Organizations: Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA · University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA · Parsons Corporation, USA · Jacobs, USA · University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA · Neel-Schaffer, Inc., USA
Deep learning-based object detectors are fundamental to intelligent transportation systems, enabling traffic monitoring, vehicle analytics, and infrastructure management. However, achieving both fine-grained vehicle recognition and robust cross-city domain generalization remains challenging. We present the Domain-Robust Asymmetric Fusion Ensemble (DRAFE), which combines independently trained LW-DETR and RF-DETR detectors for cross-city fine-grained traffic object detection. DRAFE employs a two-stage training strategy that first pretrains complementary detectors on diverse public traffic datasets using pseudo-label expansion and human-in-the-loop annotation refinement, producing a curated corpus of 6,049 images and 203,619 annotations, before challenge-compliant fine-tuning on the Project Hafnia Track 6 dataset. At inference, DRAFE applies anchor-conditioned class-consistent matching, reliability-weighted coordinate fusion, agreement-aware confidence recalibration, and complementary hypothesis recovery. On AI City Challenge 2026 Track 6, DRAFE achieves 0.4022 mAP, ranks sixth among 25 participating teams, and improves by 0.0553 mAP over a preliminary ensemble evaluated under identical benchmark conditions.
Figures & tables
Detector
Role
Primary contribution
LW-DETR XLarge-A
Anchor
Dense, high-recall hypothesis set
LW-DETR XLarge-B
Support
Localization consensus and additional recall
RF-DETR Base
Support
Architecturally complementary detections
Table 1: Asymmetric role assignment of the constituent detectors.
Figure 1: Overview of the DRAFE training and inference framework. During challenge-specific training, each Hafnia managed experiment combines the platform-hosted dataset with a trainer package, execution command, and selected GPU configuration.
Component
Setting
Anchor detector
LW-DETR XLarge-A
Support detectors
LW-DETR XLarge-B; RF-DETR Base
Reliability weights
(0.42,0.32,0.26)
Class constraint
Exact class identity
Matching strategy
Greedy one-to-one matching
Fusion IoU threshold
0.55
Table 2: DRAFE inference configuration.
Model
Role
mAP
AP 50
AP 75
AP S
AP M
AP L
AR @1
AR @10
AR 100
AR S
AR M
AR L
Boxes/img
Preliminary ensemble
Comparison
0.3469
0.4732
0.3596
0.0515
0.1864
0.4800
0.2843
0.4227
0.4368
0.0840
0.2518
0.5779
300.00
LW-DETR XLarge-A
Anchor
0.3841
0.5253
0.3998
0.0557
0.2154
0.5276
0.4079
0.6467
0.6881
0.2323
0.4892
0.8193
300.00
LW-DETR XLarge-B
Homogeneous support
0.3822
0.5210
0.4051
0.0452
0.2015
0.5443
0.3957
0.6349
0.6709
0.2195
0.4571
0.8143
300.00
RF-DETR Base
Heterogeneous support
0.3836
0.5254
0.4048
0.0476
0.2070
0.5232
0.3868
0.5916
0.6169
0.1143
0.3820
0.7603
77.66
Table 3: Standalone and preliminary ensemble performance on the hidden test set.
Method
mAP
AP 50
AP 75
AP S
AP M
AP L
AR 100
Preliminary ensemble
0.3469
0.4732
0.3596
0.0515
0.1864
0.4800
0.4368
LW-X A
0.3841
0.5253
0.3998
0.0557
0.2154
0.5276
0.6881
DRAFE
0.4022
0.5333
0.4259
0.0571
0.2335
0.5460
0.6981
Difference from preliminary ensemble
+0.0553
+0.0601
+0.0663
+0.0056
+0.0471
+0.0660
+0.2613
Difference from LW-X A
+0.0181
+0.0080
+0.0261
+0.0014
+0.0181
+0.0184
+0.0100
Table 4: Full-test performance of the preliminary ensemble, strongest standalone component, and DRAFE.
Figure 2: Qualitative comparison of standalone detectors and DRAFE.
Configuration
mAP
AP 50
AP 75
AP S
AP M
AP L
AR 100
Three-model DRAFE
0.4074
0.5398
0.4312
0.0604
0.2312
0.5542
0.6968
Four-model support ensemble
0.4068
0.5379
0.4321
0.0584
0.2245
0.5528
0.6999
Table 5: Development-set ablation on ensemble size.
Rank
Team
mAP
AP 50
AP 75
AP S
AP M
AP L
1
SKKU-AL-T1
0.4753
0.6207
0.5031
0.0920
0.3041
0.6110
2
BIT-ODL
0.4281
0.5539
0.4568
0.0637
0.2639
0.5669
3
Remote Vibecoders from Chisinau
0.4176
0.5727
0.4521
0.0790
0.2739
0.5339
4
BK2TheFuture
0.4169
0.5289
0.4407
0.0591
0.2210
0.5548
5
S2 Detection
0.4114
0.5447
0.4414
0.0747
0.2596
0.5407
6
VisionOps/DRAFE
0.4022
0.5333
0.4259
0.0571
0.2335
0.5460
Table 6: AI City Challenge 2026 Track 6 leaderboard based on each team’s best reported full-test score.
Department of Computational and Data Sciences (CDS) Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India · Centre for Infrastructure, Sustainable Transportation & Urban Planning (CiSTUP) Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India · Center of Data for Public Good (CDPG) Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India +1