Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 54 references

ELMAR: Enhancing LiDAR Detection with 4D Radar Motion Awareness and Cross-modal Uncertainty

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that fusing 4D radar Doppler velocity and cross-modal uncertainty into a LiDAR detector yields state-of-the-art 3D detection, with 74.89% mean average precision on the View-of-Delft benchmark.

desk verdict Useful motion-aware radar encoding with a real VoD SOTA, but the cross-modal uncertainty loss in Eq. (8) is formally ill-defined and the X-UA gains shouldn't be read as evidence for the stated mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17958 v1 pith:PDOWPJ4E submitted 2025-06-22 cs.CV

Xiangyuan Peng , Miao Tang , Huawei Sun , Bierzynski Kay , Lorenzo Servadei , Robert Wille This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 4DradarLiDAR3DobjectdetectionsensorfusionDopplervelocitymotionawarenesscross-modaluncertaintyautonomousdriving
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

4D radar adds Doppler velocity to the usual 3D position measurements, but its point clouds are far sparser than LiDAR's, and the two sensors' detections do not line up perfectly. This paper claims that both problems can be turned to a LiDAR detector's advantage: a Dynamic Motion-Aware Encoding module learns object-level motion status from a single radar scan, and a Cross-Modal Uncertainty Alignment module treats the per-box disagreement between LiDAR and radar predictions as a training signal that down-weights unreliable boxes. On the View-of-Delft benchmark the combined framework reports 74.89% mean average precision over the whole scene and 88.70% inside the driving corridor at 30.02 frames per second, with the clearest gains on small moving objects such as pedestrians and cyclists. The framework matters because motion awareness usually requires accumulating multiple LiDAR frames, which is costly and suffers from long-tail errors.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing mechanisms are the Dynamic Motion-Aware Encoding (DMAE) module and the Cross-Modal Uncertainty Alignment (X-UA) module. DMAE weights radar key-point features by measured relative and absolute velocity through an attention product, then an MLP predicts each point's dynamic status; the predicted status is supervised by focal loss against whole-object motion labels, averaged over four set-abstraction layers. X-UA runs Hungarian matching on bounding-box centers to pair LiDAR and radar boxes, forms the difference $\Delta D = \tilde{D}_L - \tilde{D}_R$ in position, size, and orientation, and trains the LiDAR branch with $L_{\text{uncertainty}} = L_{\text{LiDAR}} \exp(-\Delta D) + \lambda \Delta D$. The difference term is the paper's proxy for cross-modal uncertainty: larger disagreement means less trust in that prediction.

What would settle it

On the View-of-Delft validation set, count how often Hungarian-matched LiDAR-radar pairs belong to different ground-truth classes (a car matched to a pedestrian, for instance) and check whether those mismatches produce large entries in $\Delta D$; if such mismatches are common, the X-UA loss is being driven by wrong correspondences and the reported gains would not come from genuine cross-modal uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a LiDAR detector can be improved by learning object motion status from single-frame 4D radar Doppler data and by using cross-modal box disagreement as a per-instance uncertainty estimate. The Dynamic Motion-Aware Encoding module weights radar key-point features by measured velocity and supervises a predicted dynamic status with focal loss against whole-object motion labels, so the network learns motion without relying on noisy per-point velocity thresholds or multi-frame accumulation. The Cross-Modal Uncertainty Alignment module matches LiDAR and radar boxes with the Hungarian algorithm, forms the difference $\Delta D$ in position, size, and orientation, and uses it to scale the LiDAR loss down when the two modalities disagree. The paper reports that this design reaches higher AP than previous radar-LiDAR fusion methods, especially for pedestrians and cyclists, while staying real-time.

Load-bearing premise

The uncertainty mechanism assumes that Hungarian matching by box-center distance pairs each LiDAR box with the radar box of the same physical object, so that the box difference is a genuine uncertainty signal rather than a mismatch artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-frame radar scans can replace multi-frame LiDAR accumulation for motion awareness, lowering latency and avoiding the long-tail problem of rare motion patterns.
  • Cross-modal disagreement becomes a usable uncertainty signal, so sparse radar detections can refine LiDAR predictions instead of corrupting them.
  • Detection of small, dynamic road users such as pedestrians and cyclists is where the largest gains appear, which is the hard case for LiDAR-only detectors.
  • The 30 FPS inference speed keeps the fusion strategy compatible with real-time autonomous driving pipelines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same motion-aware loss could be applied to radar-only detectors on datasets without motion labels by generating pseudo-labels from Doppler velocity clustering, which would test whether the benefit comes from the velocity weighting or from the object-level supervision.
  • Editorial extension: the X-UA formulation is not LiDAR-radar specific; pairing any two detectors that output boxes and using their difference as uncertainty could transfer to LiDAR-camera fusion, where misalignment is typically larger.
  • Editorial extension: the paper does not ablate the choice of Hungarian matching against a simpler nearest-neighbor or IoU-based pairing, so a direct comparison of matching rules would clarify how much of the gain depends on exact correspondence.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ELMAR, a LiDAR-4D radar fusion framework for 3D object detection. It introduces a Dynamic Motion-Aware Encoding (DMAE) module that uses single-frame radar velocity features to predict object-level motion status, and a Cross-Modal Uncertainty Alignment (X-UA) module meant to estimate instance-wise uncertainty from the difference between matched LiDAR and radar bounding-box predictions and to use that uncertainty to reweight the LiDAR detection loss. Experiments on the View-of-Delft (VoD) validation set report state-of-the-art mAP of 74.89% in the whole area and 88.70% in the driving corridor at 30.02 FPS, with ablations attributing gains to DMAE and X-UA and a small transfer experiment showing DMAE improves MUFASA and CM-FA.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would offer a practical real-time radar-LiDAR fusion recipe with a useful motion-awareness component, and the DMAE transfer experiments in Table III are a positive empirical contribution. The idea of aligning two modalities through prediction disagreement is also timely. However, the central X-UA mechanism is not actually well defined: Eq. (8) as written is an ill-posed expression involving a signed matrix where a scalar loss is expected, and the claimed uncertainty semantics are asserted rather than derived. Because the main quantitative claim rests on this mechanism, the current version does not yet support the paper's stated contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III-C, Eq. (8)] As written, L_uncertainty = L_LiDAR · exp(−ΔD) + λΔD is not well defined because ΔD ∈ R^{k×7} is a matrix of signed per-attribute differences while L_LiDAR is a scalar. No reduction, norm, or absolute value is specified, so the exponential and the regularization term are ambiguous. More importantly, because the differences are signed, a radar box that is larger than the LiDAR box yields negative δ for the size attributes, making exp(−δ) > 1 and amplifying the LiDAR loss exactly where the modalities disagree, while λδ becomes a negative reward. This is the opposite of the stated 'higher ΔD → lower confidence' behavior. The loss must be redefined using, for example, |ΔD| or a norm, with a specified reduction, before it can implement the intended uncertainty weighting.
  2. [Sec. III-C] The paper states that ΔD 'represents the disagreement' and that 'a higher ΔD indicates greater inconsistency, assigning lower confidence,' but this is an assertion, not a derivation. Eq. (8) directly minimizes ΔD through the λΔD term, so any reduction in cross-modal disagreement is enforced by construction; the ablation gain in Table II is therefore evidence for a consistency regularizer rather than for uncertainty-based confidence weighting. Moreover, the Hungarian matching uses only center Euclidean distance, so a LiDAR box can be paired with a radar box of a different object class whose center happens to be closer, injecting a large spurious ΔD into the loss. The authors should either provide a principled uncertainty derivation or reframe the contribution as cross-modal consistency regularization, and they should address the matching robustness, for example with class-aware or attribute-aware matching.
  3. [Sec. IV-C, Table II] The ablation baseline obtained by removing DMAE and X-UA has mAP 70.55, but Table I reports CM-FA, the architecture whose feature projection and selective matching the paper builds on, at 73.83 mAP. The paper does not explain this discrepancy. If the baseline is not CM-FA, the relation to the state-of-the-art comparison is unclear; if the baseline is CM-FA, the two numbers must be reconciled. This is load-bearing because the claimed contributions of DMAE and X-UA are quantified against the 70.55 baseline.
  4. [Sec. IV-B] All results are reported on a single validation split of VoD without error bars, multiple seeds, or significance testing. The reported mAP advantage over CM-FA is 1.06 percentage points (74.89 vs. 73.83) in the whole area and 2.20 percentage points in the driving corridor, and ELMAR's car AP is actually lower than CM-FA's (76.41 vs. 77.52). Without variance estimates, the state-of-the-art claim is not robust. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds or otherwise justify that the differences are not within run-to-run variation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. III-B, Eq. (1)] The notation (f_i^T ⊗ f_i) is not defined; if it denotes an outer product, the resulting dimension and how it is combined with Encode(v) should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Fig. 4] The figure caption uses 'U-XA' while the text consistently uses 'X-UA'; please harmonize the acronym.
  3. [Sec. IV-C, Table IV] The λ sweep is performed without the DMAE module, so the chosen value λ=0.1 is not validated for the full model whose results appear in Table I; an additional sweep on the full model would strengthen the claim.
  4. [Sec. IV-A] The 'driving corridor' evaluation region is not defined in the manuscript; please cite the VoD protocol or specify the corridor geometry.
  5. [Sec. IV-A] Reference [48] is cited for the validation split, but the VoD dataset paper [7] should be the primary citation for the data split and evaluation metrics.
  6. [Sec. VI] The conclusion states improvements of 1.35% for pedestrians and 2.94% for cyclists without specifying the comparison method; from Table I these are relative to CM-FA, and this should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

X-UA uncertainty estimate is identical to the quantity the loss minimizes, making the module's stated semantics self-definitional; the headline benchmark result remains empirical.

  1. self definitional [Section III-C, Eq. (6) and Eq. (8)]
    "∆D represents the disagreement between the LiDAR and 4D radar predictions in each attribute. A higher ∆D indicates greater inconsistency, assigning lower confidence in the final prediction. Therefore, we use ∆D as the estimated fine-grained uncertainty. ... Luncertainty = LLiDAR· exp(−∆D) +λ ∆D."

    The paper defines the uncertainty estimate as the per-attribute difference between the LiDAR and radar bounding-box predictions (Eq. 6), then writes the X-UA loss (Eq. 8) to penalize exactly that same difference. Thus the claim that X-UA 'mitigates cross-modal misalignment' or 'reduces uncertainty' is enforced by construction: the training objective shrinks the very quantity that the paper labels as uncertainty. No independent uncertainty target or calibration is used, so the module is effectively a consistency regularizer relabeled as an uncertainty-alignment mechanism. The mAP improvements in Tables I and II are empirical outcomes and are not derived from the equations, so the circularity is partial rather than total. The matrix-valued form of Eq.

full rationale

Apart from the X-UA step, the paper's derivation chain is not circular. The DMAE module is supervised with dataset-provided motion labels (Sec. III-B), and its effect is measured against external benchmarks. The Feature Projection and Selective Matching component is cited from external work [10], not from the authors' own prior papers. The authors' earlier works (MutualForce [14], MUFASA [31]) appear only as baselines or adaptation targets and are not load-bearing to the claimed state-of-the-art result. The headline 74.89% mAP on the VoD validation set is an independent empirical measurement, so the central claim does not reduce to the equations. However, because the paper presents X-UA as an 'uncertainty estimation' method while the uncertainty is defined as the same cross-modal difference that the loss directly minimizes, the module's stated semantics is self-definitional. The additional ill-posedness of Eq. (8) (matrix-valued loss, signed ΔD without reduction or absolute value) makes the mechanism even harder to interpret as uncertainty alignment, but that is a correctness issue rather than a further circularity. Overall, the paper is partially circular in one module's claimed mechanism, while the core benchmark comparison retains independent empirical content.

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

The central claim rests on standard deep learning components, but two ad hoc constructions: the interpretation of ΔD as uncertainty and the implicit reliance on correct Hungarian correspondences. λ is a tuned hyperparameter, and several other hyperparameters are unreported.

free parameters (4)
  • λ (X-UA regularization weight) = 0.1
    Chosen by evaluation on the VoD validation set (Table IV); controls penalty on cross-modal disagreement.
  • Focal loss α (balance weight) = not specified
    Balances static and dynamic points in Eq (2); value not reported in the paper.
  • Focal loss γ (focusing parameter) = not specified
    Reduces influence of well-classified points in Eq (2); value not reported in the paper.
  • Hungarian matching threshold = not specified
    Matching is based on Euclidean distance between centers; no threshold or limit is given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ground-truth motion status labels in VoD are correct and transfer to point-level labels y_j.
    Used in Eq (2) to supervise the DMAE module; if labels are noisy, the motion-aware loss is mis-supervised.
  • ad hoc to paper The difference between matched LiDAR and radar bounding boxes is a valid measure of prediction uncertainty.
    Section III-C defines ΔD as fine-grained uncertainty without external calibration or theoretical justification.
  • domain assumption Hungarian matching by center distance alone produces one-to-one correspondences between same objects.
    Section III-C; ignores class and size, so mismatches are possible.
  • domain assumption The feature projection and selective matching from CM-FA align LiDAR and radar features into a shared latent space.
    The paper adopts this alignment wholesale without re-deriving or validating it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ELMAR: Enhancing LiDAR Detection with 4D Radar Motion Awareness and Cross-modal Uncertainty." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PDOWPJ4E

@misc{pith2026250617958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ELMAR: Enhancing LiDAR Detection with 4D Radar Motion Awareness and Cross-modal Uncertainty},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PDOWPJ4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17958}
}
read the original abstract

LiDAR and 4D radar are widely used in autonomous driving and robotics. While LiDAR provides rich spatial information, 4D radar offers velocity measurement and remains robust under adverse conditions. As a result, increasing studies have focused on the 4D radar-LiDAR fusion method to enhance the perception. However, the misalignment between different modalities is often overlooked. To address this challenge and leverage the strengths of both modalities, we propose a LiDAR detection framework enhanced by 4D radar motion status and cross-modal uncertainty. The object movement information from 4D radar is first captured using a Dynamic Motion-Aware Encoding module during feature extraction to enhance 4D radar predictions. Subsequently, the instance-wise uncertainties of bounding boxes are estimated to mitigate the cross-modal misalignment and refine the final LiDAR predictions. Extensive experiments on the View-of-Delft (VoD) dataset highlight the effectiveness of our method, achieving state-of-the-art performance with the mAP of 74.89% in the entire area and 88.70% within the driving corridor while maintaining a real-time inference speed of 30.02 FPS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17958 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of the VoD dataset [7]. LiDAR point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall structure of our ELMAR. The four DMAE modules utilize the single-frame radar scan to predict the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Point velocity distribution of cars, cyclists, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Structure of U-XA module. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of detections on the VoD dataset [7] across different methods. Ground truth bounding boxes are shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Robustness-aware 3d object detection in autonomous driving: A review and outlook,

    Z. Song, L. Liu, F. Jia, Y . Luo, C. Jia, G. Zhang, L. Yang, and L. Wang, “Robustness-aware 3d object detection in autonomous driving: A review and outlook,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    4d mmwave radar for autonomous driving perception: a comprehensive survey,

    L. Fan, J. Wang, Y . Chang, Y . Li, Y . Wang, and D. Cao, “4d mmwave radar for autonomous driving perception: a comprehensive survey,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Event cameras in automotive sensing: A review,

    W. Shariff, M. S. Dilmaghani, P. Kielty, M. Moustafa, J. Lemley, and P. Corcoran, “Event cameras in automotive sensing: A review,” IEEE Access, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Deep learning for lidar point clouds in autonomous driving: A review,

    Y . Li, L. Ma, Z. Zhong, F. Liu, M. A. Chapman, D. Cao, and J. Li, “Deep learning for lidar point clouds in autonomous driving: A review,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 3412–3432, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Object detection in adverse weather condition for autonomous vehicles,

    E. O. Appiah and S. Mensah, “Object detection in adverse weather condition for autonomous vehicles,” Multimedia Tools and Applica- tions, vol. 83, no. 9, pp. 28 235–28 261, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    A new wave in robotics: Survey on recent mmwave radar applications in robotics,

    K. Harlow, H. Jang, T. D. Barfoot, A. Kim, and C. Heckman, “A new wave in robotics: Survey on recent mmwave radar applications in robotics,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Multi- class road user detection with 3+ 1d radar in the view-of-delft dataset,

    A. Palffy, E. Pool, S. Baratam, J. F. Kooij, and D. M. Gavrila, “Multi- class road user detection with 3+ 1d radar in the view-of-delft dataset,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4961–4968, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Interfusion: Interaction-based 4d radar and lidar fusion for 3d object detection,

    L. Wang, X. Zhang, B. Xv, J. Zhang, R. Fu, X. Wang, L. Zhu, H. Ren, P. Lu, J. Li et al., “Interfusion: Interaction-based 4d radar and lidar fusion for 3d object detection,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 12 247–12 253

    work page 2022

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Multi-modal and multi-scale fusion 3d object detection of 4d radar and lidar for autonomous driving,

    L. Wang, X. Zhang, J. Li, B. Xv, R. Fu, H. Chen, L. Yang, D. Jin, and L. Zhao, “Multi-modal and multi-scale fusion 3d object detection of 4d radar and lidar for autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 5628–5641, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Robust 3d object detection from lidar-radar point clouds via cross-modal feature augmentation,

    J. Deng, G. Chan, H. Zhong, and C. X. Lu, “Robust 3d object detection from lidar-radar point clouds via cross-modal feature augmentation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 6585–6591

    2024

  3. [11]

    Joint scene flow estimation and moving object segmentation on rotational lidar data,

    X. Chen, J. Cui, Y . Liu, X. Zhang, J. Sun, R. Ai, W. Gu, J. Xu, and H. Lu, “Joint scene flow estimation and moving object segmentation on rotational lidar data,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Mambamos: Lidar-based 3d moving object segmentation with motion-aware state space model,

    K. Zeng, H. Shi, J. Lin, S. Li, J. Cheng, K. Wang, Z. Li, and K. Yang, “Mambamos: Lidar-based 3d moving object segmentation with motion-aware state space model,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2024, pp. 1505–1513

    2024

  5. [13]

    Mf-mos: A motion-focused model for moving object segmentation,

    J. Cheng, K. Zeng, Z. Huang, X. Tang, J. Wu, C. Zhang, X. Chen, and R. Fan, “Mf-mos: A motion-focused model for moving object segmentation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 12 499–12 505

    2024

  6. [14]

    Mutualforce: Mutual-aware enhancement for 4d radar-lidar 3d object detection,

    X. Peng, H. Sun, K. Bierzynski, A. Fischbacher, L. Servadei, and R. Wille, “Mutualforce: Mutual-aware enhancement for 4d radar-lidar 3d object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10266 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Radar velocity transformer: Single-scan moving object segmentation in noisy radar point clouds,

    M. Zeller, V . S. Sandhu, B. Mersch, J. Behley, M. Heidingsfeld, and C. Stachniss, “Radar velocity transformer: Single-scan moving object segmentation in noisy radar point clouds,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 7054– 7061

    2023

  8. [16]

    L4dr: Lidar-4dradar fusion for weather-robust 3d object detection,

    X. Huang, Z. Xu, H. Wu, J. Wang, Q. Xia, Y . Xia, J. Li, K. Gao, C. Wen, and C. Wang, “L4dr: Lidar-4dradar fusion for weather-robust 3d object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03677 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Towards robust 3d object detection with lidar and 4d radar fusion in various weather conditions,

    Y . Chae, H. Kim, and K.-J. Yoon, “Towards robust 3d object detection with lidar and 4d radar fusion in various weather conditions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 15 162–15 172

    2024

  10. [18]

    Bi-lrfusion: Bi-directional lidar-radar fusion for 3d dy- namic object detection,

    Y . Wang, J. Deng, Y . Li, J. Hu, C. Liu, Y . Zhang, J. Ji, W. Ouyang, and Y . Zhang, “Bi-lrfusion: Bi-directional lidar-radar fusion for 3d dy- namic object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 13 394–13 403

    2023

  11. [19]

    Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds,

    A. H. Lang, S. V ora, H. Caesar, L. Zhou, J. Yang, and O. Beijbom, “Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 12 697–12 705

    2019

  12. [20]

    Swiftpillars: High- efficiency pillar encoder for lidar-based 3d detection,

    X. Jin, K. Liu, C. Ma, R. Yang, F. Hui, and W. Wu, “Swiftpillars: High- efficiency pillar encoder for lidar-based 3d detection,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 3, 2024, pp. 2625–2633

    2024

  13. [21]

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

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

    2023

  14. [22]

    3dssd: Point-based 3d single stage object detector,

    Z. Yang, Y . Sun, S. Liu, and J. Jia, “3dssd: Point-based 3d single stage object detector,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 11 040–11 048

    2020

  15. [23]

    Psns-ssd: Pixel-level suppressed nonsalient semantic and multicoupled channel enhance- ment attention for 3d object detection,

    X. Song, Z. Zhou, L. Zhang, X. Lu, and X. Hei, “Psns-ssd: Pixel-level suppressed nonsalient semantic and multicoupled channel enhance- ment attention for 3d object detection,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 603–610, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Not all points are equal: Learning highly efficient point-based detectors for 3d lidar point clouds,

    Y . Zhang, Q. Hu, G. Xu, Y . Ma, J. Wan, and Y . Guo, “Not all points are equal: Learning highly efficient point-based detectors for 3d lidar point clouds,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 18 953–18 962

    2022

  17. [25]

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

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

    2020

  18. [26]

    Pv-rcnn++: Point-voxel feature set abstraction with local vector representation for 3d object detection,

    S. Shi, L. Jiang, J. Deng, Z. Wang, C. Guo, J. Shi, X. Wang, and H. Li, “Pv-rcnn++: Point-voxel feature set abstraction with local vector representation for 3d object detection,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 531–551, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Dpa-rcnn: Dual position aware 3d object detector for point cloud,

    Y . Jiang, Q. Xie, J. Li, J. Xu, Y . Liu, and Y . Ma, “Dpa-rcnn: Dual position aware 3d object detector for point cloud,” in 2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–9

    2024

  20. [28]

    Full waveform lidar for adverse weather conditions,

    A. M. Wallace, A. Halimi, and G. S. Buller, “Full waveform lidar for adverse weather conditions,” IEEE transactions on vehicular technology, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 7064–7077, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

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

    J. Liu, Q. Zhao, W. Xiong, T. Huang, Q.-L. Han, and B. Zhu, “Smurf: Spatial multi-representation fusion for 3d object detection with 4d imaging radar,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 799–812, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Mvfan: Multi-view feature assisted network for 4d radar object detection,

    Q. Yan and Y . Wang, “Mvfan: Multi-view feature assisted network for 4d radar object detection,” in International Conference on Neural Information Processing. Springer, 2023, pp. 493–511

    2023

  23. [31]

    Mufasa: Multi-view fusion and adaptation network with spatial awareness for radar object detection,

    X. Peng, M. Tang, H. Sun, K. Bierzynski, L. Servadei, and R. Wille, “Mufasa: Multi-view fusion and adaptation network with spatial awareness for radar object detection,” in International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks . Springer, 2024, pp. 168–184

    2024

  24. [32]

    Sparsein- teraction: Sparse semantic guidance for radar and camera 3d object detection,

    S. Jiang, S. Xu, L. Liu, Z. Song, Y . Bo, Z.-X. Yang et al., “Sparsein- teraction: Sparse semantic guidance for radar and camera 3d object detection,” in ACM Multimedia 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Rectifying pseudo label learning via un- certainty estimation for domain adaptive semantic segmentation,

    Z. Zheng and Y . Yang, “Rectifying pseudo label learning via un- certainty estimation for domain adaptive semantic segmentation,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 129, no. 4, pp. 1106– 1120, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Augmenting 3d object detection through data uncertainty-driven auxiliary framework,

    J. Wang, S. Zhao, and S. Liang, “Augmenting 3d object detection through data uncertainty-driven auxiliary framework,” IEEE Transac- tions on Instrumentation and Measurement , 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Towards maximizing the rep- resentation gap between in-domain & out-of-distribution examples,

    J. Nandy, W. Hsu, and M. L. Lee, “Towards maximizing the rep- resentation gap between in-domain & out-of-distribution examples,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 9239– 9250, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Gradients as a measure of uncertainty in neural networks,

    J. Lee and G. AlRegib, “Gradients as a measure of uncertainty in neural networks,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 2020, pp. 2416–2420

    2020

  29. [37]

    Dropconnect is effective in modeling uncertainty of bayesian deep networks,

    A. Mobiny, P. Yuan, S. K. Moulik, N. Garg, C. C. Wu, and H. Van Nguyen, “Dropconnect is effective in modeling uncertainty of bayesian deep networks,” Scientific reports, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 5458, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Pasco: Urban 3d panoptic scene completion with uncertainty awareness,

    A.-Q. Cao, A. Dai, and R. de Charette, “Pasco: Urban 3d panoptic scene completion with uncertainty awareness,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 14 554–14 564

    2024

  31. [39]

    Uncertainty-aware ab3dmot by vari- ational 3d object detection,

    I. Oleksiienko and A. Iosifidis, “Uncertainty-aware ab3dmot by vari- ational 3d object detection,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , 2024, pp. 3389–3395

    2024

  32. [40]

    Spsnet: Boosting 3d point-based object detectors with stable point sampling,

    A. Liang, H. Zhang, H. Hua, W. Chen, and H. Zhao, “Spsnet: Boosting 3d point-based object detectors with stable point sampling,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 126, p. 106807, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Glenet: Boosting 3d object detectors with generative label uncertainty estimation,

    Y . Zhang, Q. Zhang, Z. Zhu, J. Hou, and Y . Yuan, “Glenet: Boosting 3d object detectors with generative label uncertainty estimation,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 131, no. 12, pp. 3332– 3352, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Uncertainty-encoded multi-modal fusion for robust object detection in autonomous driving,

    Y . Lou, Q. Song, Q. Xu, R. Tan, and J. Wang, “Uncertainty-encoded multi-modal fusion for robust object detection in autonomous driving,” in ECAI 2023. IOS Press, 2023, pp. 1593–1600

    2023

  35. [43]

    Cocoon: Robust multi-modal perception with uncertainty- aware sensor fusion,

    M. Cho, Y . Cao, J. Sun, Q. Zhang, M. Pavone, J. J. Park, H. Yang, and Z. M. Mao, “Cocoon: Robust multi-modal perception with uncertainty- aware sensor fusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12592 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

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

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

    2017

  37. [45]

    Harnessing uncertainty- aware bounding boxes for unsupervised 3d object detection,

    R. Zhang, H. Zhang, H. Yu, and Z. Zheng, “Harnessing uncertainty- aware bounding boxes for unsupervised 3d object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00619, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The hungarian method for the assignment problem,

    H. W. Kuhn, “The hungarian method for the assignment problem,” Naval research logistics quarterly , vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 83–97, 1955

    1955

  39. [47]

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

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

    2020

  40. [48]

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

    W. Xiong, J. Liu, T. Huang, Q.-L. Han, Y . Xia, and B. Zhu, “Lxl: Lidar excluded lean 3d object detection with 4d imaging radar and camera fusion,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 79–92, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s- eye view representation,

    Z. Liu, H. Tang, A. Amini, X. Yang, H. Mao, D. L. Rus, and S. Han, “Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s- eye view representation,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 2774–2781

    2023

  42. [50]

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

    L. Zheng, S. Li, B. Tan, L. Yang, S. Chen, L. Huang, J. Bai, X. Zhu, and Z. 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 , vol. 72, pp. 1–14, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Rcbevdet: Radar-camera fusion in bird’s eye view for 3d object detection,

    Z. Lin, Z. Liu, Z. Xia, X. Wang, Y . Wang, S. Qi, Y . Dong, N. Dong, L. Zhang, and C. Zhu, “Rcbevdet: Radar-camera fusion in bird’s eye view for 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 14 928–14 937

    2024

  44. [52]

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

    W. Xiong, J. Liu, T. Huang, Q.-L. Han, Y . Xia, and B. Zhu, “Lxl: Lidar excluded lean 3d object detection with 4d imaging radar and camera fusion,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Radarocc: Robust 3d occupancy prediction with 4d imaging radar,

    F. Ding, X. Wen, Y . Zhu, Y . Li, and C. X. Lu, “Radarocc: Robust 3d occupancy prediction with 4d imaging radar,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 37, pp. 101 589–101 617, 2025

    2025

  46. [54]

    Sgdet3d: Semantics and geometry fusion for 3d object detection using 4d radar and camera,

    X. Bai, Z. Yu, L. Zheng, X. Zhang, Z. Zhou, X. Zhang, F. Wang, J. Bai, and H.-L. Shen, “Sgdet3d: Semantics and geometry fusion for 3d object detection using 4d radar and camera,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 828–835, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.