScenes dataset. (a) shows multi-view camera images and radar inputs. (b)–(d) present occupancy predictions from OccFusion, MetaOcc, and the ground truth, respectively. MetaOcc consistently demonstrates enha…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SC IoU and mIoU comparison of different models trained with varying proportions of ground-truth (GT) labels on the OmniHD-Scenes test set. 0% 50% 100% 28 29 32 33 SC IoU GT Ratio SurroundOcc TeOcc MetaOcc 0% 50% 100% 12 15 18 21 mIoU GT Ratio SurroundOcc TeOcc MetaOcc …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SC IoU and mIoU comparison of different models trained with varying proportions of ground-truth (GT) labels on the OmniHD-Scenes adverse scenario subset. PointPillars combined with RHS, which explicitly models vertical feature distributions. As reported in [PITH_FULL…

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

  1. O3N: Omnidirectional Open-Vocabulary Occupancy Prediction for Urban Autonomous Agents

    cs.CV 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    O3N is the first open-vocabulary occupancy prediction method that takes a single omnidirectional RGB image and labels 3D voxels with both seen and unseen semantic classes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    21486–21495

    J.Ma,X.Chen,J.Huang,J.Xu,Z.Luo,J.Xu,W.Gu,R.Ai,H.Wang, Cam4docc: Benchmark for camera-only 4d occupancy forecasting in autonomous driving applications, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 21486–21495

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    P. Shi, X. Dong, R. Ge, Z. Liu, A. Yang, Dp-m3d: Monocular 3d ob- jectdetectionalgorithmwithdepthperceptioncapability,Knowledge- Based Systems 318 (2025) 113539

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    F. Ding, X. Wen, Y. Zhu, Y. Li, C. X. Lu, RadarOcc: Robust 3d occupancy prediction with 4d imaging radar, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    H.Xu,J.Chen,S.Meng,Y.Wang,L.-P.Chau,Asurveyonoccupancy perception for autonomous driving: The information fusion perspec- tive, Information Fusion 114 (2025) 102671

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Xiong, J

    W. Xiong, J. Liu, T. Huang, Q.-L. Han, Y. Xia, B. Zhu, LXL: Lidar excluded lean 3d object detection with 4d imaging radar and camera fusion, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 9 (2024) 79–92

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    G. Yuan, J. Song, J. Li, If-usod: Multimodal information fusion interactive feature enhancement architecture for underwater salient object detection, Information Fusion 117 (2025) 102806. Preprint Page 15 of 17

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    L.Zheng,L.Yang,Q.Lin,W.Ai,M.Liu,S.Lu,J.Liu,H.Ren,J.Mo, X.Bai,etal.,OmniHD-Scenes:Anext-generationmultimodaldataset for autonomous driving, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10734 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    J. Liu, Q. Zhao, W. Xiong, T. Huang, Q.-L. Han, B. Zhu, SMURF: Spatial multi-representation fusion for 3d object detection with 4d imaging radar, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 9 (2024) 799–812

    work page 2024

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    R. Guan, L. Jia, F. Yang, S. Yao, E. Purwanto, X. Zhu, E. G. Lim, J. Smith, K. L. Man, X. Hu, et al., WaterVG: Waterway visual grounding based on text-guided vision and mmwave radar, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems (2025) 1–17

    2025

  2. [10]

    Zheng, S

    L. Zheng, S. Li, B. Tan, L. Yang, S. Chen, L. Huang, J. Bai, X. Zhu, Z. Ma, RCFusion: Fusing 4-d radar and camera with bird’s-eye view features for 3-d object detection, IEEE Transactions on Instrumenta- tion and Measurement 72 (2023) 1–14

    2023

  3. [11]

    J. Pan, Z. Wang, L. Wang, Co-occ: Coupling explicit feature fusion with volume rendering regularization for multi-modal 3d semantic occupancyprediction,IEEERoboticsandAutomationLetters(2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    X. Wang, Z. Zhu, W. Xu, Y. Zhang, Y. Wei, X. Chi, Y. Ye, D. Du, J. Lu, X. Wang, OpenOccupancy: A large scale benchmark for surrounding semantic occupancy perception, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023, pp. 17850–17859

    2023

  5. [13]

    Zhang, Z

    Y. Zhang, Z. Zhu, D. Du, Occformer: Dual-path transformer for vision-based 3d semantic occupancy prediction, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 9433–9443

    2023

  6. [14]

    R.Xu,J.Zhang,J.Sun,C.Wang,Y.Wu,S.Xu,W.Meng,X.Zhang, Mrftrans: Multimodal representation fusion transformer for monoc- ular 3d semantic scene completion, Information Fusion 111 (2024) 102493

    2024

  7. [15]

    R. Guan, R. Zhang, N. Ouyang, J. Liu, K. L. Man, X. Cai, M. Xu, J. Smith, E. G. Lim, Y. Yue, et al., Talk2Radar: Bridging natural language with 4d mmwave radar for 3d referring expression compre- hension, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12821 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    C.R.Qi,H.Su,K.Mo,L.J.Guibas, Pointnet:Deeplearningonpoint sets for 3d classification and segmentation, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 652–660

    2017

  9. [17]

    A. H. Lang, S. Vora, H. Caesar, L. Zhou, J. Yang, O. Beijbom, PointPillars:Fastencodersforobjectdetectionfrompointclouds, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019, pp. 12697–12705

    2019

  10. [18]

    Y. Zhou, O. Tuzel, Voxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- enceonComputerVisionandPatternRecognition(CVPR),2018,pp. 4490–4499

    2018

  11. [19]

    Y. Wei, L. Zhao, W. Zheng, Z. Zhu, J. Zhou, J. Lu, SurroundOcc: Multi-camera 3d occupancy prediction for autonomous driving, in: ProceedingsoftheIEEE/CVFInternationalConferenceonComputer Vision (ICCV), 2023, pp. 21729–21740

    2023

  12. [20]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Yan, Y. Wei, J. Li, L. Liu, Y. Tang, Y. Duan, J. Lu, Occnerf: Self-supervised multi-camera occupancy prediction with neural radiance fields, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09243 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Y. Liu, L. Mou, X. Yu, C. Han, S. Mao, R. Xiong, Y. Wang, Let occ flow: Self-supervised 3d occupancy flow prediction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07587 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Y. Li, Z. Yu, C. Choy, C. Xiao, J. M. Alvarez, S. Fidler, C. Feng, A. Anandkumar, Voxformer: Sparse voxel transformer for camera- based 3d semantic scene completion, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 9087–9098

    2023

  15. [23]

    6919–6928

    Z.Li,Z.Yu,W.Wang,A.Anandkumar,T.Lu,J.M.Alvarez, Fb-bev: Bevrepresentationfromforward-backwardviewtransformations, in: ProceedingsoftheIEEE/CVFInternationalConferenceonComputer Vision, 2023, pp. 6919–6928

    2023

  16. [24]

    16425–16431

    J.Hou,X.Li,W.Guan,G.Zhang,D.Feng,Y.Du,X.Xue,J.Pu, Fas- tOcc: Accelerating 3d occupancy prediction by fusing the 2d bird’s- eyeviewandperspectiveview, in:IEEEInternationalConferenceon Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 16425–16431

    2024

  17. [25]

    Huang, W

    Y. Huang, W. Zheng, Y. Zhang, J. Zhou, J. Lu, Tri-perspective view for vision-based 3d semantic occupancy prediction, in: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023, pp. 9223–9232

    2023

  18. [26]

    Huang, G

    J. Huang, G. Huang, Z. Zhu, Y. Ye, D. Du, BEVDet: High- performance multi-camera 3d object detection in bird-eye-view, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11790 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Huang, G

    J. Huang, G. Huang, BEVDet4d: Exploit temporal cues in multi- camera3dobjectdetection, arXivpreprintarXiv:2203.17054(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Z. Yu, C. Shu, J. Deng, K. Lu, Z. Liu, J. Yu, D. Yang, H. Li, Y. Chen, FlashOcc: Fast and memory-efficient occupancy predic- tion via channel-to-height plugin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12058 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Silva, S

    S. Silva, S. Bhashitha Wannigama, R. Ragel, G. Jayatilaka, S2tpvformer: Spatio-temporal tri-perspective view for temporally coherent 3d semantic occupancy prediction, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv: 2401.13785

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    P. Tang, Z. Wang, G. Wang, J. Zheng, X. Ren, B. Feng, C. Ma, Sparseocc: Rethinking sparse latent representation for vision-based semantic occupancy prediction, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 15035–15044

    2024

  23. [31]

    X. Tian, T. Jiang, L. Yun, Y. Mao, H. Yang, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, H. Zhao, Occ3d: A large-scale 3d occupancy prediction benchmark for autonomous driving, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Zhang, X

    H. Zhang, X. Yan, D. Bai, J. Gao, P. Wang, B. Liu, S. Cui, Z. Li, Radocc:Learningcross-modalityoccupancyknowledgethroughren- dering assisted distillation, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 38, 2024, pp. 7060–7068

    2024

  25. [33]

    G. Wang, Z. Wang, P. Tang, J. Zheng, X. Ren, B. Feng, C. Ma, Occgen: Generative multi-modal 3d occupancy prediction for au- tonomous driving, in: European Conference on Computer Vision, Springer, 2025, pp. 95–112

    2025

  26. [34]

    Y.Huang,W.Zheng,Y.Zhang,J.Zhou,J.Lu, Gaussianformer:Scene as gaussians for vision-based 3d semantic occupancy prediction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17429 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Y.Huang,A.Thammatadatrakoon,W.Zheng,Y.Zhang,D.Du,J.Lu, Gaussianformer-2: Probabilistic gaussian superposition for efficient 3d occupancy prediction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04384 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Z. Ming, J. S. Berrio, M. Shan, S. Worrall, Occfusion: Multi- sensorfusionframeworkfor3dsemanticoccupancyprediction, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    R. Guan, J. Liu, L. Jia, H. Zhao, S. Yao, X. Zhu, K. L. Man, E. G. Lim,J.Smith,Y.Yue, NanoMVG:Usv-centriclow-powermulti-task visual grounding based on prompt-guided camera and 4d mmwave radar, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.17207 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Y. Ma, J. Mei, X. Yang, L. Wen, W. Xu, J. Zhang, X. Zuo, B. Shi, Y. Liu, Licrocc: Teach radar for accurate semantic occupancy prediction using lidar and camera, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RAL) 10 (2024) 852–859

    2024

  31. [39]

    Z. Lin, H. Jin, Y. Wang, Y. Wei, N. Dong, TEOcc: Radar-camera multi-modal occupancy prediction via temporal enhancement, in: 27th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), 2024, pp. 129–136

    2024

  32. [40]

    Zhang, L

    X. Zhang, L. Wang, J. Chen, C. Fang, G. Yang, Y. Wang, L. Yang, Z. Song, L. Liu, X. Zhang, Dual radar: A multi-modal dataset with dual 4d radar for autononous driving, Scientific Data 12 (2025) 439

    2025

  33. [41]

    X. Pan, J. Du, S. Su, W. Zong, X. Wang, C. Liu, Q. Chen, Generocc: Self-supervised framework of real-time 3d occupancy prediction for monocular generic cameras, in: 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE, 2024, pp. 8868–8874. Pr...

    2024

  34. [42]

    X. Tan, W. Wu, Z. Zhang, C. Fan, Y. Peng, Z. Zhang, Y. Xie, L. Ma, Geocc:Geometricallyenhanced3doccupancynetworkwithimplicit- explicit depth fusion and contextual self-supervision, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10591 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Huang, W

    Y. Huang, W. Zheng, B. Zhang, J. Zhou, J. Lu, Selfocc: Self- supervised vision-based 3d occupancy prediction, in: Proceedings of theIEEE/CVFConferenceonComputerVisionandPatternRecogni- tion (CVPR), 2024, pp. 19946–19956

    2024

  36. [44]

    Zhang, H

    F. Zhang, H. Yang, Z. Zhang, Z. Huang, Y. Luo, Tt-gaussocc: Test- time compute for self-supervised occupancy prediction via spatio- temporalgaussiansplatting,arXivpreprintarXiv:2503.08485(2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    T. Ren, S. Liu, A. Zeng, J. Lin, K. Li, H. Cao, J. Chen, X. Huang, Y. Chen, F. Yan, et al., Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14159 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun, Deep residual learning for image recognition, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  39. [47]

    T.-Y. Lin, P. Dollár, R. Girshick, K. He, B. Hariharan, S. Belongie, Feature pyramid networks for object detection, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 2117–2125

    2017

  40. [48]

    J.Philion,S.Fidler, Lift,splat,shoot:Encodingimagesfromarbitrary camerarigsbyimplicitlyunprojectingto3d, in:EuropeanConference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2020, pp. 194–210

    2020

  41. [49]

    Z. Li, W. Wang, H. Li, E. Xie, C. Sima, T. Lu, Y. Qiao, J. Dai, BEV- Former: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotemporal transformers, in: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022, pp. 1–18

    2022

  42. [50]

    Y. Yan, Y. Mao, B. Li, Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection, Sensors 18 (2018) 3337

    2018

  43. [51]

    W.Mao,T.Wang,D.Zhang,J.Yan,O.Yoshie, Pillarnest:Embracing backbonescalingandpretrainingforpillar-based3dobjectdetection, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez,Ł.Kaiser,I.Polosukhin,Attentionisallyouneed,volume30, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    17158–17168

    Y.Wang,Y.Chen,X.Liao,L.Fan,Z.Zhang, PanoOcc:Unifiedoccu- pancyrepresentationforcamera-based3dpanopticsegmentation, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 17158–17168

    2024

  46. [54]

    A.-Q. Cao, R. De Charette, MonoScene: Monocular 3d semantic scene completion, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 3991– 4001

    2022

  47. [55]

    Liang, H

    T. Liang, H. Xie, K. Yu, Z. Xia, Z. Lin, Y. Wang, T. Tang, B. Wang, Z. Tang, BEVFusion: A simple and robust lidar-camera fusion framework, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 35 (2022) 10421–10434

    2022

  48. [56]

    Caesar, V

    H. Caesar, V. Bankiti, A. H. Lang, S. Vora, V. E. Liong, Q. Xu, A.Krishnan,Y.Pan,G.Baldan,O.Beijbom, nuscenes:Amultimodal dataset for autonomous driving, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020, pp. 11621–11631

    2020

  49. [57]

    Contributors, Mmdetection3d: Openmmlab next-generation plat- form for general 3d object detection, 2020

    M. Contributors, Mmdetection3d: Openmmlab next-generation plat- form for general 3d object detection, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    T. Wang, X. Zhu, J. Pang, D. Lin, FCOS3d: Fully convolutional one-stage monocular 3d object detection, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021, pp. 913–922

    2021

  51. [59]

    Murez, T

    Z. Murez, T. Van As, J. Bartolozzi, A. Sinha, V. Badrinarayanan, A. Rabinovich, Atlas: End-to-end 3d scene reconstruction from posed images, in: Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part VII 16, Springer, 2020, pp. 414–431

    2020

  52. [60]

    Z.Ming,J.S.Berrio,M.Shan,S.Worrall, Inversematrixvt3d:Anef- ficientprojectionmatrix-basedapproachfor3doccupancyprediction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12422 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

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

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    M. Pan, J. Liu, R. Zhang, P. Huang, X. Li, H. Xie, B. Wang, L. Liu, S. Zhang, Renderocc: Vision-centric 3d occupancy prediction with 2drenderingsupervision, in:2024IEEEInternationalConferenceon Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE, 2024, pp. 12404–12411

    2024

  55. [63]

    Preprint Page 17 of 17

    Z.Ming,J.S.Berrio,M.Shan,S.Worrall, Inverse++:Vision-centric 3d semantic occupancy prediction assisted with 3d object detection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04732 (2025). Preprint Page 17 of 17

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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