Cited by 82Autonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsAdvanced Vision and Imaging

Emerging trends in autonomous vehicle perception: Multimodal fusion for 3D object detection

Open access
Alaba, Simegnew Yihunie, Gurbuz, Ali C., Ball, John E.·2024·World Electric Vehicle Journal

Abstract

The pursuit of autonomous driving relies on developing perception systems capable of making accurate, robust, and rapid decisions to interpret the driving environment effectively. Object detection is crucial for understanding the environment at these systems’ core. While 2D object detection and classification have advanced significantly with the advent of deep learning (DL) in computer vision (CV) applications, they fall short in providing essential depth information, a key element in comprehending driving environments. Consequently, 3D object detection becomes a cornerstone for autonomous driving and robotics, offering precise estimations of object locations and enhancing environmental comprehension. The CV community’s growing interest in 3D object detection is fueled by the evolution of DL models, including Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Transformer networks. Despite these advancements, challenges such as varying object scales, limited 3D sensor data, and occlusions persist in 3D object detection. To address these challenges, researchers are exploring multimodal techniques that combine information from multiple sensors, such as cameras, radar, and LiDAR, to enhance the performance of perception systems. This survey provides an exhaustive review of multimodal fusion-based 3D object detection methods, focusing on CNN and Transformer-based models. It underscores the necessity of equipping fully autonomous vehicles with diverse sensors to ensure robust and reliable operation. The survey explores the advantages and drawbacks of cameras, LiDAR, and radar sensors. Additionally, it summarizes autonomy datasets and examines the latest advancements in multimodal fusion-based methods. The survey concludes by highlighting the ongoing challenges, open issues, and potential directions for future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/wevj15010020

Cites

168 of 168 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some recent surveys focus primarily on traditional perception tasks such as semantic segmentation or 3D object detection, lacking a systematic review of deep learning-driven cross-modal modeling.

    “Some surveys primarily focus on traditional perception tasks such as semantic segmentation [27] or 3D object detection [28], lacking a systematic review of deep learning-driven cross-modal modeling approaches.”

    From Multimodal fusion and vision–language models: A survey for robot vision (2026) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Abstract and Related Work sections identify this paper as a survey focused on 3D object detection, supporting the description attached to [28]. But the Abstract says it provides an exhaustive review of multimodal fusion methods focused on CNN- and Transformer-based models, and Section 4.2 reviews such methods in detail. The claim that it lacks a systematic review of deep-learning-driven cross-modal approaches is therefore not supported without a narrower qualification about scope. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Quigley, M.; Conley, K.; Gerkey, B.; Faust, J.; Foote, T.; Leibs, J.; Wheeler, R.; Ng, A.Y. ROS: An open-source Robot Operating System. In Proceedings of the ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software, Kobe, Japan, 12-17 May 2009; Volume 3, p. 5.
  2. Kesten, R.; Usman, M.; Houston, J.; Pandya, T.; Nadhamuni, K.; Ferreira, A.; Yuan, M.; Low, B.; Jain, A.; Ondruska, P.; et al. Lyft Level 5 Perception Dataset. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2006.14480. Available online: https://github.com/wenkaip-personal/pyromid_l5 prediction (accessed on 5 January 2024). · arXiv
  3. Chen, Y.; Kalantidis, Y.; Li, J.; Yan, S.; Feng, J. A 2 -nets: Double attention networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2018, 31, 350-359.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alaba, S. Y., Gurbuz, A. C., & Ball, J. E.
Affiliations
  • Mississippi State University (US)
  • Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, James Worth Bagley College of Engineering, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762, USA
Corresponding author
Alaba, Simegnew Yihunie
Venue
World Electric Vehicle Journal
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-01-07
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
20
ISSN
2032-6653 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390663385
Cited by
82
References
168
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 14
FWCI
8.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • World Electric Vehicle Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Vision and Imaging
Keywords
3D object detection, autonomous driving, multimodal fusion, sensor fusion, LiDAR, radar, camera, convolutional neural networks, transformer models, occlusion, object scale variation, autonomous driving datasets

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review