Our new X account is live! Follow @wizwand_team for updates
WorkDL logo mark

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.

Nathaniel Chodosh, Deva Ramanan, Simon Lucey• 2023

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
LiDAR Scene Flow EstimationArgoverse v2 (val)
EPE (m) - Dynamic Foreground0.129
23
LiDAR Scene Flow EstimationWaymo Open Dataset 1.0 (val)
Dynamic Foreground EPE (m)0.1081
21
Scene Flow EstimationWaymo Open
Threeway EPE0.041
10
LiDAR Scene Flow EstimationArgoverse Successive time steps v2
EPE (Dynamic Foreground)0.1311
7
Scene Flow EstimationArgoverse Dynamic Foreground v2 (test)
EPE (m)0.1311
7
Scene Flow EstimationArgoverse Static Background v2 (test)
EPE (m)0.0213
7
Scene Flow EstimationArgoverse Static Foreground v2 (test)
EPE (m)0.0261
7
Scene Flow EstimationnuScenes v1.0-trainval (test)
Dynamic Foreground EPE (m)0.1571
6
Showing 8 of 8 rows

Other info

Follow for update