BEV Perception Comparison

VAD (Voxel-based Detection End-to-End Vectorized Autonomous Driving via Probabilistic Planning)

VAD

PPGeo (Policy Pre-training for Autonomous Driving via Self-supervised Geometric Modeling)

PPGeo

BEV Detection

BEV Detection

BEV Fusion

BEV Fusion

Comparison of VAD, PPGeo, BEV Detection, and BEV Fusion

Feature / Aspect VAD (Voxel-based Detection) PPGeo (Point-Pillar + Geometry) BEV Detection (Bird’s Eye View) BEV Fusion (Multi-Modal BEV Fusion)
Input Type 3D voxels from LiDAR point cloud Point clouds projected onto pillars BEV projected images or LiDAR points Multi-modal: LiDAR + camera + radar
Representation 3D voxel grid 2D pseudo-image (pillar features) 2D BEV feature map 2D BEV feature map with fused modalities
Computational Cost High (3D convolutions) Moderate (2D convolutions) Low to moderate (2D CNN) High (fusion + multi-modal processing)
Spatial Resolution Good 3D spatial accuracy Limited by pillar size Good horizontal resolution, limited vertical High overall, retains vertical + semantic info
Detection Performance Strong for dense point clouds Efficient and competitive Efficient, good for overhead view Best accuracy, robust to occlusion
Use Cases 3D object detection in LiDAR Real-time LiDAR detection Autonomous driving, traffic analysis Autonomous driving, robust multi-sensor perception
Pros Accurate 3D localization Fast, lightweight Easy to integrate with planning Robust, handles occlusion and multi-modal info
Cons Computationally heavy Loss of fine 3D detail Limited vertical info More complex, high compute requirements

<
Previous Post
Driver monitoring system
>
Next Post
Building an End-to-End Autonomous Driving Stack