An Analysis and Benchmarking in Autoware.AI and OpenPCDet LiDAR-based 3D Object Detection Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) sensors are widely used in applications related to autonomous driving. The ability to scan and visualize the 3D surroundings of the vehicle as a point cloud is a particular strength of this sensor. Various different object detection models have been proposed to provide bounding box predictions given a point cloud. This thesis looks at two popular, open-source frameworks which provide solutions to this problem, Autoware.AI and OpenPCDet. \nThe Autoware.AI framework provides models which use hand-crafted, non-neural network based methods to solve LiDAR-based object detection, while the OpenPCDet framework provides models based on neural networks. In this thesis, these models are compared with each other on a custom labeled dataset. As expected, the results of this comparison show that the non-neural network based Autoware.AI models perform significantly worse than the neural network based OpenPCDet models. Additionally, it is shown that amongst the OpenPCDet models, PV-RCNN performs better for detecting vehicles, SECOND and PV-RCNN perform better for detecting pedestrians, and SECOND and Part-A^2 Free perform better for detecting cyclists.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".