Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

MoRAL: Motion-aware Multi-Frame 4D Radar and LiDAR Fusion for Robust 3D Object Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 MoRAL shows that compensating moving-object drift in accumulated 4D radar point clouds, then gating LiDAR features with radar motion, yields the best reported 3D detection on the View-of-Delft benchmark.

desk verdict A genuinely new multi-frame radar motion-compensation idea that reports SOTA on VoD, but the mechanism only corrects radial motion and the paper's own limitation undercuts its headline pedestrian/cyclist gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09422 v1 pith:VPBIKOFO submitted 2025-05-14 cs.CV

Xiangyuan Peng , Yu Wang , Miao Tang , Bierzynski Kay , Lorenzo Servadei , Robert Wille This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 4DradarLiDARfusionmulti-framepointcloudaccumulationmotioncompensationmovingobjectsegmentation3DdetectionautonomousdrivingView-of-Delft
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

MoRAL claims that the inter-frame "tail" artifacts in accumulated 4D radar point clouds, where moving objects get stretched along their direction of travel, can be removed by explicitly segmenting moving points and shifting them back to the target frame using each point's absolute radial velocity. The paper further claims that the resulting radar motion features can be injected into a LiDAR branch through a gated attention mechanism, making LiDAR features concentrate on dynamic foreground objects. On the View-of-Delft dataset, this combination reaches 73.30% mean average precision in the whole area and 88.68% in the driving corridor, with the largest gains on pedestrians and cyclists, which are usually in motion. If correct, these results imply that multi-frame radar accumulation for autonomous driving should treat object motion as first-class information rather than as noise.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the motion-compensation update in Equation 3: $\tilde{p}_i^{f_t}=p_i^{f_s}+M_i^{pred}\,\tau\,(f_t-f_s)\,v_{a,i}^{f_s}$, where $M_i^{pred}$ is a moving-object segmentation (MOS) mask classifying each radar point as moving or static, $\tau$ is the radar sampling frequency, and $v_{a,i}^{f_s}$ is the absolute radial velocity vector. This equation carries the argument by converting the radar's Doppler velocity, normally used only as a feature, into a spatial correction that removes inter-frame drift. A second mechanism is the Motion Attention Gated Fusion (MAGF) module, which combines multi-scale radar motion features $F_{sa}$ and $F_{fp}$ into a gating map $G=\sigma(\mathrm{Conv}(\mathrm{Concat}(F'_L,F^{\mathrm{motion}}_R)))$ and applies $F^{\mathrm{enhanced}}_L = F'_L\odot G + F'_L$ to reweight LiDAR features toward dynamic foreground regions.

What would settle it

Compare MoRAL with and without the motion-compensation module on a subset of View-of-Delft objects whose motion is mostly tangential to the radar, meaning their radial velocity is near zero. If detection AP is unchanged on that subset, or if the point-cloud stretch artifact remains visible after compensation, then the central claim that object-motion compensation removes inter-frame misalignment would be falsified for that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the "tail" artifact in multi-frame 4D radar point clouds, caused by dynamic objects moving between frames during accumulation, can be corrected point-by-point without tracking. MoRAL's Motion-aware Radar Encoder uses a learned moving-object segmentation head on velocity-enhanced radar points to predict a per-point motion mask, then translates each moving point from its source frame to the target frame by adding the product of the mask, the radar sampling interval, and the absolute radial velocity vector along the radial unit direction, as stated in Equation 3. The compensated radar clouds feed a sparse encoder, while radar motion features from the same segmentation extractor are pooled and fused through a gating map that rescales LiDAR features, so LiDAR attends to dynamic foreground. The paper reports that this design outperforms prior radar-LiDAR fusion methods on the View-of-Delft validation set, with the largest margins for pedestrians and cyclists.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a moving radar point's absolute radial velocity vector points along its true direction of travel, so the compensation shifts points only along the radar line of sight and leaves tangentially moving objects largely uncorrected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-frame radar accumulation pipelines should compensate object motion, not only ego-motion: MoRAL's ablations show that 5-frame radar with compensation beats 1-frame radar by 2.04 mAP in the whole area and 2.88 mAP in the driving corridor for radar-LiDAR fusion.
  • Radar Doppler velocity can serve as a spatial correction signal, not just an input feature, because Equation 3 turns radial velocity into a per-point translation that reduces shape distortion.
  • Fusing radar motion features into LiDAR features through the gating map improves detection of small, usually moving classes: pedestrian AP rises to 69.67% and cyclist corridor AP to 96.25%.
  • The method runs at 15.22 FPS, so the added motion-compensation and gating modules do not prevent real-time deployment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same radial-velocity compensation could be combined with ego-motion compensation and tracking-based direction estimates to handle tangential motion; the paper's own discussion suggests estimating the real moving direction from LiDAR sequences before the radar encoder.
  • The motion-gating idea may transfer to camera-LiDAR fusion or to radar-only detection, since the underlying need, highlighting dynamic foreground in sparse point clouds, is not specific to LiDAR features.
  • A testable extension is to apply MoRAL on highway scenes or intersections with crossing traffic, where tangential motion is common; the predicted pattern is that gains concentrate on objects with nonzero radial velocity.
  • Because the MOS labels in View-of-Delft are object-level and approximate, the point-level mask quality likely sets the ceiling for compensation; enforcing temporal consistency of MOS predictions could further lift performance.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MoRAL, a 4D radar and LiDAR fusion framework for 3D object detection. It introduces a Motion-aware Radar Encoder (MRE) that uses a learned moving-object-segmentation head to predict per-point motion status and then shifts moving radar points along the radial direction before multi-frame accumulation, and a Motion Attention Gated Fusion (MAGF) module that uses radar motion features to gate LiDAR spatial features. Experiments on the View-of-Delft validation set report state-of-the-art mAP of 73.30% in the entire area and 88.68% in the driving corridor, with best AP for pedestrians (69.67%) and cyclists (96.25% in the corridor), and a real-time inference speed of 15.22 FPS. The central empirical claim is that dynamic-object motion compensation and motion-guided fusion improve detection performance, especially for moving pedestrians and cyclists.

Significance. If the claimed mechanism were fully supported, the paper would make a useful contribution: it identifies an artifact specific to multi-frame 4D radar accumulation, the inter-frame "tail," and provides a practical, real-time architecture that exploits Doppler-derived motion information. The strengths include extensive comparisons against many single- and multi-modal baselines, ablation of the two proposed modules, sensitivity analysis of the motion parameter, and frame-accumulation studies. The central weakness is that the experiments do not isolate the geometric compensation from the motion-feature pathway, and the paper's own Section V admits that the compensation is ineffective for objects with near-zero radial velocity, which is precisely the crossing/tangential-motion case common among pedestrians and cyclists. The state-of-the-art claim is therefore plausible but not yet fully demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B, Section V, Eq. (3)] The paper attributes the pedestrian and cyclist improvements to MRE motion compensation because "the majority of these two categories in the VoD dataset are in motion" (Section IV-B), but Eq. (3) shifts points only along the radial direction, and Section V concedes that compensation "becomes less effective for objects moving tangentially, whose radial velocity is zero." Since urban pedestrians and cyclists frequently cross the ego vehicle's path, this is not an edge case for the headline categories. Please provide quantitative evidence, such as per-motion-direction analysis, per-object-trajectory analysis, or a version in which the true moving direction is estimated from LiDAR sequences, that the observed gains actually come from the radial compensation; alternatively, revise the attribution of the gains accordingly.
  2. [Table II] Table II cannot isolate the effect of the geometric shift in Eq. (3). The MRE-only row changes both the learned MOS predictions and the point positions, while the MAGF-only row still supplies radar motion features to the fusion. A proper ablation should include an MRE variant in which the predicted mask is computed but no position shift is applied (i.e., the shift term in Eq. (3) is disabled), so that the only difference is the geometric compensation. Without this control, the claimed causal role of motion compensation in the mAP gains is not established.
  3. [Table I] Several strong baselines in Table I are marked with a dagger (reproduced results), but the manuscript does not report the reproduction settings, training schedules, data augmentation, or code versions used for those runs. Because several reproduced numbers differ from the original papers (e.g., PV-RCNN, MVFAN, MUFASA) and the reported margins over RLNet and L4DR are small (0.49 and 0.60 mAP in the entire area, respectively), the claim of outperforming existing methods is difficult to verify without multi-seed statistics or at least exact reproduction configurations.
  4. [Section IV-A and Table V] The motion threshold alpha is tuned on the validation set (Table V) and the final evaluation is conducted on the same validation set, since the VoD test server is unavailable. This creates a mild selection-on-evaluation bias. Please state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, hold out a portion of the data for final evaluation or report cross-validated results; this is especially relevant because the alpha=0.7 row already shows a 0.87 mAP drop in the entire area relative to alpha=0.5.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] Equation (2) uses v_{a,i} on both sides with different meanings (scalar and vector); please use distinct symbols or boldface to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section IV-C] The text in Section IV-C refers to the "motion parameter a," while Table V uses alpha; please unify the notation.
  3. [Fig. 4] The numbered components (1-4) in Fig. 4 are not referenced in the text; please add explicit references to these components when describing the MRE architecture.
  4. [References] PointPillars is cited twice, as [18] and [45]; please merge the duplicate reference.
  5. [Table III caption] The sentence "Table III and IV shows" contains a subject-verb agreement error; please correct it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MoRAL's claims rest on module-level ablations and external VoD evaluation; the radial-velocity limitation and val-set tuning are correctness/methodology concerns, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than deductive. MRE (Sec. III-B, Eq. 3) shifts accumulated radar points by the measured absolute radial velocity, MAGF (Sec. III-C) gates LiDAR features with learned motion features, and the detection head is trained with supervised labels on VoD. No equation is defined in terms of the reported AP, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The one self-citation used as a factual premise, '[10]' for 'the majority of these two categories in the VoD dataset are in motion,' is an externally checkable dataset statistic and is not the source of the reported gains; Table II directly ablates MRE/MAGF. Section V explicitly concedes the limitation that radial-velocity compensation 'becomes less effective for objects moving tangentially, whose radial velocity is zero'; this undercuts the causal story for pedestrian/cyclist improvements but is a robustness/correctness issue, not circularity. The remaining concern is methodological: Table V selects alpha = 0.5 on the same validation set used for all reported results (Sec. IV-A), so the headline numbers carry validation-set-selection optimism. However, this is not a circular reduction of the method to its inputs; the modules and ablations stand independently of that selection.

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

The central result is an empirical performance gain on a public benchmark. It rests on the assumption that radial velocity captures object motion (the dominant limitation), on the quality of automatically generated MOS labels, and on the representativeness of the VoD validation set. The motion threshold alpha and the number of accumulated frames are hand-tuned on the validation set, so they are listed as free parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (motion threshold) = 0.5
    Threshold for classifying points as moving vs. static in MRE. Tuned on VoD validation set (Table V) with values 0.3, 0.5, 0.7; 0.5 gives highest mAP.
  • Number of accumulated radar frames = 5
    Selected after comparing 1, 3, and 5 frames in Tables III and IV; 5 frames yields the best mAP, so the choice is data-dependent.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Absolute radial velocity is a valid proxy for point motion direction along the radar line of sight.
    Used in Eq. (2)-(3) to compute displacement. Acknowledged in Section V to fail for tangential motion.
  • domain assumption MOS labels can be reliably generated from object-level motion annotations and the learned classifier generalizes.
    Section III-B: 'For training, MOS labels are generated based on object-level motion annotations.' No independent verification of MOS accuracy is provided.
  • domain assumption The VoD validation set is representative and evaluation on it reflects true performance.
    Section IV-A: 'Since the official test server is unavailable, all evaluations are conducted on the validation set.'
  • domain assumption The RANSAC-based ground removal does not significantly remove object points.
    A two-stage RANSAC filter is used for ground removal; no analysis of its effect on detection is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MoRAL: Motion-aware Multi-Frame 4D Radar and LiDAR Fusion for Robust 3D Object Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VPBIKOFO

@misc{pith2026250509422,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MoRAL: Motion-aware Multi-Frame 4D Radar and LiDAR Fusion for Robust 3D Object Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VPBIKOFO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09422}
}
read the original abstract

Reliable autonomous driving systems require accurate detection of traffic participants. To this end, multi-modal fusion has emerged as an effective strategy. In particular, 4D radar and LiDAR fusion methods based on multi-frame radar point clouds have demonstrated the effectiveness in bridging the point density gap. However, they often neglect radar point clouds' inter-frame misalignment caused by object movement during accumulation and do not fully exploit the object dynamic information from 4D radar. In this paper, we propose MoRAL, a motion-aware multi-frame 4D radar and LiDAR fusion framework for robust 3D object detection. First, a Motion-aware Radar Encoder (MRE) is designed to compensate for inter-frame radar misalignment from moving objects. Later, a Motion Attention Gated Fusion (MAGF) module integrate radar motion features to guide LiDAR features to focus on dynamic foreground objects. Extensive evaluations on the View-of-Delft (VoD) dataset demonstrate that MoRAL outperforms existing methods, achieving the highest mAP of 73.30% in the entire area and 88.68% in the driving corridor. Notably, our method also achieves the best AP of 69.67% for pedestrians in the entire area and 96.25% for cyclists in the driving corridor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09422 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of the ”tail” issue. Ground truth boxes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall structure of our MoRAL. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of segmentation results. (a) shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results comparing our method with MutualForce [10] and RLNet [11]. Green, yellow, and black boxes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A comprehensive study on the robustness of deep learning-based image classification and object detection in remote sensing: Surveying and benchmarking,

    S. Mei, J. Lian, X. Wang, Y . Su, M. Ma, and L.-P. Chau, “A comprehensive study on the robustness of deep learning-based image classification and object detection in remote sensing: Surveying and benchmarking,” Journal of Remote Sensing , vol. 4, p. 0219, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Navigating on adverse weather: Enhancing lidar-based detection with the dbspry dataset,

    D. W. Granado, H. D. Trevisol, T. Rothmeier, B. T. Nassu, and W. Huber, “Navigating on adverse weather: Enhancing lidar-based detection with the dbspry dataset,” in 2024 IEEE 27th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 4034–4039

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    Maff-net: Enhancing 3d object detection with 4d radar via multi-assist feature fusion,

    X. Bi, C. Weng, P. Tong, B. Fan, and A. Eichberge, “Maff-net: Enhancing 3d object detection with 4d radar via multi-assist feature fusion,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    V2x-r: Cooperative lidar-4d radar fusion for 3d object detection with denoising diffusion,

    X. Huang, J. Wang, Q. Xia, S. Chen, B. Yang, X. Li, C. Wang, and C. Wen, “V2x-r: Cooperative lidar-4d radar fusion for 3d object detection with denoising diffusion,” arXiv preprint:2411.08402, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Bsm-net: Multi-bandwidth, multi- scale and multi-modal fusion network for 3d object detection of 4d radar and lidar,

    J. Tiezhen, R. Kang, and Q. Li, “Bsm-net: Multi-bandwidth, multi- scale and multi-modal fusion network for 3d object detection of 4d radar and lidar,” Measurement Science and Technology , 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    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,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 4, 2025, pp. 3806–3814

    2025

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    Rlnet: Adaptive fusion of 4d radar and lidar for 3d object detection,

    R. Xu and Z. Xiang, “Rlnet: Adaptive fusion of 4d radar and lidar for 3d object detection,” in ROAM ECCV 2024, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Mppnet: Multi-frame feature intertwining with proxy points for 3d tempo- ral object detection,

    X. Chen, S. Shi, B. Zhu, K. C. Cheung, H. Xu, and H. Li, “Mppnet: Multi-frame feature intertwining with proxy points for 3d tempo- ral object detection,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 680–697

    2022

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    Detr3d: 3d object detection from multi-view images via 3d-to-2d queries,

    Y . Wang, V . C. Guizilini, T. Zhang, Y . Wang, H. Zhao, and J. Solomon, “Detr3d: 3d object detection from multi-view images via 3d-to-2d queries,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 180– 191

    2022

  7. [15]

    Ocbev: Object-centric bev transformer for multi-view 3d object detection,

    Z. Qi, J. Wang, X. Wu, and H. Zhao, “Ocbev: Object-centric bev transformer for multi-view 3d object detection,” in 2024 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1188–1197

    2024

  8. [16]

    Graph-detr4d: Spatio-temporal graph modeling for multi- view 3d object detection,

    Z. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Li, S. Zhang, L. Fang, Q. Jiang, F. Wu, and F. Zhao, “Graph-detr4d: Spatio-temporal graph modeling for multi- view 3d object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    V oxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection,

    Y . Zhou and O. Tuzel, “V oxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 4490–4499

    2018

  10. [19]

    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

  11. [20]

    Pp-ssd: Point painting single stage detector for 3d object detection,

    Y . Liu, H. Wang, H. Liu, and S. Chen, “Pp-ssd: Point painting single stage detector for 3d object detection,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Unmanned Systems (ICUS) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 478– 482

    2024

  12. [21]

    Ws-ssd: Achieving faster 3d object detection for autonomous driving via weighted point cloud sampling,

    X. Li, C. Wang, and Z. Zeng, “Ws-ssd: Achieving faster 3d object detection for autonomous driving via weighted point cloud sampling,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 249, p. 123805, 2024

    2024

  13. [22]

    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

  14. [23]

    Point-voxel feature set abstraction with hybrid cross feature fusion module for 3d object detection,

    G. Chen, Z. Li, S. Shao, T. Yuan, and Y . Zhou, “Point-voxel feature set abstraction with hybrid cross feature fusion module for 3d object detection,” in Proc. of SPIE Vol , vol. 13063, 2024, pp. 130 631R–1

    2024

  15. [24]

    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

  16. [25]

    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

  17. [26]

    Radarpil- lars: Efficient object detection from 4d radar point clouds,

    A. Musiat, L. Reichardt, M. Schulze, and O. Wasenm ¨uller, “Radarpil- lars: Efficient object detection from 4d radar point clouds,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05020, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [27]

    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

  19. [28]

    A comprehensive survey of machine learning techniques and models for object detection,

    M. Trigka and E. Dritsas, “A comprehensive survey of machine learning techniques and models for object detection,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 214, 2025

    2025

  20. [29]

    Snow-clocs: Camera-lidar object candidate fusion for 3d object detection in snowy conditions,

    X. Fan, D. Xiao, Q. Li, and R. Gong, “Snow-clocs: Camera-lidar object candidate fusion for 3d object detection in snowy conditions,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 13, p. 4158, 2024

    2024

  21. [30]

    Gafusion: Adaptive fusing lidar and camera with multiple guidance for 3d object detection,

    X. Li, B. Fan, J. Tian, and H. Fan, “Gafusion: Adaptive fusing lidar and camera with multiple guidance for 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 21 209–21 218

    2024

  22. [31]

    Sparselif: High- performance sparse lidar-camera fusion for 3d object detection,

    H. Zhang, L. Liang, P. Zeng, X. Song, and Z. Wang, “Sparselif: High- performance sparse lidar-camera fusion for 3d object detection,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 109– 128

    2024

  23. [32]

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

    L. Zheng, S. Li, B. Tan, L. Yang, S. Chen, L. Huang, J. Bai, X. Zhu, and Z. Ma, “Rcfusion: Fusing 4d radar and camera with bird’s- eye view features for 3d object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , 2023

    2023

  24. [33]

    Roburcdet: Enhancing robustness of radar-camera fusion in bird’s eye view for 3d object detection,

    J. Yue, Z. Lin, X. Lin, X. Zhou, X. Li, L. Qi, Y . Wang, and M.-H. Yang, “Roburcdet: Enhancing robustness of radar-camera fusion in bird’s eye view for 3d object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13071, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [35]

    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

  26. [36]

    Moving object segmentation in 3d lidar data: A learning-based approach exploiting sequential data,

    X. Chen, S. Li, B. Mersch, L. Wiesmann, J. Gall, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Moving object segmentation in 3d lidar data: A learning-based approach exploiting sequential data,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 6529–6536, 2021

    2021

  27. [37]

    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

  28. [38]

    Radarmoseve: A spatial-temporal transformer network for radar-only moving object segmentation and ego-velocity estimation,

    C. Pang, X. Chen, Y . Liu, H. Lu, and Y . Cheng, “Radarmoseve: A spatial-temporal transformer network for radar-only moving object segmentation and ego-velocity estimation,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 5, p. 4424–4432, Mar. 2024

    2024

  29. [39]

    Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,

    M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 381–395, 1981

    1981

  30. [40]

    3-d object detection for multiframe 4-d automotive millimeter-wave radar point cloud,

    B. Tan, Z. Ma, X. Zhu, S. Li, L. Zheng, S. Chen, L. Huang, and J. Bai, “3-d object detection for multiframe 4-d automotive millimeter-wave radar point cloud,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 11 125– 11 138, 2022

    2022

  31. [41]

    Lirafusion: Deep adaptive lidar-radar fusion for 3d object detection,

    J. Song, L. Zhao, and K. A. Skinner, “Lirafusion: Deep adaptive lidar-radar fusion for 3d object detection,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 18 250–18 257

    2024

  32. [42]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  33. [43]

    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

  34. [44]

    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

  35. [45]

    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

  36. [46]

    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

  37. [47]

    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

  38. [48]

    Maff-net: Enhancing 3d object detection with 4d radar via multi-assist feature fusion,

    X. Bi, C. Weng, P. Tong, B. Fan, and A. Eichberge, “Maff-net: Enhancing 3d object detection with 4d radar via multi-assist feature fusion,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 4284–4291, 2025

    2025

  39. [49]

    Dadan: Dynamic-augmented and density-aware network for accurate 3d object detection with 4d radar,

    X. Wang, J. Li, J. Wu, S. Wu, and L. Li, “Dadan: Dynamic-augmented and density-aware network for accurate 3d object detection with 4d radar,” IEEE Sensors Journal , 2025

    2025

  40. [50]

    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) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 2774–2781

    2023

  41. [51]

    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

  42. [52]

    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

  43. [53]

    Lxlv2: Enhanced lidar excluded lean 3d object detection with fusion of 4d radar and camera,

    W. Xiong, Z. Zou, Q. Zhao, F. He, and B. Zhu, “Lxlv2: Enhanced lidar excluded lean 3d object detection with fusion of 4d radar and camera,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2025

    2025

  44. [54]

    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 ...

    2022

  45. [55]

    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

Pith tools

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