2020
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2008.08766
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deformable PV-RCNN: Improving 3D Object Detection with Learned Deformations

Prarthana Bhattacharyya,
Krzysztof Czarnecki
Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As shown in the table, our model ranks the 1 st place among all state-of-the-art methods for both 3D and BEV detections in all three difficulty levels. Also, the inference speed of our model ranks the 2 nd place among all methods, about 2.6 times faster than the latest best two-stage detector Deformable PV-RCNN [1]. In 3D detection, our one-stage model attains a significant improvement of 1.1 points on moderate AP compared with PV-RCNN [1] and Deformable PV-RCNN [23].…”
Section: Comparison With State-of-the-artsmentioning
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As shown in the table, our model ranks the 1 st place among all state-of-the-art methods for both 3D and BEV detections in all three difficulty levels. Also, the inference speed of our model ranks the 2 nd place among all methods, about 2.6 times faster than the latest best two-stage detector Deformable PV-RCNN [1]. In 3D detection, our one-stage model attains a significant improvement of 1.1 points on moderate AP compared with PV-RCNN [1] and Deformable PV-RCNN [23].…”
Section: Comparison With State-of-the-artsmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…For example, the series of works [24,4,25,23] focus on improving the region-proposal-aligned features for a better refinement with a second-stage network. Also, many methods [3,10,29,12,33,19] try to extract more discrimina- 1 On the date of CVPR deadline, i.e., Nov 16, 2020 Our SE-SSD attains top precisions on both 3D and BEV car detection in KITTI benchmark [6] with real-time speed (30.56 ms), clearly outperforming all state-of-the-art detectors. Please refer to Table 1 for a detailed comparison with more methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The voxel-based methods with predefined anchors have faster processing speed and can generate proposals with a higher recall rate, while the point-based methods can provide precise location information. In recent years, some methods have been proposed to fuse the advantages of voxel and point processing at the same time [2,23,28,29]. PV-RCNN [28] is a representative work among them, and its performance has reached the state of the arts, but due to the introduction of complex point operations, it cannot meet the real-time requirements (10 fps).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are two main differences between them: (1) PV-RCNN has a point branch to get the point features and an extra loss for the foreground point segmentation task, while Voxel-RCNN doesn't have them. (2) The features used for RoI pooling are different. Voxel-RCNN pooling features from the 3D voxel backbone while PV-RCNN pooling features from weighted point features from the point branch.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation