Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

CaRaFFusion: Improving 2D Semantic Segmentation with Camera-Radar Point Cloud Fusion and Zero-Shot Image Inpainting

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 This paper shows that adding radar-prompted pseudo-masks and diffusion-based inpainting to a camera-radar segmentation pipeline improves adverse-weather mIoU by 2.63 points over a camera-only baseline.

desk verdict Plausible gain from a new three-stage pipeline, but the missing dual-encoder control means the inpainting contribution isn't established yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03679 v1 pith:QBD2HNHL submitted 2025-05-06 cs.CV

Huawei Sun , Bora Kunter Sahin , Georg Stettinger , Maximilian Bernhard , Matthias Schubert , Robert Wille This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semanticsegmentationcamera-radarfusionadverseweatherimageinpaintingdiffusionmodelSegmentAnythingpseudo-maskgenerationautonomousdriving
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

The paper tries to establish that semantic segmentation in adverse weather can be made substantially more robust by feeding radar point clouds into a camera-based segmentation network and then restoring lost visual details with a zero-shot image inpainting model. On the WaterScenes dataset, the proposed three-stage pipeline, CaRaFFusion, raises mIoU from 75.47% for a Segformer camera-only baseline to 78.10% on the adverse-weather subset, and from 76.62% to 78.10% over its own camera-radar fusion stage. The gain matters because camera-only models degrade exactly in rain, fog, strong light, and water droplets, while radar keeps detecting objects but lacks shape detail. The paper positions the combination of cross-attention fusion, radar-prompted Segment-Anything masks, a noise-reduction unit, and diffusion inpainting as a general recipe for sensor-fusion segmentation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the radar-prompted pseudo-mask plus diffusion-inpainting loop: radar points, projected onto the image plane, act as point prompts for MobileSAM, an instance segmenter; the resulting masks are denoised by subtracting the stage-1 model's background and waterline channels in the Noise Reduction Unit; and the denoised masks tell Stable Diffusion which image regions to regenerate. This converts sparse, noisy radar returns into a clean signal that tells the generative model where to restore objects hidden by weather. The final mask is produced by concatenating features from two Segformer encoders, one on the original image and one on the inpainted image, so the network can use both the degraded evidence and the reconstructed evidence.

What would settle it

Run the same pipeline on WaterScenes with radar heights randomly zeroed or jittered before projection; if the 2.63-point mIoU gain over the camera-only baseline persists, the height-dependence assumption is not load-bearing, and if the gain collapses, the central claim depends on accurate 3D radar projection rather than on the fusion-and-inpainting design.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CaRaFFusion is a three-stage framework for 2D semantic segmentation. Stage 1 fuses a Segformer image encoder with a PointNet radar encoder via cross-attention and simultaneously classifies radar points; the fused features yield an initial mask. Stage 2 projects radar points onto the image plane and feeds them as point prompts to MobileSAM to produce object masks, then a Noise Reduction Unit subtracts the stage-1 background and waterline channels from those masks and re-adds the initial segmentation, giving denoised pseudo-masks. Stage 3 lets Stable Diffusion inpaint the original image inside those pseudo-masks, encodes the inpainted and original images with separate Segformer encoders, concatenates their features, and decodes the final mask. On the adverse-weather WaterScenes subset, this yields 78.10% mIoU versus 75.47% for camera-only Segformer and 76.62% for the fusion stage; on the full test set, the fusion stage reaches 82.39% and the full pipeline 82.21%, both above the 81.12% camera-only baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that high-precision 3D radar points, with height, can be projected accurately onto the image plane and that the stage-1 background and waterline masks are reliable enough to denoise the Segment-Anything masks, since both projection errors and mask errors would corrupt the inpainted image and the final segmentation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gains hold, radar-prompted pseudo-masks let an instance segmenter like MobileSAM inject weather-invariant spatial evidence into segmentation without requiring radar-specific dense labels.
  • The Noise Reduction Unit shows that even a coarse semantic prior for background and waterline is enough to strip radar reflection noise from prompt-based masks.
  • The ablation gap between 78.10% with dual-stream fusion and 65.13% without it places most of the final gain on the concatenated original-plus-inpainted encoding, not on the inpainted image alone.
  • The stated requirement for high-precision 3D radar with height values implies the approach will not transfer as-is to radar datasets that only provide range and azimuth without height.
  • Because the diffusion model is invoked at inference with a 1290M-parameter Stable Diffusion, practical deployment depends on faster generative models or model distillation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to test whether the Noise Reduction Unit transfers to other sparse prompt sources, such as LiDAR point clouds or height-free radar, by replacing the background and waterline subtraction with whatever cheap semantic prior the target task already predicts.
  • The large no-fusion ablation drop suggests that most of the benefit could come from teaching the decoder to see both degraded and generated views; a lighter inpainting generator or even a learned image-restoration network might retain much of the gain at a fraction of the 1290M parameters.
  • If the gain is driven by recovering occluded object regions, a testable prediction is that per-class improvement should concentrate on objects that appear in radar but are heavily blurred or occluded in the camera image; this could be checked by stratifying mIoU by occlusion level.
  • The height requirement could be bypassed in future datasets by learning a projection or by working in bird's-eye view, which would let the same fusion-and-inpainting recipe run with standard automotive radars.
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 CaRaFFusion, a three-stage framework for 2D semantic segmentation on the WaterScenes dataset. Stage 1 fuses a Segformer image encoder with a PointNet radar encoder via cross-attention to produce a segmentation mask and radar point classifications. Stage 2 uses MobileSAM with radar points as point prompts to generate pseudo-masks, which are cleaned by a Noise Reduction Unit using the background and waterline channels of the stage-1 mask. Stage 3 uses Stable Diffusion to inpaint the masked regions and runs the original and inpainted images through two separate Segformer encoders before concatenation and decoding. The authors report that on the adverse-weather subset the final model reaches 78.10 mIoU versus 75.47 for the camera-only baseline and 76.62 for the stage-1 fusion model; on the full test set, however, it reaches 82.21 mIoU versus 82.39 for the stage-1 fusion model.

Significance. The problem of semantic segmentation under adverse weather for camera-radar fusion is practically important. The core idea of using radar points as point prompts for MobileSAM and then using the resulting masks to condition a diffusion inpainting model is novel and reasonable, and the paper includes useful ablations on point sampling and fusion operations. The authors also honestly state limitations regarding the requirement of high-precision 3D radar and inference efficiency. However, the central empirical claim is not yet established because the comparison between stage 1 and stage 3 changes both the inpainting branch and the encoder architecture simultaneously, and because the improvement disappears on the full test set. The paper would benefit from the missing control, repeated-seed statistics, and a clear statement that the claimed gains are confined to the adverse-weather subset.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B, Tables I and V] The central 1.48 mIoU improvement claimed for the inpainting stage is confounded by the switch from a single-encoder model to the two-encoder model. 'Segformer Fusion' (stage 1) uses one Segformer encoder, while 'Segformer Fusion + Inpainting' (stage 3) uses two distinct Segformer encoders whose features are concatenated before decoding; the ablation in Table V does not include the essential control of feeding the original image to both encoders in the same dual-encoder/concatenation architecture. The 'No Fusion' row at 65.13 mIoU is a single-encoder model trained on the inpainted image only, not the dual-encoder model without inpainting, so it does not isolate the contribution of the second encoder. Please run the dual-encoder control with the original image on both branches; if it matches 78.10, the inpainting contribution is not supported.
  2. [Section IV-B, Table II and Abstract] The improvement over the fusion baseline appears only on the adverse-weather subset: the full test set in Table II shows a slight degradation (82.21 vs 82.39 mIoU for Fusion+Inpainting vs Fusion). Since the abstract states the 1.48% improvement without noting this subset restriction, the paper overstates the general result. Moreover, no error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests are provided anywhere, so it is impossible to tell whether the adverse-subset gain of 1.48 points is meaningful; please add repeated-seed results or another significance assessment, and qualify the claim accordingly.
  3. [Section III-C, Equations (2)-(4)] The Noise Reduction Unit is under-specified: Step (2) defines Mdenoised := Msam - Mnoise, and Step (3) then overwrites Msam := ReLU(Mdenoised), after which Step (4) uses Msam in Mmerged := Msam + Minit. Reusing Msam for two different quantities makes the definition of Mmerged ambiguous, and the paper should use distinct symbols. In addition, because the NRU subtracts the stage-1 background and waterline predictions from the SAM mask, it inherits any errors from Minit; the paper reports no ablation that removes the NRU (e.g., using raw Msam masks in Stage 3), so the NRU's own contribution to the final numbers is currently unmeasured.
  4. [Section IV-D, Table V] The 'No Fusion' result of 65.13 mIoU is more than 10 points below the camera-only baseline of 75.47 on the same adverse-subset evaluation. This dramatic degradation suggests that either the inpainted images are not a useful input on their own, or the training/inference protocol for this ablation differs from that of the full model in an unstated way. Please describe how the 'No Fusion' model is trained (from scratch versus fine-tuned from the stage-3 model, and whether it sees only inpainted images or also the masks), because otherwise readers cannot interpret the ablation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The percentages '2.63%' and '1.48%' are absolute differences in mIoU; please phrase these as percentage points or mIoU points to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Section V] The framework name is spelled 'CaRaffusion' in Section V, inconsistent with 'CaRaFFusion' used elsewhere.
  3. [Table II] The metrics mIoUt and mIoUd in Table II are not defined in the text; please define them (target mIoU and drivable-area mIoU, presumably) in the caption or in Section IV-B.
  4. [Section III-D and Algorithm 1] The generation of the text prompts P_i from the predicted radar point classes is not specified; please state how class labels are mapped to prompts and how the per-mask prompts and masks M_i are derived from Mnr.
  5. [Section II-A3] The assertion that no existing research has explored radar point clouds for image-plane semantic segmentation is too strong given the cited SO-NET and other camera-radar fusion works; please soften this claim.
  6. [Section IV-A] The parameter counts in Table I are inconsistent with the architecture description: 'Segformer Fusion + Inpainting' is described as having two Segformer encoders but lists 4.3M params, the same as 'Segformer Fusion'. Please clarify whether the 4.3M excludes the second encoder, and count all trainable parameters of the final segmentation network.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the mIoU claims are external benchmark measurements; the inpainting ablation is confounded but not circular.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical mIoU measurements on the WaterScenes test set, not derivations from fitted parameters or equations that define the outcome. Stage 1 uses standard cross-attention fusion (Vaswani), stage 2 uses off-the-shelf MobileSAM with a hand-defined Noise Reduction Unit, and stage 3 uses Stable Diffusion inpainting with dual Segformer encoders. The reported gains (75.47 to 78.10 on the adverse-weather subset) are benchmark results, and no equation in the paper reduces the final mIoU to its inputs by construction. The NRU does reuse the stage-1 mask Minit to build Mnr, but this is a legitimate architectural reuse rather than a definitional equivalence: the final segmentation still processes the original and inpainted images and is evaluated against ground truth. Self-citations ([8], [9], [31]) support auxiliary design choices such as multitask learning and a gated-fusion ablation variant, but they are not load-bearing for the central claim, which is independently testable on the dataset. The most serious issue is an experimental confound, not circularity: Table V's 'No Fusion' control feeds only the inpainted image to a single encoder, so it cannot isolate the contribution of inpainting from the contribution of the second encoder or the original image; Table II also shows Fusion+Inpainting slightly below Fusion on the full test set. These are validity concerns about the ablation, but they do not constitute a circular derivation, and under the hard rules they do not raise the circularity score.

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

The central claim is an empirical measurement, so the ledger captures hand-selected hyperparameters and domain assumptions rather than fitted physical constants. The most load-bearing assumptions are the reliability of radar-to-image projection and the quality of the stage-1 background and water masks that drive the Noise Reduction Unit.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of sampled radar points = 1000
    Chosen from ablation (Table III) as best among 100, 200, and 1000; inputs with fewer than 1000 points are zero-padded.
  • Stage-3 fusion method = Concatenation
    Selected as best in Table IV (78.10 vs 77.13 for addition and 77.43 for gated fusion) on the same test set, which is model selection on the test data.
  • Focal loss gamma = 2
    Set to 2 following the focal loss paper (Lin et al. [39]); alpha_c is set according to class frequency.
  • Learning rate schedule = 5e-4 decaying to 1e-6
    AdamW optimizer with linear decay; a standard schedule that affects convergence and final performance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Radar points can be accurately projected from 3D world coordinates to 2D image coordinates, providing reliable prompts for MobileSAM.
    Section V states the framework requires high-precision 3D radar point clouds with height values; if the projection is inaccurate, the pseudo-masks and inpainted images degrade.
  • domain assumption The background and waterline masks from the stage-1 model are reliable enough to denoise the MobileSAM masks in the Noise Reduction Unit.
    Section III-C uses Minit's background and water channels to remove noise from Msam; errors in those channels propagate directly into the denoised mask.
  • domain assumption WaterScenes ground-truth labels and the adverse-weather subset are representative and correct.
    All quantitative claims rest on this dataset; no error bars, multiple splits, or independent verification are provided.
  • domain assumption Off-the-shelf MobileSAM and Stable Diffusion inpainting perform as expected when given radar-point prompts and denoised masks.
    The method treats these components as reliable building blocks without fine-tuning; if the prompts confuse MobileSAM or the masks mislead the inpainting model, the final output suffers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CaRaFFusion: Improving 2D Semantic Segmentation with Camera-Radar Point Cloud Fusion and Zero-Shot Image Inpainting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QBD2HNHL

@misc{pith2026250503679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CaRaFFusion: Improving 2D Semantic Segmentation with Camera-Radar Point Cloud Fusion and Zero-Shot Image Inpainting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QBD2HNHL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03679}
}
read the original abstract

Segmenting objects in an environment is a crucial task for autonomous driving and robotics, as it enables a better understanding of the surroundings of each agent. Although camera sensors provide rich visual details, they are vulnerable to adverse weather conditions. In contrast, radar sensors remain robust under such conditions, but often produce sparse and noisy data. Therefore, a promising approach is to fuse information from both sensors. In this work, we propose a novel framework to enhance camera-only baselines by integrating a diffusion model into a camera-radar fusion architecture. We leverage radar point features to create pseudo-masks using the Segment-Anything model, treating the projected radar points as point prompts. Additionally, we propose a noise reduction unit to denoise these pseudo-masks, which are further used to generate inpainted images that complete the missing information in the original images. Our method improves the camera-only segmentation baseline by 2.63% in mIoU and enhances our camera-radar fusion architecture by 1.48% in mIoU on the Waterscenes dataset. This demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach for semantic segmentation using camera-radar fusion under adverse weather conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03679 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our method can segment the objects in very adverse conditions where other methods fail. Abstract— Segmenting objects in an environment is a crucial task for autonomous driving and robotics, as it enables a better understanding of the surroundings of each agent. Although camera sensors provide rich visual details, they are vulnerable to adverse weather conditions. In contrast, radar sensors remain robust under such c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model Architecture: Our three-stage framework combines radar and camera data for robust segmentation, especially in challenging conditions. First, radar and image features are extracted and fused through cross-attention to produce an initial segmentation mask. To improve resilience, MobileSAM generates an additional mask using radar points as prompts, and the Noise Reduction Unit (NRU) refines this by filtering rada… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results show that our inpainting technique is likely addressing missing or occluded regions in the data. It helps to fill in parts of the objects or scenes that might otherwise go undetected, thereby boosting the model’s ability to achieve higher segmentation accuracy. Columns (a), (b), and (c) visualize the original image, the inpainted image, and the Ground Truth (GT) mask of the given image. Columns (… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Segformer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers,

    E. Xie, W. Wang, Z. Yu, A. Anandkumar, J. M. Alvarez, and P. Luo, “Segformer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers,” Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, vol. 34, pp. 12 077–12 090, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Bonnet: An open-source training and deployment framework for semantic segmentation in robotics using cnns,

    A. Milioto and C. Stachniss, “Bonnet: An open-source training and deployment framework for semantic segmentation in robotics using cnns,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2019, pp. 7094–7100

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, pro- ceedings, part III 18 . Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  4. [4]

    Radar-camera fusion for object detection and semantic segmentation in autonomous driving: A comprehensive review,

    S. Yao, R. Guan, X. Huang, Z. Li, X. Sha, Y . Yue, E. G. Lim, H. Seo, K. L. Man, X. Zhu et al., “Radar-camera fusion for object detection and semantic segmentation in autonomous driving: A comprehensive review,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Robust semantic segmentation in adverse weather conditions by means of sensor data fusion,

    A. Pfeuffer and K. Dietmayer, “Robust semantic segmentation in adverse weather conditions by means of sensor data fusion,” in 2019 22th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Crn: Camera radar net for accurate, robust, efficient 3d perception,

    Y . Kim, J. Shin, S. Kim, I.-J. Lee, J. W. Choi, and D. Kum, “Crn: Camera radar net for accurate, robust, efficient 3d perception,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), October 2023, pp. 17 615–17 626

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    Cafnet: A confidence-driven framework for radar camera depth estimation,

    H. Sun, H. Feng, J. Ott, L. Servadei, and R. Wille, “Cafnet: A confidence-driven framework for radar camera depth estimation,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2024, pp. 2734–2740

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Get- up: Geometric-aware depth estimation with radar points upsampling,

    H. Sun, Z. Wang, H. Feng, J. Ott, L. Servadei, and R. Wille, “Get- up: Geometric-aware depth estimation with radar points upsampling,” in 2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 2025, pp. 1850–1860

    2025

  2. [10]

    Radsegnet: A reliable approach to radar camera fusion,

    K. Bansal, K. Rungta, and D. Bharadia, “Radsegnet: A reliable approach to radar camera fusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03849 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bevcar: Camera-radar fusion for bev map and object segmentation,

    J. Schramm, N. V ¨odisch, K. Petek, B. R. Kiran, S. Yogamani, W. Burgard, and A. Valada, “Bevcar: Camera-radar fusion for bev map and object segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11761 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems , 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Faster segment anything: Towards lightweight sam for mobile applications,

    C. Zhang, D. Han, Y . Qiao, J. U. Kim, S.-H. Bae, S. Lee, and C. S. Hong, “Faster segment anything: Towards lightweight sam for mobile applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14289 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 10 684–10 695

    2022

  7. [15]

    Waterscenes: A multi-task 4d radar-camera fusion dataset and benchmarks for autonomous driving on water surfaces,

    S. Yao, R. Guan, Z. Wu, Y . Ni, Z. Huang, R. W. Liu, Y . Yue, W. Ding, E. G. Lim, H. Seo et al. , “Waterscenes: A multi-task 4d radar-camera fusion dataset and benchmarks for autonomous driving on water surfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,

    J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, “Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2015, pp. 3431–3440

    2015

  9. [17]

    Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation,

    V . Badrinarayanan, A. Kendall, and R. Cipolla, “Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 2481–2495, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Gated fully fusion for semantic segmentation,

    X. Li, H. Zhao, L. Han, Y . Tong, S. Tan, and K. Yang, “Gated fully fusion for semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 34, no. 07, 2020, pp. 11 418– 11 425

    2020

  11. [19]

    Bfmnet: Bilateral feature fusion network with multi-scale context aggregation for real-time semantic segmentation,

    J. Liu, F. Zhang, Z. Zhou, and J. Wang, “Bfmnet: Bilateral feature fusion network with multi-scale context aggregation for real-time semantic segmentation,” Neurocomputing, vol. 521, pp. 27–40, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Deep dual-resolution networks for real-time and accurate semantic segmentation of traffic scenes,

    H. Pan, Y . Hong, W. Sun, and Y . Jia, “Deep dual-resolution networks for real-time and accurate semantic segmentation of traffic scenes,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 3448–3460, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Segmenter: Trans- former for semantic segmentation,

    R. Strudel, R. Garcia, I. Laptev, and C. Schmid, “Segmenter: Trans- former for semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2021, pp. 7262–7272

    2021

  14. [22]

    Semantic segmentation in multiple adverse weather conditions with domain knowledge retention,

    X. Yang, W. Yan, Y . Yuan, M. B. Mi, and R. T. Tan, “Semantic segmentation in multiple adverse weather conditions with domain knowledge retention,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 7, 2024, pp. 6558–6566

    2024

  15. [23]

    Semantic segmentation under adverse conditions: a weather and nighttime-aware synthetic data-based approach,

    A. Kerim, F. Chamone, W. Ramos, L. S. Marcolino, E. R. Nascimento, and R. Jiang, “Semantic segmentation under adverse conditions: a weather and nighttime-aware synthetic data-based approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.05626, 2022

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Multi- view radar semantic segmentation,

    A. Ouaknine, A. Newson, P. P ´erez, F. Tupin, and J. Rebut, “Multi- view radar semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 15 671– 15 680

    2021

  17. [25]

    Transradar: Adaptive- directional transformer for real-time multi-view radar semantic seg- mentation,

    Y . Dalbah, J. Lahoud, and H. Cholakkal, “Transradar: Adaptive- directional transformer for real-time multi-view radar semantic seg- mentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2024, pp. 353–362

    2024

  18. [26]

    Gaussian radar transformer for semantic segmentation in noisy radar data,

    M. Zeller, J. Behley, M. Heidingsfeld, and C. Stachniss, “Gaussian radar transformer for semantic segmentation in noisy radar data,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 344–351, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    A novel method for improving point cloud accuracy in automotive radar object recognition,

    G. Lu, Z. He, S. Zhang, Y . Huang, Y . Zhong, Z. Li, and Y . Han, “A novel method for improving point cloud accuracy in automotive radar object recognition,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 78 538–78 548, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Radar instance transformer: Reliable moving instance segmentation in sparse radar point clouds,

    M. Zeller, V . S. Sandhu, B. Mersch, J. Behley, M. Heidingsfeld, and C. Stachniss, “Radar instance transformer: Reliable moving instance segmentation in sparse radar point clouds,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Automotive radar and camera fusion using generative adversarial networks,

    V . Lekic and Z. Babic, “Automotive radar and camera fusion using generative adversarial networks,” Computer Vision and Image Under- standing, vol. 184, pp. 1–8, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    So-net: Joint semantic segmentation and obstacle detection using deep fusion of monocular camera and radar,

    V . John, M. Nithilan, S. Mita, H. Tehrani, R. Sudheesh, and P. Lalu, “So-net: Joint semantic segmentation and obstacle detection using deep fusion of monocular camera and radar,” in Image and Video Technology: PSIVT 2019 International Workshops, Sydney, NSW, Aus- tralia, Nove...

    2019

  23. [31]

    Multi-task cross-modality attention-fusion for 2d object detection,

    H. Sun, H. Feng, G. Stettinger, L. Servadei, and R. Wille, “Multi-task cross-modality attention-fusion for 2d object detection,” in 2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 3619–3626

    2023

  24. [32]

    Achelous: A fast unified water-surface panoptic perception framework based on fusion of monocular camera and 4d mmwave radar,

    R. Guan, S. Yao, X. Zhu, K. L. Man, E. G. Lim, J. Smith, Y . Yue, and Y . Yue, “Achelous: A fast unified water-surface panoptic perception framework based on fusion of monocular camera and 4d mmwave radar,” in 2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportati...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Gmmseg: Gaussian mixture based generative semantic segmentation models,

    C. Liang, W. Wang, J. Miao, and Y . Yang, “Gmmseg: Gaussian mixture based generative semantic segmentation models,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 31 360–31 375, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Fiss gan: A generative adversarial network for foggy image semantic segmentation,

    K. Liu, Z. Ye, H. Guo, D. Cao, L. Chen, and F.-Y . Wang, “Fiss gan: A generative adversarial network for foggy image semantic segmentation,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica , vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 1428–1439, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Guidance and evaluation: Semantic-aware image inpainting for mixed scenes,

    L. Liao, J. Xiao, Z. Wang, C.-W. Lin, and S. Satoh, “Guidance and evaluation: Semantic-aware image inpainting for mixed scenes,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXVII 16 . Springer, 2020, pp. 683–700

    2020

  28. [36]

    Inpaint anything: Segment anything meets image inpainting,

    T. Yu, R. Feng, R. Feng, J. Liu, X. Jin, W. Zeng, and Z. Chen, “Inpaint anything: Segment anything meets image inpainting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06790, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo et al. , “Segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  30. [38]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 652–660

    2017

  31. [39]

    Focal loss for dense object detection,

    T.-Y . Lin, P. Goyal, R. B. Girshick, K. He, and P. Doll ´ar, “Focal loss for dense object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 42, pp. 318–327, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:206771220

    2017

  32. [40]

    Generalised dice overlap as a deep learning loss function for highly unbalanced segmentations,

    C. H. Sudre, W. Li, T. K. M. Vercauteren, S. Ourselin, and M. J. Cardoso, “Generalised dice overlap as a deep learning loss function for highly unbalanced segmentations,” Deep learning in medical image analysis and multimodal learning for clinical decision support : Third Inte...

    2017

  33. [41]

    Huggingface’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural lan- guage processing,

    T. Wolf, “Huggingface’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural lan- guage processing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771 , 2019

    1910 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Pytorch lightning,

    W. Falcon and T. P. L. team, “Pytorch lightning,” GitHub. Note: https://github.com/PyTorchLightning/pytorch-lightning, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization,

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

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge,

    M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, C. K. I. Williams, J. Winn, and A. Zisserman, “The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 303– 338, Jun. 2010

    2010

  37. [45]

    nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,

    H. Caesar, V . Bankiti, A. H. Lang, S. V ora, V . E. Liong, Q. Xu, A. Krishnan, Y . Pan, G. Baldan, and O. Beijbom, “nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 11 621–11 631

    2020

Pith tools

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