Xiaojun Wu

h-index17
2papers
1,242citations

2 Papers

26.5CVMay 21, 2025Code
iPad: Iterative Proposal-centric End-to-End Autonomous Driving

Ke Guo, Haochen Liu, Xiaojun Wu et al.

End-to-end (E2E) autonomous driving systems offer a promising alternative to traditional modular pipelines by reducing information loss and error accumulation, with significant potential to enhance both mobility and safety. However, most existing E2E approaches directly generate plans based on dense bird's-eye view (BEV) grid features, leading to inefficiency and limited planning awareness. To address these limitations, we propose iterative Proposal-centric autonomous driving (iPad), a novel framework that places proposals - a set of candidate future plans - at the center of feature extraction and auxiliary tasks. Central to iPad is ProFormer, a BEV encoder that iteratively refines proposals and their associated features through proposal-anchored attention, effectively fusing multi-view image data. Additionally, we introduce two lightweight, proposal-centric auxiliary tasks - mapping and prediction - that improve planning quality with minimal computational overhead. Extensive experiments on the NAVSIM and CARLA Bench2Drive benchmarks demonstrate that iPad achieves state-of-the-art performance while being significantly more efficient than prior leading methods.

0.9CVDec 21, 2019
Research on Clustering Performance of Sparse Subspace Clustering

Wen-Jin Fu, Xiao-Jun Wu, He-Feng Yin et al.

Recently, sparse subspace clustering has been a valid tool to deal with high-dimensional data. There are two essential steps in the framework of sparse subspace clustering. One is solving the coefficient matrix of data, and the other is constructing the affinity matrix from the coefficient matrix, which is applied to the spectral clustering. This paper investigates the factors which affect clustering performance from both clustering accuracy and stability of the approaches based on existing algorithms. We select four methods to solve the coefficient matrix and use four different ways to construct a similarity matrix for each coefficient matrix. Then we compare the clustering performance of different combinations on three datasets. The experimental results indicate that both the coefficient matrix and affinity matrix have a huge influence on clustering performance and how to develop a stable and valid algorithm still needs to be studied.