Object-Centric Stereo Matching for 3D Object Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safe autonomous driving requires reliable 3D object detection-determining the 6 DoF pose and dimensions of objects of interest. Using stereo cameras to solve this task is a cost-effective alternative to the widely used LiDAR sensor. The current state-of-the-art for stereo 3D object detection takes the existing PSMNet stereo matching network, with no modifications, and converts the estimated disparities into a 3D point cloud, and feeds this point cloud into a LiDAR-based 3D object detector. The issue with existing stereo matching networks is that they are designed for disparity estimation, not 3D object detection; the shape and accuracy of object point clouds are not the focus. Stereo matching networks commonly suffer from inaccurate depth estimates at object boundaries, which we define as streaking, because background and foreground points are jointly estimated. Existing networks also penalize disparity instead of the estimated position of object point clouds in their loss functions. We propose a novel 2D box association and object-centric stereo matching method that only estimates the disparities of the objects of interest to address these two issues. Our method achieves state-of-the-art results on the KITTI 3D and BEV benchmarks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".