Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
CalibBEV introduces a novel Bird's Eye View (BEV) alignment method for calibrating LiDAR and camera data, unifying them into a shared 3D spatial representation. This approach employs domain-specific architectures to extract BEV features and utilizes a two-step alignment process that includes both implicit regression of a coarse calibration matrix and explicit feature alignment, guided by a contrastive loss for semantic consistency. The results show a substantial improvement in calibration accuracy, with reductions in Relative Rotation Error (RRE) and Relative Translation Error (RTE) by up to 91% on benchmark datasets like KITTI and nuScenes.
CalibBEV achieves unprecedented calibration accuracy, slashing relative errors by up to 91% compared to existing methods.
We present CalibBEV, a novel Bird's Eye View (BEV) alignment approach for LiDAR-camera calibration. Our method unifies LiDAR and camera data into a shared 3D spatial representation, enabling accurate and robust cross-modal calibration. CalibBEV extracts sensor-wise BEV features from each modality using domain-specific architectures and estimates the calibration matrix through a two-step alignment process. First, we perform an implicit alignment by regressing a coarse calibration matrix directly from the BEV features. To ease this alignment, we enforce semantic consistency between BEV representations across modalities using a contrastive loss inspired by CLIP, guiding both networks toward a unified feature space. In the second step, we leverage our BEV formulation to explicitly align the features of one modality with the other, refining the initial coarse estimate into a final, more accurate calibration matrix. CalibBEV significantly outperforms prior point-to-pixel matching methods, achieving state-of-the-art calibration accuracy. On the KITTI and nuScenes benchmarks, our method reduces the Relative Rotation Error (RRE) by 51% and 68%, and the Relative Translation Error (RTE) by 80% and 91%, respectively, compared to previous methods.