A Versatile Multi-View Framework for LiDAR-based 3D Object Detection with Guidance from Panoptic Segmentation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3D object detection using LiDAR data is an indispensable component for autonomous driving systems. Yet, only a few LiDAR-based 3D object detection methods leverage segmentation information to further guide the detection process. In this paper, we propose a novel multi-task framework that jointly performs 3D object detection and panoptic segmentation. In our method, the 3D object detection backbone in Bird’s-Eye-View (BEV) plane is augmented by the injection of Range-View (RV) feature maps from the 3D panoptic segmentation backbone. This enables the detection backbone to leverage multi-view information to address the shortcomings of each projection view. Furthermore, foreground semantic information is incorporated to ease the detection task by highlighting the locations of each object class in the feature maps. Finally, a new center density heatmap generated based on the instance-level information further guides the detection backbone by suggesting possible box center locations for objects. Our method works with any BEV-based 3D object detection method and, based on experiments on the nuScenes dataset, it provides significant performance gains. Notably, the proposed method based on a single-stage CenterPoint 3D object detection network achieve state-of-the-art performance on nuScenes 3D Detection Benchmark with 67.3 NDS.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it