Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 44 references

DriveEditor: A Unified 3D Information-Guided Framework for Controllable Object Editing in Driving Scenes

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read DriveEditor claims a single diffusion network can reposition, replace, delete, or insert objects in driving videos.

desk verdict DriveEditor is a serious engineering effort for object-level editing in driving videos; its 3D-prior module is plausible but the key ablation is confounded, so treat the headline claims with care. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19458 v2 pith:YIFEWWEG submitted 2024-12-27 cs.CV

Yiyuan Liang , Zhiying Yan , Liqun Chen , Jiahuan Zhou , Luxin Yan , Sheng Zhong , Xu Zou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords drivingvideoeditingdiffusionmodels3Dboundingboxcontrolobjectrepositioningreplacementdeletioninsertionautonomousdataaugmentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

DriveEditor is a diffusion-based framework for editing objects in driving videos. Its central claim is that four operations—repositioning, replacement, deletion, and insertion—can be handled by one network whose only task-specific inputs are a masked video, a target 3D bounding box, and a single reference image. Position is controlled by projecting the 3D box onto the image plane while encoding depth, and appearance is enforced at three levels: pasted low-level detail, CLIP semantic conditioning, and 3D priors from a frozen novel-view-synthesis model. The paper reports that edited videos stay close to ground truth in 3D detection metrics, and that using such edits as training augmentation improves a downstream detector's NDS from 0.569 to 0.581. A sympathetic reader would care because this points to a cheap route to diversify autonomous-driving data without new collection or manual annotation.

What carries the argument

The depth-aware projection of the 3D bounding box is the core position mechanism: each face of the box is interpolated, projected to the image plane with its depth value as pixel intensity, and assembled into a six-channel pose image that carries position and orientation without face occlusion. A Position Controller encodes this image and injects features through adapters into every spatial and temporal ResBlock of the video U-Net. On the appearance side, the 3D Information Fusion Module (3D-IFM) is the load-bearing new component: it takes intermediate features from a frozen SV3D U-Net at matched azimuth views, transforms them to the object's scale and position in the video frame, applies zero-convolution layers so the pretrained video model is not corrupted at initialization, and adds the result to the corresponding block outputs. The paper argues this is what lets a single reference image provide multi-view appearance information.

What would settle it

Run the video-editing pipeline with the 3D-prior fusion switched off and on while measuring reconstruction quality on a held-out set; if the gap reported in the paper's ablation (FVD 18.82 with fusion versus 22.11 without) does not reproduce, the central role of the 3D prior is not established. A sharper test is to measure how similar the two models' internal features actually are at matched layers; if the similarity is no higher than a random projection baseline, the claimed seamless integration is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that object position and object appearance can be separately controlled within a single latent video diffusion model, so that the same trained weights perform all four editing tasks. The position side encodes a depth-preserving projection of the 3D bounding box into a six-channel pose image, feeds it through a ResNet-style controller, and injects the resulting multi-scale features into both spatial and temporal ResBlocks of the video U-Net. The appearance side conditions the model on one reference image through cut-and-paste of the object, CLIP cross-attention for semantic content, and a 3D Information Fusion Module that aligns and adds intermediate features from a frozen SV3D U-Net to the video model's blocks. Trained once on a reconstruction task (mask an object, recover it from the box and reference image), the network switches operations by changing only its inputs. The quantitative case is that 3D-detection metrics on edited videos remain close to the unedited oracle (mRecall 0.93–0.94 vs 0.99; mAOE 0.043–0.044 vs 0.037) and that augmenting StreamPETR training data with generated edits raises NDS from 0.569 to 0.581.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes the internal representations of the frozen 3D-view generator and the video generator are compatible enough that adding one model's mid-level features to the other improves the object's look instead of distorting it; the only support is an indirect quality ablation, not a direct check of that compatibility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Four editing tasks collapse into one trained model: repositioning, replacement, deletion, and insertion differ only in the mask, bounding box, and reference image supplied at inference.
  • Position control is tight enough for a pretrained 3D detector to treat edited objects almost like real ones: mRecall stays within 0.05 of the oracle and orientation error within about 0.007 radians.
  • Generated edits transfer to downstream perception: adding repositioned and replaced objects to half the nuScenes training set improves StreamPETR's NDS from 0.569 to 0.581.
  • Deletion and replacement quality surpass text- and inpainting-based baselines on temporal consistency, with FVD dropping from 457 to 228 (deletion) and from 151 to 39 (replacement).
  • The fixed 21-view azimuth schedule holds average angular error to 1.08 degrees, and iterative conditioning extends 10-frame editing to 39-frame videos.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: because the position and appearance modules are decoupled, the same network should edit any annotated 3D object category, not just the five tested, by swapping only the object bank and reference images.
  • The fixed azimuth schedule exploits the small viewpoint changes of driving videos (average 5.67 degrees); in scenes with sharp turns or fast ego motion, the angular matching error would grow, and the 3D prior could begin to distort rather than preserve appearance. Measuring FVD as a function of viewpoint-change magnitude would test this directly.
  • The downstream gain suggests a closed-loop data-augmentation strategy the paper does not explore: generate edits aimed at a detector's failure cases, retrain, and repeat. The reported NDS improvement is a one-shot result, not a loop.
  • Because reference images come from segmentation, editing quality is upper-bounded by segmentation quality; the paper's own limitation notes blur in low-contrast scenes, which implies segmentation improvements would directly improve repositioning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. DriveEditor proposes a unified diffusion-based framework for object-level editing in driving videos, supporting repositioning, replacement, deletion, and insertion using a shared network. The position control module projects 3D bounding boxes while preserving depth information and injects these features into the video model's ResBlocks. The appearance maintenance module combines cut-and-paste, CLIP cross-attention, and SV3D-derived 3D priors via a 3D Information Fusion Module (3D-IFM). The method is trained on a reconstruction task using nuScenes data and evaluated on editing quality, position controllability, and downstream object-detection improvement. The paper reports favorable FID/FVD scores against text-based and inpainting baselines, position metrics close to the oracle, and an NDS improvement from 0.569 to 0.581 for StreamPETR trained with generated augmentations.

Significance. If the results are valid, DriveEditor provides a practical and novel framework for controllable object editing in autonomous driving data, with a useful combination of 3D box control and appearance preservation from a single reference image. The downstream task improvement is a strong positive result, as it demonstrates real utility beyond visual quality metrics. The position control method using depth-aware projected box faces is technically interesting and appears well motivated. However, the paper's headline contribution—the 3D prior from SV3D—is supported almost exclusively by an ablation that is confounded with additional training iterations, which weakens the current evidence for the central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3D Prior Incorporation, Eq. (4)] The paper claims that SV3D and SVD share the same architecture and latent space, enabling 'seamless' integration of intermediate features. This is a load-bearing assumption, since the 3D-IFM is designed to fuse features across these two models. The only supporting evidence is the confounded ablation in Table 3; no direct measurement of feature-space alignment is provided. The fixed azimuth set in the appendix limits viewpoint coverage, and it is not demonstrated that the selected SV3D features actually correspond to the video frame's viewpoint in a way that improves the video model's representation. Please provide either a quantitative compatibility test (e.g., feature distance between SVD and SV3D encodings for the same object) or an ablation with mismatched 3D features to show that the specific SV3D priors, rather than any injected signal, are responsible for the improvement.
  2. [Main Results, Position Control Ability paragraph] The prose reports translation errors of 0.26 m, 0.24 m, and 0.32 m for repositioning, insertion, and replacement, respectively, with an average of 0.27 m. However, Table 2 reports mATE values of 0.68, 0.66, and 0.74 for these tasks. These two sets of numbers are inconsistent by roughly a factor of 2.5. Please correct the prose or clarify what quantity the 0.26/0.24/0.32 values represent, since mATE is a standard nuScenes metric and the table values are much larger than the prose claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Experimental Setups and Table 1] The abbreviation 'T2V' is used for both Tune-A-Video and Text2Video-Zero in the baseline description, which is confusing. In Table 1 the names appear as 'T2V' and 'TA V', but in the text both are introduced as T2V. Please use distinct abbreviations throughout (e.g., TAV for Tune-A-Video and T2V-Zero for Text2Video-Zero).
  2. [Appendix, Figure 8 caption area] The appendix contains a garbled line of '/uni000000...' characters immediately before Figure 8, which appears to be a LaTeX compilation artifact. This should be cleaned up before publication.
  3. [Section 3D Prior Incorporation and Appendix 'Azimuth Angles'] The paper states that the fixed azimuth set achieves an average angular difference of only 1.08 degrees, but this statistic is only for the training distribution. Given the zero-shot generalization experiments on Waymo, it would be helpful to also report the angular difference for validation or unseen data, since the fixed set may not cover the viewpoint range of all driving videos.
  4. [Conclusion] The conclusion mentions iterative editing for long videos, but this is not described in the method or evaluated quantitatively. The qualitative results in the appendix are suggestive, but a brief description of how iterative editing is performed and its limitations would improve completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DriveEditor's evaluations are held-out and externally anchored; the ablation confound noted by the skeptic is an experimental validity issue, not a circular step.

full rationale

DriveEditor's derivation chain is self-contained. The model is trained with a masked-reconstruction objective (Eq. 1) on nuScenes-derived clips, and the reported FID/FVD/PSNR/LPIPS and position metrics (Tables 1-3) are computed on held-out validation edits, so the numbers are not fitted restatements of the training objective. At inference, the four editing tasks are recombinations of the same conditioning inputs (reference image, 3D bounding box, mask), which is the intended task definition rather than a hidden circular reduction. The CLIP-I metric measures semantic agreement with the reference image, which is exactly the input the model was conditioned on; high agreement is the designed behavior, not a prediction smuggled from fitted parameters. The downstream StreamPETR experiment (Table 4) trains an external detector on official nuScenes with and without generated augmentations, giving an independent empirical outcome. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations, and the SV3D/SVD latent-space compatibility claim is an architectural assumption tested by the 3D-IFM ablation, not an imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The skeptic's observation that the +3D-IFM row has 40K extra training steps is a legitimate experimental confound, but confounding is not circularity: the improvement could be due to extra compute, but the claim does not reduce to its input by construction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an engineering claim about a trained system, so the ledger captures the hand-chosen hyperparameters and domain assumptions the system relies on. There are no new physical entities. The most consequential assumptions are the SVD/SV3D latent-space compatibility and the reconstruction-to-editing transfer.

free parameters (5)
  • Mask region loss weight = 5
    Chosen by hand to focus training on edited areas; affects training dynamics and final fidelity, but not the scientific claim.
  • Training iteration split (two stages) = 60K / 40K
    Two-stage training schedule; hand-chosen, affects convergence but not the core method.
  • Fixed SV3D azimuth set = [0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 16, 23, 30, 45, 90, 135, 225, 270, 315, 330, 337, 344, 348, 351, 354, 357] degrees
    Hand-crafted to work around SV3D trajectory control limits; the quality of 3D priors depends on this set, so it directly affects appearance maintenance.
  • Repositioning simulation magnitudes = 1.6m forward/back, 1.1m lateral, 3.5 degrees
    Hand-chosen criteria for generating repositioning evaluation inputs; these define the test distribution for position control claims.
  • Dataset object radius and frame count = 20 meters, N consecutive frames
    Curated to select objects for training; changes the training distribution but is standard dataset engineering.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Pinhole camera projection with known intrinsics maps 3D box faces to image coordinates (Eq. 6)
    Used in Depth-aware Projection; standard and unproblematic.
  • domain assumption nuScenes 3D bounding boxes and camera intrinsics are accurate enough for the projection and for evaluation with StreamPETR
    The whole position control pipeline and position evaluation depend on this accuracy.
  • domain assumption SAM segmentation of objects in nuScenes frames is clean enough to serve as reference images and training targets
    Data Construction uses SAM to extract object images; poor segmentation would degrade appearance learning.
  • domain assumption SVD and SV3D share compatible architectures and latent spaces, so SV3D intermediate features can be injected into SVD blocks
    Invoked in '3D Prior Incorporation'; the 3D-IFM alignment is trained, but the compatibility itself is assumed.
  • domain assumption Learning to reconstruct randomly masked objects on nuScenes transfers to repositioning, replacement, insertion, and deletion at inference
    This is the core training-to-inference generalization claim in 'Unlocking Unified Editing'.
  • domain assumption CLIP image features capture enough semantic identity of an object to preserve it across edits
    Used in High-Level Semantics Maintenance via cross-attention.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DriveEditor: A Unified 3D Information-Guided Framework for Controllable Object Editing in Driving Scenes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIFEWWEG

@misc{pith2026241219458,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DriveEditor: A Unified 3D Information-Guided Framework for Controllable Object Editing in Driving Scenes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIFEWWEG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19458}
}
read the original abstract

Vision-centric autonomous driving systems require diverse data for robust training and evaluation, which can be augmented by manipulating object positions and appearances within existing scene captures. While recent advancements in diffusion models have shown promise in video editing, their application to object manipulation in driving scenarios remains challenging due to imprecise positional control and difficulties in preserving high-fidelity object appearances. To address these challenges in position and appearance control, we introduce DriveEditor, a diffusion-based framework for object editing in driving videos. DriveEditor offers a unified framework for comprehensive object editing operations, including repositioning, replacement, deletion, and insertion. These diverse manipulations are all achieved through a shared set of varying inputs, processed by identical position control and appearance maintenance modules. The position control module projects the given 3D bounding box while preserving depth information and hierarchically injects it into the diffusion process, enabling precise control over object position and orientation. The appearance maintenance module preserves consistent attributes with a single reference image by employing a three-tiered approach: low-level detail preservation, high-level semantic maintenance, and the integration of 3D priors from a novel view synthesis model. Extensive qualitative and quantitative evaluations on the nuScenes dataset demonstrate DriveEditor's exceptional fidelity and controllability in generating diverse driving scene edits, as well as its remarkable ability to facilitate downstream tasks. Project page: https://yvanliang.github.io/DriveEditor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19458 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualizations of the editing capability of DriveEditor and baselines. (a) DriveEditor enables user-friendly repo￾sitioning, insertion, replacement, and deletion within a unified framework. It precisely controls an object’s position and ori￾entation based on the 3D bounding box (top left; required for repositioning and insertion tasks that alter object position), and maintains high-fidelity appearance attributes of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) High-level overview of DriveEditor. (b) Diagram of the training pipeline of DriveEditor. Three levels of appearance control are established based on the single reference image I r : low-level details preservation through a cut-and-paste approach, high-level semantics maintenance through cross-attention (omitted in the pipeline for brevity), and incorporation of 3D priors derived from the frozen SV3D U-Net. For p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. DriveEditor is trained to reconstruct occluded ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top row: Original videos. Middle left: Qualitative comparison on the deletion task. ProPainter suffers from artifacts, while SD lacks temporal consistency. DriveEditor effectively generates plausible occluded regions. Middle Right: Qualitative comparison on the replace…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effectiveness of our proposed modules in control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effectiveness of the 3D information fusion module [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Novel view images generated by the SV3D model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Angular distribution map of viewpoint changes of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of our depth-aware position images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The injection of position features into the k-th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative results of zero-shot experiments on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Object replacement results of a 39-frame long video by DriveEditor. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Object deletion results of a 39-frame long video by DriveEditor. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Replacement results by DriveEditor. Deletion Origin Deletion Origin Deletion Origin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Deletion results by DriveEditor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Insertion results by DriveEditor. Origin GT Box Repositioning Origin GT Box Repositioning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Repositioning results by DriveEditor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Blattmann, A.; Dockhorn, T.; Kulal, S.; Mendelevitch, D.; Kilian, M.; Lorenz, D.; Levi, Y.; English, Z.; Voleti, V.; Letts, A.; Jampani, V.; and Rombach, R. 2023. Stable Video Diffusion: Scaling Latent Video Diffusion Models to Large Datasets. arXiv:2311.15127

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    H.; Vora, S.; Liong, V

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 11621--11631

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Chen, Y.; Dong, X.; Gan, T.; Zhou, C.; Yang, M.; and Guo, Q. 2023 a . EVE: Efficient zero-shot text-based Video Editing with Depth Map Guidance and Temporal Consistency Constraints. arXiv:2308.10648

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Chen, Y.; Yu, Z.; Chen, Y.; Lan, S.; Anandkumar, A.; Jia, J.; and Alvarez, J. M. 2023 b . FocalFormer3D: Focusing on Hard Instance for 3D Object Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 8394--8405

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Couairon, P.; Rambour, C.; Haugeard, J.-E.; and Thome, N. 2024. VidEdit: Zero-Shot and Spatially Aware Text-Driven Video Editing. arXiv:2306.08707

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Gao, R.; Chen, K.; Xie, E.; Hong, L.; Li, Z.; Yeung, D.-Y.; and Xu, Q. 2024. MagicDrive: Street View Generation with Diverse 3D Geometry Control. arXiv:2310.02601

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Heusel, M.; Ramsauer, H.; Unterthiner, T.; Nessler, B.; and Hochreiter, S. 2017. GANs Trained by a Two Time-Scale Update Rule Converge to a Local Nash Equilibrium. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 6629–6640

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Hu, M.; Jiang, K.; Nie, Z.; Zhou, J.; and Wang, Z. 2023. Store and fetch immediately: Everything is all you need for space-time video super-resolution. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 863--871

    work page 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    W.; Chen, Z.; and Zhang, X

    Huang, B.; Wen, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Hu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Jia, F.; Mao, W.; Wang, T.; Zhang, C.; Chen, C. W.; Chen, Z.; and Zhang, X. 2024. SubjectDrive: Scaling Generative Data in Autonomous Driving via Subject Control. arXiv:2403.19438

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Jin, S.; Wang, R.; and Pokorny, F. T. 2024. RealCraft: Attention Control as A Tool for Zero-Shot Consistent Video Editing. arXiv:2312.12635

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Karras, T.; Aittala, M.; Aila, T.; and Laine, S. 2022. Elucidating the Design Space of Diffusion-Based Generative Models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 26565--26577

    2022

  4. [12]

    Khachatryan, L.; Movsisyan, A.; Tadevosyan, V.; Henschel, R.; Wang, Z.; Navasardyan, S.; and Shi, H. 2023. Text2Video-Zero: Text-to-Image Diffusion Models are Zero-Shot Video Generators. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 15954--15964

    2023

  5. [13]

    Khandelwal, A. 2023. InFusion: Inject and Attention Fusion for Multi Concept Zero-Shot Text-Based Video Editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) Workshops, 3017--3026

    2023

  6. [14]

    C.; Lo, W.-Y.; Dollar, P.; and Girshick, R

    Kirillov, A.; Mintun, E.; Ravi, N.; Mao, H.; Rolland, C.; Gustafson, L.; Xiao, T.; Whitehead, S.; Berg, A. C.; Lo, W.-Y.; Dollar, P.; and Girshick, R. 2023. Segment Anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 4015--4026

    2023

  7. [15]

    Li, X.; Zhang, Y.; and Ye, X. 2023. DrivingDiffusion: Layout-Guided multi-view driving scene video generation with latent diffusion model. arXiv:2310.07771

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    L.; and Han, S

    Liu, Z.; Tang, H.; Amini, A.; Yang, X.; Mao, H.; Rus, D. L.; and Han, S. 2023. BEVFusion: Multi-Task Multi-Sensor Fusion with Unified Bird's-Eye View Representation. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2774--2781

    2023

  9. [17]

    Ma, E.; Zhou, L.; Tang, T.; Zhang, Z.; Han, D.; Jiang, J.; Zhan, K.; Jia, P.; Lang, X.; Sun, H.; Lin, D.; and Yu, K. 2024. Unleashing Generalization of End-to-End Autonomous Driving with Controllable Long Video Generation. arXiv:2406.01349

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Mao, J.; Niu, M.; Jiang, C.; Liang, H.; Chen, J.; Liang, X.; Li, Y.; Ye, C.; Zhang, W.; Li, Z.; Yu, J.; Xu, H.; and Xu, C. 2021. One Million Scenes for Autonomous Driving: ONCE Dataset. arXiv:2106.11037

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J

    Mildenhall, B.; Srinivasan, P. P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J. T.; Ramamoorthi, R.; and Ng, R. 2021. NeRF: representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Commun. ACM, 65(1): 99–106

    2021

  12. [20]

    QI, C.; Cun, X.; Zhang, Y.; Lei, C.; Wang, X.; Shan, Y.; and Chen, Q. 2023. FateZero: Fusing Attentions for Zero-shot Text-based Video Editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 15932--15942

    2023

  13. [21]

    W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; Krueger, G.; and Sutskever, I

    Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; Krueger, G.; and Sutskever, I. 2021. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conferen...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-Resolution Image Synthesis With Latent Diffusion Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 10684--10695

    2022

  15. [23]

    Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P.; and Brox, T. 2015. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), 234--241

    2015

  16. [24]

    H.; Lee, S.-g.; and Yoon, S

    Shin, C.; Kim, H.; Lee, C. H.; Lee, S.-g.; and Yoon, S. 2024. Edit-A-Video : Single Video Editing with Object-Aware Consistency. In Proceedings of the 15th Asian Conference on Machine Learning (ACML), 1215--1230

    2024

  17. [25]

    Sun, P.; Kretzschmar, H.; Dotiwalla, X.; Chouard, A.; Patnaik, V.; Tsui, P.; Guo, J.; Zhou, Y.; Chai, Y.; Caine, B.; Vasudevan, V.; Han, W.; Ngiam, J.; Zhao, H.; Timofeev, A.; Ettinger, S.; Krivokon, M.; Gao, A.; Joshi, A.; Zhang, Y.; Shlens, J.; Chen, Z.; and Anguelov, D. 202...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Unterthiner, T.; van Steenkiste, S.; Kurach, K.; Marinier, R.; Michalski, M.; and Gelly, S. 2019. Towards Accurate Generative Models of Video: A New Metric & Challenges. arXiv:1812.01717

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Voleti, V.; Yao, C.-H.; Boss, M.; Letts, A.; Pankratz, D.; Tochilkin, D.; Laforte, C.; Rombach, R.; and Jampani, V. 2024. SV3D: Novel Multi-view Synthesis and 3D Generation from a Single Image using Latent Video Diffusion. arXiv:2403.12008

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Wang, S.; Liu, Y.; Wang, T.; Li, Y.; and Zhang, X. 2023 a . Exploring Object-Centric Temporal Modeling for Efficient Multi-View 3D Object Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 3621--3631

    2023

  21. [29]

    Wang, W.; Jiang, Y.; Xie, K.; Liu, Z.; Chen, H.; Cao, Y.; Wang, X.; and Shen, C. 2024. Zero-Shot Video Editing Using Off-The-Shelf Image Diffusion Models. arXiv:2303.17599

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Wang, X.; Zhu, Z.; Huang, G.; Chen, X.; Zhu, J.; and Lu, J. 2023 b . DriveDreamer: Towards Real-world-driven World Models for Autonomous Driving. arXiv:2309.09777

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Wei, Y.; Wang, Z.; Lu, Y.; Xu, C.; Liu, C.; Zhao, H.; Chen, S.; and Wang, Y. 2024. Editable Scene Simulation for Autonomous Driving via Collaborative LLM-Agents. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 15077--15087

    2024

  24. [32]

    Wen, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Jia, F.; Wang, Y.; Luo, C.; Zhang, C.; Wang, T.; Sun, X.; and Zhang, X. 2024. Panacea: Panoramic and Controllable Video Generation for Autonomous Driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 6...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Z.; Ge, Y.; Wang, X.; Lei, S

    Wu, J. Z.; Ge, Y.; Wang, X.; Lei, S. W.; Gu, Y.; Shi, Y.; Hsu, W.; Shan, Y.; Qie, X.; and Shou, M. Z. 2023. Tune-A-Video: One-Shot Tuning of Image Diffusion Models for Text-to-Video Generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), ...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Yang, B.; Gu, S.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, T.; Chen, X.; Sun, X.; Chen, D.; and Wen, F. 2023 a . Paint by Example: Exemplar-Based Image Editing With Diffusion Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 18381--18391

    2023

  27. [35]

    Yang, K.; Ma, E.; Peng, J.; Guo, Q.; Lin, D.; and Yu, K. 2023 b . BEVControl: Accurately Controlling Street-view Elements with Multi-perspective Consistency via BEV Sketch Layout. arXiv:2308.01661

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Yang, S.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, Z.; and Loy, C. C. 2023 c . Rerender A Video: Zero-Shot Text-Guided Video-to-Video Translation. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2023 Conference Papers (SA '23), 95

    2023

  29. [37]

    J.; and Urtasun, R

    Yang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Wang, J.; Manivasagam, S.; Ma, W.-C.; Yang, A. J.; and Urtasun, R. 2023 d . UniSim: A Neural Closed-Loop Sensor Simulator. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 1389--1399

    2023

  30. [38]

    J.; Li, D.; Le, H.; Shou, M

    Zhang, D. J.; Li, D.; Le, H.; Shou, M. Z.; Xiong, C.; and Sahoo, D. 2024. Moonshot: Towards Controllable Video Generation and Editing with Multimodal Conditions. arXiv:2401.01827

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zhang, L.; Rao, A.; and Agrawala, M. 2023. Adding Conditional Control to Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 3836--3847

    2023

  32. [40]

    A.; Shechtman, E.; and Wang, O

    Zhang, R.; Isola, P.; Efros, A. A.; Shechtman, E.; and Wang, O. 2018. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 586--595

    2018

  33. [41]

    Zhou, B.; and Kr\"ahenb\"uhl, P. 2022. Cross-View Transformers for Real-Time Map-View Semantic Segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 13760--13769

    2022

  34. [42]

    C.; and Loy, C

    Zhou, S.; Li, C.; Chan, K. C.; and Loy, C. C. 2023. ProPainter: Improving Propagation and Transformer for Video Inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 10477--10486

    2023

  35. [43]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  36. [44]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.