Appendix The appendix is organized as follows. We also provide details of the annotation/calibration process and the baseline neural networks (NNs) in Section D and E, respectively. We discuss results regarding each weather condition and consideration of the K-Radar dataset as a pre-training dataset for other Radar tensor datasets in Section F and G, respectively. Finally, we introduce details of devkits and list relevant URLs to help with understanding the content of the paper in Section H and I, respectively. A.1 Additional samples of the K-Radar dataset and explanation of LPCs for each weather condition In the sleet (Figure 8-(e)) or heavy snow (Figure 8-(g)) condition, the Lidar point cloud (LPC) measurements of some objects ahead are lost when the ego-vehicle is driving.

Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a potent framework for training models across distributed data sources while maintaining data privacy. Nevertheless, it faces challenges with limited high-quality labels and non-IID client data, particularly in applications like autonomous driving. To address these hurdles, we navigate the uncharted waters of Semi-Supervised Federated Object Detection (SSFOD). We present a pioneering SSFOD framework, designed for scenarios where labeled data reside only at the server while clients possess unlabeled data. Notably, our method represents the inaugural implementation of SSFOD for clients with 0% labeled non-IID data, a stark contrast to previous studies that maintain some subset of labels at each client. We propose FedSTO, a two-stage strategy encompassing Selective Training followed by Orthogonally enhanced full-parameter training, to effectively address data shift (e.g.

Section C describes the details of the experimental setup, including network architectures, hyperparameters,andhardwaredetails. Thisoutcomeemphasizes the necessity of feature interaction or feature fusion to tackle intricate situations. Furthermore, an amalgamation of feature fusion and value fusion can offer better performance. This adjustment allows us to evaluate the robustness and adaptability of our approach in handling a larger number of vehicles in the environment. As we increase the number of vehicles on the road, Fig. A2 (a) clearly indicates that HAVE consistently delivers the highest performance. The training and testing curves of HAVE and other comparable methods are given in A4.

Environment screenshots and description Within AirSim, in the interest of generating realistic imagery, we simulate a city environment (Figure 10a).