Re-Evaluating LiDAR Scene Flow for Autonomous Driving
About
Popular benchmarks for self-supervised LiDAR scene flow (stereoKITTI, and FlyingThings3D) have unrealistic rates of dynamic motion, unrealistic correspondences, and unrealistic sampling patterns. As a result, progress on these benchmarks is misleading and may cause researchers to focus on the wrong problems. We evaluate a suite of top methods on a suite of real-world datasets (Argoverse 2.0, Waymo, and NuScenes) and report several conclusions. First, we find that performance on stereoKITTI is negatively correlated with performance on real-world data. Second, we find that one of this task's key components -- removing the dominant ego-motion -- is better solved by classic ICP than any tested method. Finally, we show that despite the emphasis placed on learning, most performance gains are caused by pre- and post-processing steps: piecewise-rigid refinement and ground removal. We demonstrate this through a baseline method that combines these processing steps with a learning-free test-time flow optimization. This baseline outperforms every evaluated method.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LiDAR Scene Flow Estimation | Argoverse v2 (val) | EPE (m) - Dynamic Foreground0.129 | 23 | |
| LiDAR Scene Flow Estimation | Waymo Open Dataset 1.0 (val) | Dynamic Foreground EPE (m)0.1081 | 21 | |
| Scene Flow Estimation | Waymo Open | Threeway EPE0.041 | 10 | |
| LiDAR Scene Flow Estimation | Argoverse Successive time steps v2 | EPE (Dynamic Foreground)0.1311 | 7 | |
| Scene Flow Estimation | Argoverse Dynamic Foreground v2 (test) | EPE (m)0.1311 | 7 | |
| Scene Flow Estimation | Argoverse Static Background v2 (test) | EPE (m)0.0213 | 7 | |
| Scene Flow Estimation | Argoverse Static Foreground v2 (test) | EPE (m)0.0261 | 7 | |
| Scene Flow Estimation | nuScenes v1.0-trainval (test) | Dynamic Foreground EPE (m)0.1571 | 6 |