Provisioning Robust and Efficient LiDAR Perception for Autonomous Driving
Authors: Tingxu Han, Zijie Shen, An Guo, Lyuke Wang, Chunrong Fang, Zhenyu Chen, Wei Song
Organizations: State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China. · Department of Computing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China · School of Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China · Information and Communication Technology School, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4215, Australia
LiDAR-based 3D object detection is a core perception service for autonomous driving, but deployment requires robustness to point-cloud corruption while meeting latency and memory requirements. Existing approaches address robustness and resource efficiency separately, resulting in compact detectors that are fragile under corruption or robust detectors that remain costly to deploy. We therefore formulate LiDAR perception provisioning as constructing a detector that remains accurate under point-cloud corruptions while meeting constraints on inference latency and peak GPU memory. To achieve robustness, we first craft corrupted samples that mimic extreme weather conditions. Then we train candidate detectors offline by ordering clean and corrupted samples by perturbation sensitivity, through which detectors learn more from hard corrupted samples. We estimate perturbation sensitivity using an ensemble of seven heterogeneous 3D detectors by tracking changes in confidence, BEV overlap, and unmatched detections. To improve efficiency, we narrow the network and use offline neighborhood-density measurements to determine how many points and neighbors each sampling stage processes. We evaluate our method using AP (Average Precision) under clean and corrupted conditions, inference latency, and peak allocated GPU memory. On KITTI for Car detection with PointRCNN, our method improves Moderate AP under corruption by 3.32 points over the original detector while reducing mean latency by 19.8% and peak allocated GPU memory by 53.9%. Across two datasets, two detector architectures, and three object classes, our method improves AP under corruption by 4.03 points on average over the corresponding original detectors, while reducing mean inference latency and peak allocated GPU memory by 14.4% and 38.0%, respectively. Our code is available at https://github.com/drunklibai/robust-efficient-lidar-perception.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Offline profile-construction pipeline. Paired clean and corrupted point clouds are scored by an ensemble reference for clean-versus-corrupted prediction inconsistency. The reordered training data are combined with a density-guided sampling-budget allocation to train a compact detector.
Fig. 2: Case study of perturbation sensitivity. We compare ensemble predictions on an original point cloud and its corrupted version. Differences in false predictions, confidence scores, missing detections, and object locations are combined into a frame-level sensitivity score. A higher score indicates a harder sample that appears later in the prioritized training order.
Class
Method
KITTI Moderate
ONCE Range Avg.
Clean
Corr.
Clean
Corr.
PointRCNN
Car
Original
80.65
61.03
43.78
25.02
Net. Slim.
77.79
56.78
42.95
30.37
Ours
80.04
64.35
43.47
32.20
Pedestrian
Original
54.81
43.86
4.95
4.19
TABLE I: Detection Accuracy across Datasets, Detectors, and Classes
KITTI
ONCE
Detector
Method
Clean
Corrupted
Clean
Corrupted
Easy
Moderate
Hard
Easy
Moderate
Hard
0–30m
30–50m
> 50m
0–30m
30–50m
> 50m
PointRCNN
Original
91.62
80.65
78.07
77.08
61.03
56.90
73.83
39.83
17.68
49.60
17.85
7.62
Retrain
88.71
80.01
77.35
82.13
64.73
60.08
73.21
39.80
17.44
64.55
24.31
7.74
GMP
74.02
62.84
60.37
62.53
49.16
43.84
57.34
27.63
12.65
45.92
16.46
5.52
LTH/IMP
89.11
77.85
75.15
79.56
62.31
57.72
70.96
37.13
14.62
60.02
21.83
5.31
TABLE II: Car Detection Accuracy on Clean and Corrupted Data
KITTI
ONCE
Detector
Method
Mean latency
p95 latency
Peak memory
Mean latency
p95 latency
Peak memory
PointRCNN
Original
47.96/48.88
49.27/50.79
408.1/407.7
669.30/670.48
677.65/695.51
633.3/633.3
Retrain
46.92/46.91
48.71/48.74
408.1/407.7
669.17/670.52
677.04/696.29
633.3/633.3
GMP
47.03/47.65
48.74/49.97
440.4/440.4
669.92/670.40
677.27/687.38
666.0/666.0
LTH/IMP
47.50/47.59
50.03/49.77
440.4/440.4
669.80/670.23
677.86/678.99
666.0/666.0
Net. Slim.
45.55/45.82
47.56/48.34
331.4/331.4
666.93/666.26
675.05/673.82
468.8/468.8
TABLE III: Inference Latency and Peak Allocated GPU Memory on the RTX 4090D
Clean
Corrupted
Training order
E
M
H
E
M
H
Random order
88.05
79.59
77.06
82.07
64.86
61.98
Confidence-based
89.32
80.66
77.96
81.86
66.58
62.20
Perturbation-sensitivity
91.27
82.12
79.50
84.42
67.12
62.52
TABLE IV: Effect of Training Order on KITTI Car with Full-Size PointRCNN (AP R40 , IoU 0.7)
Lidar-based 3D object detection locates and classifies objects in point clouds, supporting perception for autonomous vehicles, robots, and other mobile systems.