Distance-Aware DBSCAN–STM Pipeline with Centralized Point Augmentation for LiDAR-Based Pedestrian Candidate Generation
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper presents a non-learning-based, seed-dependent, semi-automatic pedestrian candidate generation pipeline for LiDAR point clouds. The proposed method is designed to support 3D annotation workflows by reducing irrelevant candidate clusters while improving the reliability of pedestrian candidate selection under distance-dependent point sparsity. The pipeline integrates distance-aware DBSCAN clustering, Single Template Matching (STM), and Centralized Point Augmentation (CPA). First, LiDAR points within the camera field of view are preprocessed, and pedestrian candidate clusters are generated using DBSCAN parameters configured according to distance intervals. Ground-snapping-based bounding-box refinement and height-based filtering are then applied to improve geometric consistency and reduce non-pedestrian candidates. In the second stage, STM compares PCA-aligned projected silhouettes of candidate clusters with a seed pedestrian template to suppress false positives. To address silhouette instability caused by sparse mid-range pedestrian points, CPA adds centroid-contracted points in the projection-relevant plane before template matching. Experiments on pedestrian-containing frames from the KITTI dataset show that STM improves precision from 27.6% to 60.5% and increases the F1-score from 36.8% to 51.4% compared with the initial DBSCAN-based candidate generation stage. The final CPA configuration improves recall from 44.7% to 46.7% and the overall F1-score from 51.4% to 52.1%, while revealing a precision–recall trade-off. Supplementary IoU analysis shows that the final DBSCAN–STM–CPA configuration maintains meaningful spatial overlap with pedestrian ground-truth boxes, achieving 88.9% at 3D IoU ≥ 0.10 and 81.6% at BEV IoU ≥ 0.25. Runtime analysis further shows that height-based filtering reduces the average per-frame processing time from 151.5 ms to 125.1 ms, while the final CPA configuration introduces only a small overhead, resulting in 126.2 ms per frame. These results demonstrate that the proposed DBSCAN–STM–CPA pipeline can provide reliable pedestrian candidates for semi-automatic 3D labeling without requiring class-specific detector training.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Robotics and Sensor-Based Localization · Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications · 3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Information Security Engineering, Sangmyung University, 31 Sangmyungdae-gil, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan-si 31066, Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of Korea
Department of General Education Center, Sangmyung University, 31 Sangmyungdae-gil, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan-si 31066, Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of Korea
Funding
Sangmyung University
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. Development Trends and Future Prospects of Autonomous Vehicles (Part 1: Technology and Systems)
2. Chen, J., Jia, K., and Wei, Z. (2025). Small but Mighty: A Lightweight Feature Enhancement Strategy for LiDAR Odometry in Challenging Environments. Remote Sens., 17.10.3390/rs17152656 ↗
3. Gupta, S., Kanjani, J., Li, M., Ferroni, F., Hays, J., Ramanan, D., and Kong, S. (2022). Far3Det: Towards Far-Field 3D Detection. arXiv.10.1109/WACV56688.2023.00076 ↗
4. Duan, Z., Shao, J., Zhang, M., Zhang, J., and Zhai, Z. (2024). A Small-Object-Detection Algorithm Based on LiDAR Point-Cloud Clustering for Autonomous Vehicles. Sensors, 24.10.3390/s24165423 ↗
5. Zhang, H., Yang, D., Yurtsever, E., Redmill, K.A., and Özgüner, Ü. (2021). Faraway-Frustum: Dealing with LiDAR Sparsity for 3D Object Detection Using Fusion. Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), IEEE.10.1109/ITSC48978.2021.9564990 ↗
6. Fürst, M., Wasenmüller, O., and Stricker, D. (2020). LRPD: Long Range 3D Pedestrian Detection Leveraging Specific Strengths of LiDAR and RGB. Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), IEEE.10.1109/ITSC45102.2020.9294537 ↗
7. An Efficient Semi-Automated Scheme for Infrastructure LiDAR Annotation10.1109/TITS.2024.3399708 ↗
8. labelCloud: A Lightweight Labeling Tool for Domain-Agnostic 3D Object Detection in Point Clouds10.14733/cadaps.2022.1191-1206 ↗
9. Zimmer, W., Rangesh, A., and Trivedi, M.M. (2019). 3D BAT: A Semi-Automatic, Web-Based 3D Annotation Toolbox for Full-Surround, Multi-Modal Data Streams. Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), IEEE.10.1109/IVS.2019.8814071 ↗
10. Soum-Fontez, L., Deschaud, J.-E., and Goulette, F. (2024). Open-Set 3D Object Detection in LiDAR Data as an Out-of-Distribution Problem. arXiv.
11. Geiger, A., Lenz, P., Stiller, C., and Urtasun, R. (2012). Are We Ready for Autonomous Driving? The KITTI Vision Benchmark Suite. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE.10.1109/CVPR.2012.6248074 ↗
12. Vision Meets Robotics: The KITTI Dataset10.1177/0278364913491297 ↗
13. Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J., and Xu, X. (1996). A Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases with Noise. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), AAAI Press.
14. Random Sample Consensus: A Paradigm for Model Fitting with Applications to Image Analysis and Automated Cartography10.1145/358669.358692 ↗
15. Liu, K., Wang, W., and Wang, J. (2019). Pedestrian Detection with LiDAR Point Clouds Based on Single Template Matching. Electronics, 8.10.3390/electronics8070780 ↗
16. Choi, J., Cho, H., Jung, H., and Lee, W. (2025). SALT: A Flexible Semi-Automatic Labeling Tool for General LiDAR Point Clouds with Cross-Scene Adaptability and 4D Consistency. arXiv.
17. Lang, A.H., Vora, S., Caesar, H., Zhou, L., Yang, J., and Beijbom, O. (2019). PointPillars: Fast Encoders for Object Detection from Point Clouds. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE.10.1109/CVPR.2019.01298 ↗
18. Qi, C.R., Liu, W., Wu, C., Su, H., and Guibas, L.J. (2018). Frustum PointNets for 3D Object Detection from RGB-D Data. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE.10.1109/CVPR.2018.00102 ↗
19. Ku, J., Mozifian, M., Lee, J., Harakeh, A., and Waslander, S.L. (2018). Joint 3D Proposal Generation and Object Detection from View Aggregation. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE.10.1109/IROS.2018.8594049 ↗
20. Li, Y., Bu, R., Sun, M., Wu, W., Di, X., and Chen, B. (2018). PointCNN: Convolution on X-Transformed Points. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, NeurIPS.
21. Velodyne Acoustics, Inc. (2014). HDL-64E S2 High Definition LiDAR Sensor—Data Sheet, Velodyne. Document 63-9194 Rev-B.
22. (2026, June 12). The KITTI Vision Benchmark Suite. Available online: https://www.cvlibs.net/datasets/kitti/.
23. Caesar, H., Bankiti, V., Lang, A.H., Vora, S., Liong, V.E., Xu, Q., Krishnan, A., Pan, Y., Baldan, G., and Beijbom, O. (2020). nuScenes: A Multimodal Dataset for Autonomous Driving. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE.10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.01164 ↗
24. SCAFNet: A Semantic Compensated Adaptive Fusion Network for Remote Sensing Images Change Detection10.1109/LGRS.2026.3686887 ↗
25. ORSI Salient Object Detection via Progressive Interaction and Saliency-Guided Enhancement