TwinMixing: A Shuffle-Aware Feature Interaction Model for Multi-Task Segmentation
arXiv:2603.28233v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Accurate and efficient perception is essential for autonomous driving, where segmentation tasks such as drivable-area and lane segmentation provide critical cues for motion planning and control. However, achieving high segmentation accuracy while maintaining real-time performance on low-cost hardware remains a challenging problem. To address this issue, we introduce TwinMixing, a lightweight multi-task segmentation model designed explicitly for drivable-area and lane segmentation. The proposed network features a shared encoder and task-specific — Minh-Khoi Do, Huy Che, Dinh-Duy Phan, Duc-Khai Lam, Duc-Lung Vu
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Accurate and efficient perception is essential for autonomous driving, where segmentation tasks such as drivable-area and lane segmentation provide critical cues for motion planning and control. However, achieving high segmentation accuracy while maintaining real-time performance on low-cost hardware remains a challenging problem. To address this issue, we introduce TwinMixing, a lightweight multi-task segmentation model designed explicitly for drivable-area and lane segmentation. The proposed network features a shared encoder and task-specific decoders, enabling both feature sharing and task specialization. Within the encoder, we propose an Efficient Pyramid Mixing (EPM) module that enhances multi-scale feature extraction through a combination of grouped convolutions, depthwise dilated convolutions and channel shuffle operations, effectively expanding the receptive field while minimizing computational cost. Each decoder adopts a Dual-Branch Upsampling (DBU) Block composed of a learnable transposed convolution-based Fine detailed branch and a parameter-free bilinear interpolation-based Coarse grained branch, achieving detailed yet spatially consistent feature reconstruction. Extensive experiments on the BDD100K dataset validate the effectiveness of TwinMixing across three configurations - tiny, base, and large. Among them, the base configuration achieves the best trade-off between accuracy and computational efficiency, reaching 92.0% mIoU for drivable-area segmentation and 32.3% IoU for lane segmentation with only 0.43M parameters and 3.95 GFLOPs. Moreover, TwinMixing consistently outperforms existing segmentation models on the same tasks, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Thanks to its compact and modular design, TwinMixing demonstrates strong potential for real-time deployment in autonomous driving and embedded perception systems. The source code: this https URL.
Subjects:
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.28233 [cs.CV]
(or arXiv:2603.28233v1 [cs.CV] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.28233
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Journal reference: Results in Engineering 30 (2026) 109982
Related DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2026.109982
DOI(s) linking to related resources
Submission history
From: Quang Huy Che [view email] [v1] Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:54:44 UTC (13,949 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article

Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv
New Rowhammer attack can grant kernel-level control on Nvidia workstation GPUs
A study from researchers at UNC Chapel Hill and Georgia Tech shows that GDDR6-based Rowhammer attacks can grant kernel-level access to Linux systems equipped with GPUs based on Nvidia's Ampere and Ada Lovelace architectures. The vulnerability appears significantly more severe than what was outlined in a paper last year. Read Entire Article
![[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-matrix-rain-CvjLrWJiXfamUnvj5xT9J9.webp)
[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement
Hi, I'm a little confused about ICML discussion period Does the period for reviewer acknowledging responses have already ended? One of the four reviewers did not present any answer to a paper of mine. Do you know if the reviewer can still change their score before April 7th? There is a reviewer comment that I will answer on Monday. Will the reviewer be able to update the score after seeing my answer? Thanks! submitted by /u/Massive_Horror9038 [link] [comments]

Considerations for growing the pie
Recently some friends and I were comparing growing the pie interventions to an increasing our friends' share of the pie intervention, and at first we mostly missed some general considerations against the latter type. 1. Decision-theoretic considerations The world is full of people with different values working towards their own ends; each of them can choose to use their resources to increase the total size of the pie or to increase their share of the pie. All of them would significantly prefer a world in which resources were used to increase the size of the pie, and this leads to a number [of] compelling justifications for each individual to cooperate. . . . by increasing the size of the pie we create a world which is better for people on average, and from behind the veil of ignorance we s
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers

New Rowhammer attack can grant kernel-level control on Nvidia workstation GPUs
A study from researchers at UNC Chapel Hill and Georgia Tech shows that GDDR6-based Rowhammer attacks can grant kernel-level access to Linux systems equipped with GPUs based on Nvidia's Ampere and Ada Lovelace architectures. The vulnerability appears significantly more severe than what was outlined in a paper last year. Read Entire Article
![[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-matrix-rain-CvjLrWJiXfamUnvj5xT9J9.webp)
[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement
Hi, I'm a little confused about ICML discussion period Does the period for reviewer acknowledging responses have already ended? One of the four reviewers did not present any answer to a paper of mine. Do you know if the reviewer can still change their score before April 7th? There is a reviewer comment that I will answer on Monday. Will the reviewer be able to update the score after seeing my answer? Thanks! submitted by /u/Massive_Horror9038 [link] [comments]

Considerations for growing the pie
Recently some friends and I were comparing growing the pie interventions to an increasing our friends' share of the pie intervention, and at first we mostly missed some general considerations against the latter type. 1. Decision-theoretic considerations The world is full of people with different values working towards their own ends; each of them can choose to use their resources to increase the total size of the pie or to increase their share of the pie. All of them would significantly prefer a world in which resources were used to increase the size of the pie, and this leads to a number [of] compelling justifications for each individual to cooperate. . . . by increasing the size of the pie we create a world which is better for people on average, and from behind the veil of ignorance we s



Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!