Monocular 3D lane detection remains challenging due to depth ambiguity and weak geometric constraints. Mainstream methods rely on depth guidance, BEV projection, and anchor- or curve-based heads with simplified physical assumptions, remapping high-dimensional image features while only weakly encoding road geometry. Lacking an invariant geometric-topological coupling between lanes and the underlying road surface, 2D-to-3D lifting is ill-posed and brittle, often degenerating into concavities, bulges, and twists. To address this, we propose the Road-Manifold Assumption: the road is a smooth 2D manifold in R3, lanes are embedded 1D submanifolds, and sampled lane points are dense observations, thereby coupling metric and topology across surfaces, curves, and point sets. Building on this, we propose ReManNet, which first produces initial lane predictions with an image backbone and detection heads, then encodes geometry as Riemannian Gaussian descriptors on the symmetric positive-definite (SPD) manifold, and fuses these descriptors with visual features through a lightweight gate to maintain coherent 3D reasoning. We also propose the 3D Tunnel Lane IoU (3D-TLIoU) loss, a joint point-curve objective that computes slice-wise overlap of tubular neighborhoods along each lane to improve shape-level alignment. Extensive experiments on standard benchmarks demonstrate that ReManNet achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) or competitive results. On OpenLane, it improves F1 by +8.2% over the baseline and by +1.8% over the previous best, with scenario-level gains of up to +6.6%. The code will be publicly available at https://github.com/changehome717/ReManNet.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overall architecture of ReManNet. A backbone and transformer generate initial lane predictions. A position-weighted layer encodes spatial context, and a Riemannian manifold embedding layer maps the resulting features to SPD Gaussian descriptors. A gated visual-geometric fusion layer combines these descriptors with visual features to produce refined predictions. The entire network is trained end-to-end using our geometry-consistent 3D-TLIoU loss alongside standard regression and classification objectives.
Overall metrics
Scenario F1 (%)
Method
F1 (%) ↑
Cate Acc (%) ↑
Ex/N (m) ↓
Ex/F (m) ↓
Ez/N (m) ↓
Ez/F (m) ↓
Up & Down ↑
Curve ↑
Extreme Weather ↑
Night ↑
Intersection ↑
Merge & Split ↑
3D-LaneNet [ 17 ] [CVPR2019]
44.1
–
0.479
0.572
0.367
0.443
40.8
46.5
47.5
41.5
32.1
41.7
GenLaneNet [ 18 ] [ECCV2020]
32.3
–
0.591
0.684
0.411
0.521
25.4
33.5
28.1
18.7
21.4
31.0
PersFormer [ 9 ] [ECCV2022]
50.5
92.3
0.485
0.553
0.364
0.431
42.4
55.6
48.6
46.6
40.0
50.7
CurveFormer [ 4 ] [ICRA2023]
50.5
–
0.340
0.772
0.207
0.651
45.2
56.6
49.7
49.1
42.9
45.4
LATR [ 40 ] [ICCV2023]
61.9
92.0
0.219
0.259
0.075
0.104
55.2
68.2
57.1
55.4
52.3
61.5
Table 1: Comparison with SOTA methods on the OpenLane. The left block reports overall metrics: F1, category accuracy (Cate Acc), and mean x / z errors for the near (N) and far (F) ranges, denoted as Ex/N , Ex/F , Ez/N , and Ez/F . The right block reports scenario-wise F1. R18 and R50 denote ResNet-18 and ResNet-50 backbones; † indicates the baseline. The best results are shown in bold .
Method
Balanced Scenes
Rare Subset
Visual Variations
F1 (%) ↑
Ex/N↓
Ex/F↓
Ez/N↓
Ez/F↓
F1 (%) ↑
Ex/N↓
Ex/F↓
Ez/N↓
Ez/F↓
F1 (%) ↑
Ex/N↓
Ex/F↓
Ez/N↓
Ez/F↓
3DLaneNet [ 17 ] [CVPR2019]
86.4
0.068
0.477
0.015
0.202
72.0
0.166
0.855
0.039
0.521
72.5
0.115
0.601
0.032
0.230
GenLaneNet [ 18 ] [ECCV2020]
88.1
0.061
0.496
0.012
0.214
78.0
0.139
0.903
0.030
0.539
85.3
0.074
0.538
0.015
0.232
CLGo [ 36 ] [AAAI2022]
91.9
0.061
0.361
0.029
0.250
86.1
0.147
0.735
0.071
0.609
87.3
0.084
0.464
0.045
0.312
PersFormer [ 9 ] [ECCV2022]
92.9
0.054
0.356
0.010
0.234
87.5
0.107
0.782
0.024
0.602
89.6
0.074
0.430
0.015
0.266
GP [ 30 ] [CVPR2022]
91.9
0.049
0.387
0.008
0.213
83.7
0.126
0.903
0.023
0.625
89.9
0.060
0.446
0.011
0.235
Table 2: Comparison with SOTA methods on the ApolloSim. Results are reported on the Balanced , Rare , and Visual Variations subsets. Ex/N , Ex/F , Ez/N , and Ez/F denote mean x / z errors in the near (N) and far (F) ranges. R18 and R50 denote ResNet-18 and ResNet-50 backbones; † indicates the baseline. The best and competitive results are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively.