mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Systematic Evaluation of Depth Backbones and Semantic Cues for Monocular Pseudo-LiDAR 3D Detection

arXiv 2601.03617 ↗First posted 7 Jan 2026cs.CV cs.LG cs.ROcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Monocular 3D object detection offers a low-cost alternative to LiDAR, yet remains less accurate due to the difficulty of estimating metric depth from a single image. We systematically evaluate how depth backbones and feature engineering affect a monocular Pseudo-LiDAR pipeline on the KITTI validation split. Specifically, we compare NeWCRFs (supervised metric depth) against Depth Anything V2 Metric-Outdoor (Base) under an identical pseudo-LiDAR generation and PointRCNN detection protocol. NeWCRFs yields stronger downstream 3D detection, achieving 10.50% AP3D at IoU=0.7 on the Moderate split using grayscale intensity (Exp~2). We further test point-cloud augmentations using appearance cues (grayscale intensity) and semantic cues (instance segmentation confidence). Contrary to the expectation that semantics would substantially close the gap, these features provide only marginal gains, and mask-based sampling can degrade performance by removing contextual geometry. Finally, we report a depth-accuracy-versus-distance diagnostic using ground-truth 2D boxes (including Ped/Cyc), highlighting that coarse depth correctness does not fully predict strict 3D IoU. Overall, under an off-the-shelf LiDAR detector, depth-backbone choice and geometric fidelity dominate performance, outweighing secondary feature injection.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jan 2026.

Builds on

24 of 29 references.

References · 24

  1. 2017Mask R-CNNcited by 7,277
  2. 2024Depth Anything V2cited by 1,422
  3. 2024Depth Anything: Unleashing the Power of Large-Scale Unlabeled Datacited by 1,360
  4. 2019Objects as Pointscited by 1,175
  5. 2018PointRCNN: 3D Object Proposal Generation and Detection from Point Cloudcited by 941
  6. 2018Deep Ordinal Regression Network for Monocular Depth Estimationcited by 723
  7. 2018Pseudo-LiDAR from Visual Depth Estimation: Bridging the Gap in 3D Object Detection for Autonomous Drivingcited by 457
  8. 2019PointPainting: Sequential Fusion for 3D Object Detectioncited by 449
  9. 2021Categorical Depth Distribution Network for Monocular 3D Object Detectioncited by 327
  10. 2019M3D-RPN: Monocular 3D Region Proposal Network for Object Detectioncited by 252
  11. 2021Is Pseudo-Lidar needed for Monocular 3D Object detection?cited by 249
  12. 2019Disentangling Monocular 3D Object Detectioncited by 217
12 more
  1. 2019Pseudo-LiDAR++: Accurate Depth for 3D Object Detection in Autonomous Drivingcited by 188
  2. 2019Learning Depth-Guided Convolutions for Monocular 3D Object Detectioncited by 169
  3. 2020MonoPair: Monocular 3D Object Detection Using Pairwise Spatial Relationshipscited by 153
  4. 2022NeW CRFs: Neural Window Fully-connected CRFs for Monocular Depth Estimationcited by 153
  5. 2021Delving into Localization Errors for Monocular 3D Object Detectioncited by 140
  6. 2020Kinematic 3D Object Detection in Monocular Videocited by 116
  7. 2019Monocular 3D Object Detection with Pseudo-LiDAR Point Cloudcited by 113
  8. 2022MonoDTR: Monocular 3D Object Detection with Depth-Aware Transformercited by 109
  9. 2018MonoGRNet: A Geometric Reasoning Network for Monocular 3D Object Localizationcited by 84
  10. 2021MonoRUn: Monocular 3D Object Detection by Reconstruction and Uncertainty Propagationcited by 82
  11. 2021GrooMeD-NMS: Grouped Mathematically Differentiable NMS for Monocular 3D Object Detectioncited by 66
  12. 2023GUPNet++: Geometry Uncertainty Propagation Network for Monocular 3D Object Detectioncited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.