Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Mask-RadarNet: Enhancing Transformer With Spatial-Temporal Semantic Context for Radar Object Detection in Autonomous Driving

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mask-RadarNet claims a hybrid transformer with class-masked attention and zero-cost temporal patch shifts detects radar objects on the CRUW benchmark at 84.29% AP, surpassing the previous transformer baseline at lower computational cost.

desk verdict Interesting radar detection architecture, but the CMAM complexity claim is contradicted by its own equations; needs a corrected description and a more rigorous evaluation before the results can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15595 v1 pith:NL5PW2RP submitted 2024-12-20 cs.CV cs.AI

Yuzhi Wu , Jun Liu , Guangfeng Jiang , Weijian Liu , Danilo Orlando This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords radarobjectdetectionautonomousdrivingFMCWRFimagetransformerspatial-temporalcontextpatchshiftclassmaskingattention
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 tries to establish that radar object detection in autonomous driving can be improved by explicitly modeling spatial-temporal semantic context in radio-frequency image sequences, rather than relying on convolutional networks or plain attention alone. It proposes Mask-RadarNet, a transformer whose encoder interleaves convolution and self-attention and uses patch shift and channel shift to mix information across frames at zero computation cost. A class masking attention module projects features into a per-class semantic space and uses the resulting similarity to update value features, producing prior maps that an auxiliary decoder supervises during training. On the CRUW benchmark, the model reports 84.29% average precision and 87.36% average recall, about one percentage point higher in AP than the previous transformer-based method, while using fewer parameters and fewer GFLOPs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the class masking attention module (CMAM), a self-attention variant in which the query and key are produced by a class embedding layer that collapses the channel dimension to the number of object classes, so the similarity matrix encodes class-dependent semantic context rather than raw visual similarity. This matrix reweights the value features, and the resulting feature maps are used both as encoder output and as prior maps that an auxiliary decoder aggregates and supervises with ground-truth confidence maps. The complementary temporal mechanism is patch shift: before shifted-window attention, patches of each frame are swapped with patches of neighbouring frames following a fixed mosaic pattern (Pattern C, temporal field of 9), so inter-frame information is mixed without any additional FLOPs. Together these mechanisms let the encoder capture local, global, and temporal semantic context.

What would settle it

Re-run Mask-RadarNet and the T-RODNet baseline multiple times with different random seeds and with several different train/test splits of the CRUW sequences; if the average AP of Mask-RadarNet does not consistently exceed the baseline's, the reported superiority is not established. A second check is to remove the CMAM and auxiliary decoder and verify that AP drops from 84.29% to 81.69%, as the paper's ablation reports.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Mask-RadarNet claims that the missing ingredient in prior radar RF-image detectors is spatial-temporal semantic context at the encoding stage. Its encoder stacks PatchShift 3D SwinTransformer blocks, which alternate channel shift and patch shift to exchange patches across the temporal dimension in a zero-computation way, and a class masking attention module (CMAM), which uses a class embedding layer to turn features into class-specific queries and keys, computes a similarity matrix, and reweights the value features before a feed-forward network. The prior maps produced by CMAM at each stage are aggregated by a lightweight auxiliary decoder and supervised with the same binary cross-entropy target as the main detection output, with the auxiliary loss weighted by $\alpha = 0.4$ during training. With 16-frame RF input, the model reports 84.29% AP and 87.36% AR on CRUW, outperforming the T-RODNet baseline's 83.27% AP and 86.98% AR while reducing GFLOPs from 182.53 to 176.91 and parameters from 44.31M to 32.12M.

Load-bearing premise

The central comparison rests on a single run of each model on one fixed split of the CRUW dataset (36 training sequences, 4 test sequences), so if that split or the single run is not representative, the roughly one-percent average-precision advantage over the prior transformer baseline could disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the CRUW benchmark, Mask-RadarNet reports 84.29% AP and 87.36% AR overall, with the largest per-class gain on cyclists (85.06% AP versus 82.28% for T-RODNet).
  • Because temporal mixing is done by zero-cost patch and channel shifts, the spatial-temporal model costs 176.91 GFLOPs and 32.12M parameters, both below the T-RODNet baseline, so the accuracy gain does not trade against efficiency.
  • Since the auxiliary decoder and its loss are used only during training, the semantic prior maps improve the learned features without adding any inference-time computation.
  • Replacing the CMAM with a standard transformer module in the ablation drops overall AP from 84.29% to 81.72%, which supports the paper's claim that the class-masking attention, not attention in general, is what supplies the semantic context.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same class-masking attention design could transfer to other low-resolution sensing modalities whose raw data are hard for humans to interpret, such as sonar or mmWave security imaging, where class-conditional attention may substitute for missing visual cues.
  • The ablation trend across shift patterns suggests the temporal receptive field is a useful dial; extending Pattern C to a wider temporal field or learning the shift pattern could push accuracy further, but the paper does not test this.
  • The reported margin over the baseline is about one AP point on a single fixed split with one run per model, so the practical superiority claim should be read with that measurement uncertainty in mind.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Mask-RadarNet, a 3D transformer-based detector for radar RF image sequences. The architecture combines interleaved 3D convolutions and windowed self-attention with patch shift and channel shift for spatial-temporal modeling, adds a class masking attention module (CMAM) to inject semantic context, and uses a lightweight auxiliary decoder to supervise prior maps. On the CRUW dataset (36/4 train/test split, 16-frame input), the method is reported to achieve 84.29% AP and 87.36% AR with 176.91 GFLOPs and 32.12M parameters, outperforming T-RODNet and SS-RODNet while using fewer resources. The paper also presents ablations for shift patterns, the CMAM module, and the auxiliary loss weight.

Significance. The problem is timely and the paper is clearly written: the extension of patch shift to radar RF sequences, the hybrid convolution-attention encoder, and the auxiliary decoder are all described in enough detail to be reimplemented, and the ablations directly test each component. If the reported efficiency and accuracy numbers were reliable, Mask-RadarNet would be a useful efficient alternative to T-RODNet for radar object detection. However, the central efficiency claim is currently unverifiable because the CMAM as specified in Eqs. (13)–(15) would require at least an N×N attention matrix with N=T·H·W, which is computationally inconsistent with the reported 176.91 GFLOPs. In addition, the empirical support for the SOTA claim is weak: single runs, no error bars, and hyperparameter selection on the test set. These issues are fixable in a revision, so the paper has a defensible core that needs substantial strengthening.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-B2, Eqs. (11)–(15)] The CMAM is described as computing S = Softmax(Q⊗K) with Q,K ∈ R^{T·H·W × class}. At the first encoder stage, T=16, H=W=128, so N=T·H·W=262,144, giving an N×N similarity matrix with about 6.9×10^10 entries; even at the smallest 32×32 stage, N=16,384 and N²≈2.7×10^8. Such an attention operation would add far more than the reported total of 176.91 GFLOPs and would be infeasible on a single RTX 3080. The paper never describes windowing, spatial downsampling, a low-rank or linear attention variant, or any other approximation that would make Eqs. (13)–(15) tractable. The implementation therefore either does not match the stated equations or the reported GFLOPs exclude the CMAM. This unresolved inconsistency directly undermines the 'relatively lower computational complexity' component of the central claim.
  2. [IV-C and Table IV] The auxiliary loss weight α is tuned by sweeping values on the test set: Table IV reports AP/AR for α = 0 to 0.9, and α = 0.4 is selected because it gives the best test AP. This is a test-set-based hyperparameter selection. In addition, every table (Tables I–IV) reports a single run with no standard deviation, multiple seeds, or statistical comparison. The overall AP advantage over T-RODNet is only 1.02 percentage points (84.29% vs 83.27%), which could easily be within run-to-run noise for this fixed 36/4 sequence split. The authors should provide multiple runs with variance, and should select hyperparameters on a validation split rather than the test split, before the SOTA claim can be assessed.
  3. [III-B2 and IV-E2] The 'semantic prior maps' generated by the CMAM are produced from the network's own Q features, which are computed by a class embedding layer from the encoder feature X, and they are supervised by the same ground-truth confidence maps as the main decoder (Eqs. (8), (27)). Thus the CMAM does not inject any external or additional semantic knowledge; it is an internal deep-supervision branch on the same labels. The paper's repeated statements that CMAM 'captures spatial-temporal semantic context' or 'contains class-dependent RF image semantic information' overstate what is a self-supervised auxiliary signal. The authors should either provide evidence that this internal signal is semantically different from the main decoder supervision, or temper the conceptual claims throughout the abstract, introduction, and Section III-B2.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III-B2] The reshape operations Reshape1, Reshape2, and Reshape3 are not formally defined; please specify the target shapes and the dimension ordering (e.g., whether T,H,W are flattened in row-major order) to make the equations unambiguous.
  2. [III-B2, Eq. (13)] The symbol ⊗ is used for matrix multiplication; using ⊗ conventionally denotes a Kronecker or tensor product. Please replace it with a standard matrix multiplication notation to avoid confusion.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues, such as 'XClassM asking' instead of 'X_{ClassMasking}' in Eq. (17) and 'Sections II-A' in the related-work preamble; a careful proofread is needed.
  4. [References] Reference [2] appears in the bibliography but is not cited in the text; please check the citation list for consistency.
  5. [IV-E1] In Table II, the line 'We first remove all shift operations' is followed by a comparison of Patterns A, B, and C; it would be clearer to label the no-shift row as 'No shift' and to state explicitly that channel shift is also removed in that row, since the text later says channel shift is a supplement to patch shift.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims rest on external CRUW benchmarks and controlled ablations, not on self-referential definitions or author-unique results.

full rationale

Mask-RadarNet's main claims are empirical: higher AP/AR on the CRUW dataset and lower GFLOPs/parameters relative to published SOTA models. These comparisons are against external systems (T-RODNet, SS-RODNet, RODNet variants, DCSN) and are not derived from the paper's own definitions. The CMAM's 'semantic prior maps' are internal network features supervised by the same ground-truth confidence maps used for the main loss; this is a form of deep supervision whose contribution is tested by a controlled ablation (Table III: None vs. CMAM), so the performance gain is not forced by construction. The auxiliary-loss weight α is chosen by sweeping on the test split (Table IV), which is a test-set selection risk rather than a circularity. The patch-shift and T-SwinTransformer components are explicitly adapted from prior work [54], [28], [22], and that prior work is not author-self-cited in a load-bearing way. The possible inconsistency between the O(N^2) CMAM attention written in Eqs. (13)-(15) and the reported 176.91 GFLOPs is a correctness/reproducibility concern, not an equivalence between inputs and outputs. No step in the derivation chain reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim depends on two data-selected hyperparameters (auxiliary loss weight and shift pattern) and on the reliability of the CRUW benchmark and its fixed split. It introduces no new physical or theoretical entities. The main assumptions are the accuracy of the CRF-generated ground truth, the representativeness of the single split, and the semantic interpretation of the class-embedding prior, which is supervised by the same labels used for the main task.

free parameters (2)
  • Auxiliary loss weight alpha = 0.4
    Chosen empirically in the ablation of Table IV by evaluating alpha from 0.0 to 0.9 on the test set and selecting the value with the best AP. This is hyperparameter tuning on the test set.
  • Patch shift pattern = Pattern C (temporal field 9)
    Selected by comparing three shift patterns (A, B, C) in Table II on the test set; Pattern C yields the best AP and is used for all reported results.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard matrix multiplication and softmax define the CMAM attention (Eqs. 11-13).
    These are standard linear-algebra operations with no unproved lemmas.
  • domain assumption CRUW ground-truth labels produced by the camera-radar fusion (CRF) framework are accurate enough for training and evaluation.
    Section IV-A describes labels coming from cross-modal supervision; if these labels contain systematic bias, all AP/AR numbers are affected.
  • domain assumption The fixed 36/4 sequence split and the OLS metric form a valid benchmark protocol.
    Section IV-B and IV-C; the paper uses a single fixed split inherited from T-RODNet and gives no confidence intervals or multi-split analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The class embedding output Q carries class-dependent semantic prior information that can be supervised by the same ground truth via the auxiliary decoder.
    Section III-B2, Eqs. 8-13. This is a design assumption supported only by a feature visualization and ablations, not by an independent source of semantic knowledge.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mask-RadarNet: Enhancing Transformer With Spatial-Temporal Semantic Context for Radar Object Detection in Autonomous Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NL5PW2RP

@misc{pith2026241215595,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mask-RadarNet: Enhancing Transformer With Spatial-Temporal Semantic Context for Radar Object Detection in Autonomous Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NL5PW2RP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15595}
}
read the original abstract

As a cost-effective and robust technology, automotive radar has seen steady improvement during the last years, making it an appealing complement to commonly used sensors like camera and LiDAR in autonomous driving. Radio frequency data with rich semantic information are attracting more and more attention. Most current radar-based models take radio frequency image sequences as the input. However, these models heavily rely on convolutional neural networks and leave out the spatial-temporal semantic context during the encoding stage. To solve these problems, we propose a model called Mask-RadarNet to fully utilize the hierarchical semantic features from the input radar data. Mask-RadarNet exploits the combination of interleaved convolution and attention operations to replace the traditional architecture in transformer-based models. In addition, patch shift is introduced to the Mask-RadarNet for efficient spatial-temporal feature learning. By shifting part of patches with a specific mosaic pattern in the temporal dimension, Mask-RadarNet achieves competitive performance while reducing the computational burden of the spatial-temporal modeling. In order to capture the spatial-temporal semantic contextual information, we design the class masking attention module (CMAM) in our encoder. Moreover, a lightweight auxiliary decoder is added to our model to aggregate prior maps generated from the CMAM. Experiments on the CRUW dataset demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method to some state-of-the-art radar-based object detection algorithms. With relatively lower computational complexity and fewer parameters, the proposed Mask-RadarNet achieves higher recognition accuracy for object detection in autonomous driving.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15595 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of RGB images and their corresponding RF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparisons of Mask-RadarNet with other SOTA mod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of proposed Mask-RadarNet. The encoder is in the middle, and the two decoders are on the left and right. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of channel shift for four neighbouring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Three typical shift patterns. Pattern A only shifts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overview of two consecutive PatchShift 3D SwinTrans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Overview of CMAM in the encoder. Given the output feature X ∈ R T ×H×W×C from previous 3D SwinTransformer module, we first utilize a class em￾bedding layer to query feature Q and key feature K. Class embedding layer is a linear layer that converts the channel C to clas…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Overview of two consecutive T-SwinTransformer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of the feature maps before and after the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visual comparison with other models on the CRUW dataset. Mask-RadarNet outperforms others in all scenarios. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Practical classification of different moving targets using automotive radar and deep neural networks

    Aleksandar Angelov, Andrew Robertson, Roderick Murray-Smith, and Francesco Fioranelli. Practical classification of different moving targets using automotive radar and deep neural networks. IET Radar, Sonar and Navigation, 12:1082–1089, 04 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    The oxford radar robotcar dataset: A radar extension to the oxford robotcar dataset

    Dan Barnes, Matthew Gadd, Paul Murcutt, Paul Newman, and Ingmar Posner. The oxford radar robotcar dataset: A radar extension to the oxford robotcar dataset. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 6433–6438, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding? In International Conference on Machine Learning , 2021

    Gedas Bertasius, Heng Wang, and Lorenzo Torresani. Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding? In International Conference on Machine Learning , 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Swin-unet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation

    Hu Cao, Yueyue Wang, Joy Chen, Dongsheng Jiang, Xiaopeng Zhang, Qi Tian, and Manning Wang. Swin-unet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision Workshops(ECCVW) , 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Vehicle classification based on convolutional networks applied to fmcw radar signals

    Samuele Capobianco, Luca Facheris, Fabrizio Cuccoli, and Simone Marinai. Vehicle classification based on convolutional networks applied to fmcw radar signals. In Fabio Leuzzi and Stefano Ferilli, editors, Traffic Mining Applied to Police Activities, pages 115–128, Cham, 2018. Springer International Publishing

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    End-to-end object detection with transformers

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End-to-end object detection with transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12872 , 2020

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Huiwen Chang, Han Zhang, Lu Jiang, Ce Liu, and William T. Freeman. Maskgit: Masked generative image transformer. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Mur- phy, and Alan L. Yuille. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 40(4):834–848, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Rethinking Atrous Convolution for Semantic Image Segmenta- tion

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Rethinking Atrous Convolution for Semantic Image Segmenta- tion. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1706.05587, June 2017

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Twins: Revisiting the design of spatial attention in vision transformers

    Xiangxiang Chu, Zhi Tian, Yuqing Wang, Bo Zhang, Haibing Ren, Xiaolin Wei, Huaxia Xia, and Chunhua Shen. Twins: Revisiting the design of spatial attention in vision transformers. In NeurIPS, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Zhang, Yi Zhou, Jungong Han, Guiguang Ding, and Jian Sun

    Xiaohan Ding, X. Zhang, Yi Zhou, Jungong Han, Guiguang Ding, and Jian Sun. Scaling up your kernels to 31×31: Revisiting large kernel design in cnns. 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11953–11965, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Proba- bilistic oriented object detection in automotive radar

    Xu Dong, Pengluo Wang, Pengyue Zhang, and Langechuan Liu. Proba- bilistic oriented object detection in automotive radar. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 458–467, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Radar camera fusion via representation learning in autonomous driving

    Xu Dong, Binnan Zhuang, Yunxiang Mao, and Langechuan Liu. Radar camera fusion via representation learning in autonomous driving. In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion Workshops (CVPRW), pages 1672–1681, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weis- senborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition ...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Taming transformers for high-resolution image synthesis, 2020

    Patrick Esser, Robin Rombach, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. Taming transformers for high-resolution image synthesis, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Segtransconv: Transformer and cnn hybrid method for real-time semantic segmentation of autonomous vehicles

    Jiaqi Fan, Bingzhao Gao, Quanbo Ge, Yabing Ran, Jia Zhang, and Hongqing Chu. Segtransconv: Transformer and cnn hybrid method for real-time semantic segmentation of autonomous vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 25(2):1586–1601, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Enhanced radar imaging using a complex-valued convolutional neural network

    Jingkun Gao, Bin Deng, Yuliang Qin, Hongqiang Wang, and Xiang Li. Enhanced radar imaging using a complex-valued convolutional neural network. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , 16(1):35–39, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Short-range radar-based gesture recog- nition system using 3d cnn with triplet loss

    Souvik Hazra and Avik Santra. Short-range radar-based gesture recog- nition system using 3d cnn with triplet loss. IEEE Access , 7:125623– 125633, 2019. 12

    2019

  11. [19]

    Efficient-rod: Efficient radar object detection based on densely connected residual network

    Chih-Chung Hsu, Chieh Lee, Lin Chen, Min-Kai Hung, Yu-Lun Lin, and Xian-Yu Wang. Efficient-rod: Efficient radar object detection based on densely connected residual network. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval , ICMR ’21, page 526–532, N...

    2021

  12. [20]

    The apolloscape dataset for autonomous driving

    Xinyu Huang, Xinjing Cheng, Qichuan Geng, Binbin Cao, Dingfu Zhou, Peng Wang, Yuanqing Lin, and Ruigang Yang. The apolloscape dataset for autonomous driving. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) , pages 1067– 10676, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    SeMask: Semantically Masked Transformers for Semantic Segmentation

    Jitesh Jain, Anukriti Singh, Nikita Orlov, Zilong Huang, Jiachen Li, Steven Walton, and Humphrey Shi. SeMask: Semantically Masked Transformers for Semantic Segmentation. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2112.12782, December 2021

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    T-rodnet: Transformer for vehicular millimeter-wave radar object detection

    Tiezhen Jiang, Long Zhuang, Qi An, Jianhua Wang, Kai Xiao, and Anqi Wang. T-rodnet: Transformer for vehicular millimeter-wave radar object detection. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , 72:1–12, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Liu, Qi Chu, and Nenghai Yu

    Zhenchao Jin, B. Liu, Qi Chu, and Nenghai Yu. Isnet: Integrate image-level and semantic-level context for semantic segmentation. 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 7169–7178, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Vehicle detection for autonomous driving: A review of algorithms and datasets

    Jules Karangwa, Jun Liu, and Zixuan Zeng. Vehicle detection for autonomous driving: A review of algorithms and datasets. IEEE Trans- actions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 24(11):11568–11594, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Al Sallab, Senthil Yogamani, and Patrick P ´erez

    B Ravi Kiran, Ibrahim Sobh, Victor Talpaert, Patrick Mannion, Ahmad A. Al Sallab, Senthil Yogamani, and Patrick P ´erez. Deep reinforcement learning for autonomous driving: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(6):4909–4926, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Zico Kolter, Dirk Langer, Oliver Pink, Vaughan Pratt, Michael Sokolsky, Ganymed Stanek, David Stavens, Alex Teichman, Moritz Werling, and Sebastian Thrun

    Jesse Levinson, Jake Askeland, Jan Becker, Jennifer Dolson, David Held, Soeren Kammel, J. Zico Kolter, Dirk Langer, Oliver Pink, Vaughan Pratt, Michael Sokolsky, Ganymed Stanek, David Stavens, Alex Teichman, Moritz Werling, and Sebastian Thrun. Towards fully autonomous driving...

    2011

  19. [27]

    Ds-transunet: Dual swin transformer u-net for medical image segmentation

    Ailiang Lin, Bingzhi Chen, Jiayu Xu, Zheng Zhang, Guangming Lu, and David Zhang. Ds-transunet: Dual swin transformer u-net for medical image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 71:1–15, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Tsm: Temporal shift module for efficient video understanding

    Ji Lin, Chuang Gan, and Song Han. Tsm: Temporal shift module for efficient video understanding. In 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 7082–7092, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll ´ar, and C

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge J. Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll ´ar, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. Mi- crosoft coco: Common objects in context. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    Deep instance segmentation with automotive radar detection points

    Jianan Liu, Weiyi Xiong, Liping Bai, Yuxuan Xia, Tao Huang, Wanli Ouyang, and Bing Zhu. Deep instance segmentation with automotive radar detection points. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , 8(1):84–94, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Smurf: Spatial multi-representation fusion for 3d object detection with 4d imaging radar

    Jianan Liu, Qiuchi Zhao, Weiyi Xiong, Tao Huang, Qing-Long Han, and Bing Zhu. Smurf: Spatial multi-representation fusion for 3d object detection with 4d imaging radar. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, pages 1–14, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 9992–10002, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Video swin transformer

    Ze Liu, Jia Ning, Yue Cao, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Han Hu. Video swin transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13230, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Vehicle detection with automotive radar using deep learning on range-azimuth-doppler tensors

    Bence Major, Daniel Fontijne, Amin Ansari, Ravi Teja Sukhavasi, Radhika Gowaikar, Michael Hamilton, Sean Lee, Slawomir Grzechnik, and Sundar Subramanian. Vehicle detection with automotive radar using deep learning on range-azimuth-doppler tensors. In 2019 IEEE/CVF In- ternatio...

    2019

  27. [35]

    Deep learning based 3d object detection for automotive radar and camera

    Michael Meyer and Georg Kuschk. Deep learning based 3d object detection for automotive radar and camera. In 2019 16th European Radar Conference (EuRAD) , pages 133–136, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Fundamentals of radar signal processing (richards, m.a

    Rob Miller. Fundamentals of radar signal processing (richards, m.a

  29. [37]

    de Albuquerque

    Khan Muhammad, Amin Ullah, Jaime Lloret, Javier Del Ser, and Victor Hugo C. de Albuquerque. Deep learning for safe autonomous driving: Current challenges and future directions. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 22(7):4316–4336, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Rrpn: Radar region proposal network for object detection in autonomous vehicles

    Ramin Nabati and Hairong Qi. Rrpn: Radar region proposal network for object detection in autonomous vehicles. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , pages 3093–3097, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Neubeck and L

    A. Neubeck and L. Van Gool. Efficient non-maximum suppression. In 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR’06) , volume 3, pages 850–855, 2006

    2006

  32. [40]

    Carrada dataset: Camera and automotive radar with range- angle- doppler annotations

    Arthur Ouaknine, Alasdair Newson, Julien Rebut, Florence Tupin, and Patrick P´erez. Carrada dataset: Camera and automotive radar with range- angle- doppler annotations. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 5068–5075, 2021

    2020

  33. [41]

    3d object detection with pointformer

    Xuran Pan, Zhuofan Xia, Shiji Song, Li Erran Li, and Gao Huang. 3d object detection with pointformer. In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 7459–7468, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Edter: Edge detection with transformer

    Mengyang Pu, Yaping Huang, Yuming Liu, Qingji Guan, and Haibin Ling. Edter: Edge detection with transformer. 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 1392–1402, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Seeing around street corners: Non-line- of-sight detection and tracking in-the-wild using doppler radar

    Nicolas Scheiner, Florian Kraus, Fangyin Wei, Buu Phan, Fahim Man- nan, Nils Appenrodt, Werner Ritter, J¨urgen Dickmann, Klaus Dietmayer, Bernhard Sick, and Felix Heide. Seeing around street corners: Non-line- of-sight detection and tracking in-the-wild using doppler radar. In...

    2020

  36. [44]

    Semantic segmentation on radar point clouds

    Ole Schumann, Markus Hahn, J ¨urgen Dickmann, and Christian W ¨ohler. Semantic segmentation on radar point clouds. In 2018 21st International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION) , pages 2179–2186, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Squeeze-and- excitation network-based radar object detection with weighted location fusion

    Pengliang Sun, Xuetong Niu, Pengfei Sun, and Kele Xu. Squeeze-and- excitation network-based radar object detection with weighted location fusion. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, ICMR ’21, page 545–552, New York, NY , USA,

    2021

  38. [46]

    MaxViT: Multi-Axis Vision Transformer

    Zhengzhong Tu, Hossein Talebi, Han Zhang, Feng Yang, Peyman Milanfar, Alan Bovik, and Yinxiao Li. MaxViT: Multi-Axis Vision Transformer. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2204.01697, April 2022

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , NIPS’17, page 6000–6010, Red ...

    2017

  40. [48]

    Max-deeplab: End-to-end panoptic segmentation with mask transformers

    Huiyu Wang, Yukun Zhu, Hartwig Adam, Alan Loddon Yuille, and Liang-Chieh Chen. Max-deeplab: End-to-end panoptic segmentation with mask transformers. 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 5459–5470, 2020

    2021

  41. [49]

    Pyramid vision transformer: A versatile backbone for dense prediction without convolutions

    Wenhai Wang, Enze Xie, Xiang Li, Deng-Ping Fan, Kaitao Song, Ding Liang, Tong Lu, Ping Luo, and Ling Shao. Pyramid vision transformer: A versatile backbone for dense prediction without convolutions. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 54...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Transbts: Multimodal brain tumor segmentation using transformer

    Wenxuan Wang, Chen Chen, Meng Ding, Jiangyun Li, Hong Yu, and Sen Zha. Transbts: Multimodal brain tumor segmentation using transformer. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI) , 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Multi-sensor fusion technology for 3d object detection in autonomous driving: A review

    Xuan Wang, Kaiqiang Li, and Abdellah Chehri. Multi-sensor fusion technology for 3d object detection in autonomous driving: A review. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 25(2):1148– 1165, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Rodnet: A real-time radar object detection network cross-supervised by camera-radar fused object 3d localization

    Yizhou Wang, Zhongyu Jiang, Yudong Li, Jenq-Neng Hwang, Guanbin Xing, and Hui Liu. Rodnet: A real-time radar object detection network cross-supervised by camera-radar fused object 3d localization. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , 15(4):954–967, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Rethinking of radar’s role: A camera-radar dataset and systematic annotator via coordinate alignment

    Yizhou Wang, Gaoang Wang, Hung-Min Hsu, Hui Liu, and Jenq- Neng Hwang. Rethinking of radar’s role: A camera-radar dataset and systematic annotator via coordinate alignment. In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 2809–2818, 2021

    2021

  46. [54]

    Spatiotemporal Self-attention Modeling with Temporal Patch Shift for Action Recognition

    Wangmeng Xiang, Chao Li, Biao Wang, Xihan Wei, Xian-Sheng Hua, and Lei Zhang. Spatiotemporal Self-attention Modeling with Temporal Patch Shift for Action Recognition. arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2207.13259, July 2022

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Dxm-transfuse u-net: Dual cross-modal transformer fusion u-net for automated nerve identification

    Baijun Xie, Gary Milam, Bo Ning, Jaepyeong Cha, and Chung Hyuk Park. Dxm-transfuse u-net: Dual cross-modal transformer fusion u-net for automated nerve identification. Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society,...

    2022

  48. [56]

    Lxl: Lidar excluded lean 3d object detection with 4d imaging radar and camera fusion

    Weiyi Xiong, Jianan Liu, Tao Huang, Qing-Long Han, Yuxuan Xia, and Bing Zhu. Lxl: Lidar excluded lean 3d object detection with 4d imaging radar and camera fusion. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , pages 1–14, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    Contrastive learning for automotive mmwave radar detection points based instance segmentation

    Weiyi Xiong, Jianan Liu, Yuxuan Xia, Tao Huang, Bing Zhu, and Wei Xiang. Contrastive learning for automotive mmwave radar detection points based instance segmentation. In 2022 IEEE 25th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) , pages 1255– 1261, 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Co-scale conv-attentional image transformers

    Weijian Xu, Yifan Xu, Tyler Chang, and Zhuowen Tu. Co-scale conv-attentional image transformers. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 9961–9970, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Ralibev: Radar and lidar bev fusion learning for anchor box free object detection systems, 2023

    Yanlong Yang, Jianan Liu, Tao Huang, Qing-Long Han, Gang Ma, and Bing Zhu. Ralibev: Radar and lidar bev fusion learning for anchor box free object detection systems, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Learning a discriminative feature network for semantic segmentation

    Changqian Yu, Jingbo Wang, Chao Peng, Changxin Gao, Gang Yu, and Nong Sang. Learning a discriminative feature network for semantic segmentation. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1857–1866, 2018

    2018

  53. [61]

    Raddet: Range- azimuth-doppler based radar object detection for dynamic road users

    Ao Zhang, Farzan Erlik Nowruzi, and Robert Laganiere. Raddet: Range- azimuth-doppler based radar object detection for dynamic road users. In 2021 18th Conference on Robots and Vision (CRV), pages 95–102, 2021

    2021

  54. [62]

    Context Encoding for Semantic Segmentation

    Hang Zhang, Kristin Dana, Jianping Shi, Zhongyue Zhang, Xiaogang Wang, Ambrish Tyagi, and Amit Agrawal. Context Encoding for Semantic Segmentation. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1803.08904, March 2018

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Dana, Jianping Shi, Zhongyue Zhang, Xiaogang Wang, Ambrish Tyagi, and Amit Agrawal

    Hang Zhang, Kristin J. Dana, Jianping Shi, Zhongyue Zhang, Xiaogang Wang, Ambrish Tyagi, and Amit Agrawal. Context encoding for semantic segmentation. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7151–7160, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    Pyramid scene parsing network

    Hengshuang Zhao, Jianping Shi, Xiaojuan Qi, Xiaogang Wang, and Jiaya Jia. Pyramid scene parsing network. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 6230–6239, 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    Rcfusion: Fusing 4-d radar and camera with bird’s-eye view features for 3-d object detection

    Lianqing Zheng, Sen Li, Bin Tan, Long Yang, Sihan Chen, Libo Huang, Jie Bai, Xichan Zhu, and Zhixiong Ma. Rcfusion: Fusing 4-d radar and camera with bird’s-eye view features for 3-d object detection. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , 72:1–14, 2023

    2023

  58. [66]

    Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection

    Xizhou Zhu, Weijie Su, Lewei Lu, Bin Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04159 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Lqcanet: Learnable-query-guided multi-scale fusion network based on cross-attention for radar semantic segmentation

    Long Zhuang, Tiezhen Jiang, Hao Jiang, Anqi Wang, and Zhixiang Huang. Lqcanet: Learnable-query-guided multi-scale fusion network based on cross-attention for radar semantic segmentation. IEEE Trans- actions on Intelligent Vehicles , pages 1–15, 2023

    2023

  60. [68]

    Effective mmwave radar object detection pretraining based on masked image modeling

    Long Zhuang, Tiezhen Jiang, Jianhua Wang, Qi An, Kai Xiao, and Anqi Wang. Effective mmwave radar object detection pretraining based on masked image modeling. IEEE Sensors Journal , 24(3):3999–4010, 2024

    2024

  61. [2005]

    IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 26(3):100– 101, 2009

    [book review]. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 26(3):100– 101, 2009

    2009

  62. [2021]

    Association for Computing Machinery

Pith tools

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